http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cnn_rs_blame_media_lara_logan_060326a.mov Putting the lie to the myth that journalists exaggerate the bad in Iraq. =============================== KURTZ: But critics would say, well, no wonder people back home think things are falling apart because we get this steady drumbeat of negativity from the correspondents there. LOGAN: Well, who says things aren’t falling apart in Iraq? I mean, what you didn’t see on your screens this week was all the unidentified bodies that have been turning up, all the allegations here of militias that are really controlling the security forces. What about all the American soldiers that died this week that you didn’t see on our screens? I mean, we’ve reported on reconstruction stories over and over again…I mean, I really resent the fact that people say that we’re not reflecting the true picture here. That’s totally unfair and it’s really unfounded.
Bats, nice attempt as passing off anything from "Crooks and Liars" dot com as objective. Busted again, brah
It's a video from CNN that's hosted on crooksandliars. Do you think it's a fake? The next time you bust me on anything it will be the first. I eagerly await your response to Logan's comments on CNN. Thanks in advance.
Guys, do you really expect the administration to EVER say things are going bad when we're in the middle of a fight? After it's over, perhaps but never during the fight. It would be crazy. You just don't do it. You don't say things are going bad for our troops moral and you don't say it to encourage the enemy. It would be criminal to for the President or anyone in the administration to say things are going badly. I know a lot of you want them to say things suck in Iraq so you can say "Ha! I told you so!" but I'm still surprised that you call it lying when talking up the good stuff is really the only option they have. Do you think Al Queda is going to tell the truth when things go badly for them? They are FULL of propoganda about how they are still strong and Osama is still in charge when all evidence indicates they are fighting among themselves with regard to what to do and many of their leaders and been killed or captured. Regardless of how things are going for them they aren't going to come out and say it. Remember Saddam's guy who was on Iraqi TV saying things were going great and there were no Americans in Bagdad? What did you expect him to say? However, until we actually win or give up you can't expect the people running the war to say things are going badly. It would be bad for the war, bad for the troops, it would encourage the enemy and just be an all around stupid thing to do. The truth is it's bad in Iraq. It can get better but it can also become a lost cause. One thing's for sure, though. If we quit now it will be a lost cause.
No I don't expect that. I do expect them not to lie to us by telling us the insurgency's in it's last throes or whatever when they know damn well it isn't. But mainly I expect them to stop lying and saying the media coverage of the war is biased toward bad news. It isn't. And saying so is a transparent attempt to shift blame away from the people in charge that screwed up. You're okay with propaganda in this instance. I'm not. I believe the American people deserve to know what their government is perpetrating over there with their (rapidly eroding) support, their money and their lives. That is not why I want to say things suck there and I resent the implication. I want to say thing suck there because they do, because they're getting worse not better even as the person responsible for the whole mess tells us they're getting better not worse and pledges to continue the same wrongheaded policies there that got us into this mess in the first place. And because I believe the American people have a right to know what's going on over there, considering they are running this war with American lives and money, and they have a right to support or oppose our continued actions over there based on the truth. The government is supposed to serve the will of the people. When the government consistently misleads the people regarding a matter as serious as war that is impossible. If you've watched the video, I'd really like to hear your response to what Lara Logan had to say.
I don't think there is anything definitive in the Logan blurb. It doesn't shed any light on the situation and it is far removed from conclusively showing anything.
The point of interest here is that a journalist is finally articulating a spirited defense to the stupid hoohah about the media exaggerating bad news there. Hayes, I know you're a strong supporter of the war, but do you believe the media is biased towards reporting the bad news there or do you just believe it's all worth it in spite of the bad news?
We're trusting Lara Logan's opinion on the media's coverage of Iraq? Isn't that like trusting Jeff Van Gundy's opinion on the Rockets' coaching staff?
Hmmm, not sure how saying 'things are really bad there' is refutation to the charge that 'the media seemingly only says things are bad there.' I think this: death and destruction is more sensational for reporter to report than a interest or 'good thing' piece; there are plenty of good things happening in Iraq; there is plenty of death and destruction in Iraq (ie the media isn't making it up). I'm not on the ground so I'm not sure what the 'real' balance should be, but there is an inherent bias to report sensational news (ie not just in Iraq). Besideswhich, some broad having a tizzy in a 5 second blurb is, I mean, like not that impressive.
Batman, I hear you and I respect you, however my point is that, while in a war, you can't realistically expect one party of that war to "tell the truth" unless of course the truth is really, really good for their side. What good would it do the war effort to say things are bad? It would demoralize our troops and encourage the enemy. When has any party in a war gone on tv (or whatever) and said "Things are really, really bad for us and are getting worse"? I certainly understand you not wanting our government (or any government for that matter) to lie to it's people - and it shouldn't in general. However, when you are in a war I don't see how they can be exptected to announce doom and gloom when it's just a bad thing to do with regard to the war effort. In WWII did they tell the US about every battle we lost or how bad things were going in the Pacific with regard to island hopping? Did Tokyo Rose talk about all the ground the Japanese were losing? Of course not. Government reporting in wartime is always good news (regardless of the truth) because it's bad for the war effort to say otherwise. You just don't do it as part of a winning (or even a "trying to win") effort. On a slightly different note. Propoganda is part of every war effort. It's used to rally the troops and the people back home and to demoralize the enemy. In this day and age of instant and uncontrolled media (and an uncontrolled media is generally a good thing!) it's almost impossible for a Western governmnet to "spin" it's side of a story successfully. Anything the Bush administration (or any Western government) puts out is instantly attacked by political opponents but more importantly analyzed be media outlets all over the world. However, where does Al Queda put out it's propoganda messages? On jihad websites and on Al Jazeera. There is practically no fact checking or media rebuttals to their propoganda. In the US, Bush can say one thing but there are a ton of people who will shout out "NOT TRUE!" regardless of whether Bush is right, wrong or somewhere in between. Who does that for Al Queda? No one and any one inlcined to be sympathetic to their cause will believe what they say. If propoganda is necessary for a successful war effort (especially difficult war efforts) how does a Western nation compete?
The problem I have with this logic is that time has changed and people today hold our leaders accountable for what happens to our sons and daughters. Vietnam was a wake up call and a demand that the government change its approach in reporting wartime casualties and events. Many times people want to know the truth because we have a friend or a relative abroad. Our tolerance for casualties is virtually nil at this point and the government no longer has the luxury of being able to absorb large casualties without angering the public. Propoganda may make our troops feel better but it simply isn't acceptible anymore. At this point, this is a war we started and consequently one our government should be held accountable for. As the most powerful nation on Earth, we are expected by most people to win and to win in a humane and ethical manner. Its almost too much for the military to fulfill this burden at times but its even harder given the fact that there is an expectation of honest reporting. The expectation now is that the US is powerful enough to where it doesn't need propoganda to win anything.
The war in Iraq is not a war of weapons; it's a war of ideas. We've got to convince "average" Iraqi's that we are not the bad guy and that, as soon as they get their act together, we're leaving. That is a war of ideas of which propoganda is the only weapon. The truth is that we're trying to rebuild the infrastructure, get schools going, get the different factions to agree, etc... That truth doesn't get reported nearly as much as the other (just as legitimate) truths (body counts). How do we convince kids (not from Iraq!) that the US is not at war with Islam when Al Quaida spews that propoganda all the time? We've got to do our own marketing campaign and that message is being overshadowed by all the negative news.
That French anchorwoman is a lot more physically attractive but Lara Logan is hotter overall. She is dayamm fine but also willing to go out there and put her butt on the line facing danger to get the story. That's hot in my book. I also like her new hair color. I thought she was pretty cute when she was a brunette but the lighter hair color definately suits her. Getting back on subject though I agree with her. I've seen plenty of "good" stories coming out of Iraq and the major media reports on them unfortunately though violence and explosions always grabs more attention than about troops helping send sick kids to the US for heart surgery (Nightline did a piece about that a few weeks ago). As for people accusing the media of sitting back in hotel room balconies making up sensational stories of IED's I'm sure Bob Woodruff would disagree.
Doesn't she kind of admit that sensationalism sells? Oh and isn't there an Iraq outside of the Sunni Triangle? She allows the enemy to produce her news it would seem to me. So she's bored of school openings or its not a good idea to cover them because it might make them more likely to become targets of the terrorists.
