January 8, 2007

Comment Thread for Media Matters In the Meme Streets of Baghdad - B and iii (both)

Hatched by Dafydd

Here you may post comments, thoughts, and suggestions anent our Michelle Malkin post, Media Matters In the Meme Streets of Baghdad - B, and also for Media Matters In the Meme Streets of Baghdad - iii, the third of the series.

Feeling unusually slothful, I combined the last two parts into a single comments thread.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, January 8, 2007, at the time of 2:53 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1652

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Comment Thread for Media Matters In the Meme Streets of Baghdad - B and iii (both):

» Big Lizards: Media Matters In the Meme Streets of Baghdad - iii from Michelle Malkin
Continued yet again from the previous lizard post... This is the last part of the triptych; you are now free to move about the cabin. ~^~ This post is by the lizards (mostly Sachi), not by our dearest Michelle; third... [Read More]

Tracked on January 8, 2007 9:52 PM

» Big Lizards: Media Matters In the Meme Streets of Baghdad - B from Michelle Malkin
Continued from previous Lizard post... This post is by Big Lizards (mostly Sachi), not by our dearest Michelle; the host is on holiday somewhere -- I couldn't quite make out where she was, but she shouted something that sounded remarkably... [Read More]

Tracked on January 8, 2007 9:54 PM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: moolamoo

If the mainstream media has no agenda, and their misreporting can solely be blamed upon the fog of war, we should see the mistakes benefiting the both sides equally; half the time, they should wrongly report a great American victory that turns out not to be so great after all.

I think what you meant to write was:

"If the mainstream media has no agenda, and their misreporting can solely be blamed upon the difficulty of understanding Comrade Stalin's Plan, we should see the mistakes benefiting the both sides equally; half the time, they should wrongly report about a great victory by Comrade Stalin which turns out just to be another Ukranian farmer shot in the back of the head."

Or, since you don't get that, let me dumb it down even more: it is just very tough to err on the side of good news when you are reporting on one of the worst disasters in history. The MSM's reporting on Iraq has major problems, foremost among which is the fact that they don't report nearly enough bad news (i.e. the situation in Iraq is, and long has been, much worse than the MSM's reporting makes out). But there is no "good news" to report, Comrade. Even Pravda, or Fox News, would have trouble finding stuff to report about The Leader's Glorious Victory.

The above hissed in response by: moolamoo [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 8, 2007 5:03 PM

The following hissed in response by: Salvatore Coglione

Big 'Liz -- I'll be the last on earth to defend Bore-lert, but I think you erred by claiming:

then what are we to make of these 62 stories we have read during the last two years? Those stories are the only evidence we have of systematic, widespread slaughter of Sunnis by death squads.
Actually, there has been a great deal of reporting on death squads targeting Sunnis and other tribal rivals (and vice versa) by a range of news sources including Knight Ridder, Financial Times, Reuters, AFP, BBC, Gulf Daily News, KUNA, The Independent, Guardian, Times (UK), CS Monitor, and others.

They all have their limits and biases, but many of their reports quote legitimate Interior Ministry officials and (especially in the case of UK media) British military. You may recall extensive reporting of incidents in UK-controlled Basra where British troops even had to attack renegade local police who were rounding-up, torturing and killing rivals in local jails. The British military have reported extensively on their efforts to combat this phenomenon.

In any case, while the AP should be challenged vigorously for their accuracy, they certainly aren't the only information source on this aspect of Iraq.

The above hissed in response by: Salvatore Coglione [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 9, 2007 1:04 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Salvatore Coglione:

You're right, I was a little sloppy. I didn't mean just the AP stories: the MSM stories in general are the only evidence we have of widespread slaughter.

(I think I mentioned that we delve here into epistemology: how we know what we know.)

There is no reason to assume that AP is uniquely incompetent, gullible, or malign; I must postulate that the stories by "Knight Ridder, Financial Times, Reuters, AFP, BBC, Gulf Daily News, KUNA, The Independent, Guardian, Times (UK), CS Monitor, and others" and also based on information from other Jamil Husseins -- other "Lieutenant Kijés."

What do we really know about Iraq? Some information comes from American reporters, who may have an agenda but who are at least raised with certain precepts of actual truth; they're not all Mary "fake but accurate" Mapeses.

But Arabs are raised with entirely different precepts of truth... not surprising, as it's a completely different culture. Arab Moslems especially have a very different, tribal understanding of truth and falsehood much more similar to that of committed Communists than to our own.

All the news agencies need do is make it known that they're really, really interested in stories of mass slaughter -- by Sunnis of Shia, via suicide bombings; by Shia of Sunnis, via kidnapping and throat-cutting by death squads.

Without any compunction against what we would call "lying," the natural desire on the part of stringers to sell stories will complete the circuit. The big-box media will have enough stories of death, destruction, and despair to sink a barge, so long as they don't inquire too deeply into the sources.

The problem is that once legitimate news sources have been caught lying time and time again, usually by relying upon sources they know are dubious, as in Rathergate; the fairy tale of Jamil Hussein (whether or not he exists) is but the latest example.

So we are "reliably" informed by the media that about 100 Iraqis a day are murdered. But have we seen these bodies? Does any American claim to have seen any but a tiny fraction?

How do we know 100 Iraqis a day die? Why, because Iraqi stringers tell us, doctors confirm it, and hospital morgue workers verify it -- though we have seen all three of these classes repeatedly collaborate on lies.

So how many is it really? 70 a day? 40? 20? 15? There is a huge, huge difference between 100 a day and 15 a day.

The problem is that we do not know. And the reason we do not know is that we can no longer trust the major media sources: not after Rathergate, Jenin, the "wedding party," Sy Hersh's initial Abu Ghraib story, and the "burning mosques" story. We, too, have been burned, and too often.

The Left blights and spoils everything it touches. It converts even the most innocuous civic group or traditional institution into yet another bullhorn for anti-American propaganda... from the Civil Rights Congress (founded by Communist John Daschbach) to International ANSWER (a Stalinist front group) to the Episcopal Church in the United States, which now champions every tin-foil, leftist nitwittery imaginable.

And the Left long ago seized control of the mainstream network news and the major newspapers, going all the way back to the New Deal era of FDR. The Iraq War is a Republican war... so it must be turned into a defeat by any means necessary -- just like Vietnam.

How many "Tet offensives" have the media flogged?

They are our only window onto the progress of the war -- and the only thing we can trust them about is their rabid opposition to it and the man they see as having "started it."

But all that is too long to shoehorn into a post, even one as long as our triptych.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 9, 2007 2:18 AM

The following hissed in response by: Nikolay

Those stories are the only evidence we have of systematic, widespread slaughter of Sunnis by death squads.
So you are, indeed, shilling for the murderous Islamofascists. You said it as clear as could be said. The "Holocaust denial" comparison is not just appropriate, it's the only reasonable one. If it were WWII times you would be complaining about "unfounded rumors" about extermination of Jews, all of them "spread by the Jewish-controlled media". If you're into giving such a benefit of doubt to Shia Islamists, why don't you disprove myths about "alleged human-rights abuse in Iran" next time?

The above hissed in response by: Nikolay [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 9, 2007 4:43 AM

The following hissed in response by: jpm100

Does anyone remember all the inflated reports of violence and deaths during Katrina?

Just saying this is nothing too new. What actually happened with Katrina was a shadow of what was reported "Live!". In fact I wonder if getting away with murders the didn't happen emboldened the MSM to do the same with Iraq.

The above hissed in response by: jpm100 [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 9, 2007 7:46 AM

The following hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi

wow, dafydd, i confess to being sorta surprised that u've contracted hussein-hysteria. as a welshman u continue to disappoint. my old pony was ever so much cleverer, and he could jump three foot six. ;)

i hesitate to call whatever m'schelle is contemplating "embedding". that is an insult to ardolino, roggio, and totten, IMHO. more like our milguys having to babysit an uberblog dramaqueen on a snipe hunt.

hussein is over. big whup, the oldskoolmedia got hoaxed. like thass never happened before. bet they'll be more careful in future.

sure hope none of our guys get whacked protecting m'schelle's overhyped egomanical ass.

gee, i thot u were a mathematician. guess ur just another two digit like m'schelle.

The above hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 9, 2007 9:27 AM

The following hissed in response by: Tomy

Dafydd,

Congradulations on your association with MM.

Also, congradulations on your accurate prediction several weeks ago about what Bush's course correction would be. You gave me a H/T on that, but were more right than I was.

You asked about some subjects for the MM Blog, and I thought of this:

Have you noticed Mitch Mcconnel's sly smile when asked if he supports raising the Social Security Tax? My guess; his smile is due to an ammendment that is already penned and waitng for a first move from the Democrats. The content of this ammendment was first thought of by some in Congress a few years ago, and now may be the time do something with it.

When the Democrats deliver a bill to raise the tax ceiling, Mitch will counter with an ammendment to prevent social security taxes from being used for anything other than beneficiary payments, the surplus going to Individual Social Security Savings Accounts. Who in the USA will be opposed to using all Social Security funds for the beneficiaries?

Tomy

The above hissed in response by: Tomy [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 9, 2007 12:54 PM

The following hissed in response by: Beth

Matoko,
Considering every "antiwar" (as if!) monkey has been flinging poo at Malkin since the war started, saying "oh yeah, why don't you go there," I'd say there's not much to criticize when she does go. I know you're no Malkin fan, but when her critics complain about her being there, while at the same time urging everyone to GO there (as they've done with her), it rings pretty hollow.

Excellent work, Dafydd. The sad thing is that I'd never heard of this Boner guy from Media Matters before, and now he's getting lots of attention and probably laughing all the way to the bank. I think he talks (blogs) out of his posterior, just to stir things up and hope one of his wild fantasies sticks. And this which he **** [language, please! - the Mgt.]:

Did you get that? The Associated Press is killing U.S. soldiers, destroying the presidency, taking down the American government, and surrendering its national security. Who knew?

Well, I don't think anyone put it quite so strongly, but YES; AP and the NY Times (and let's not forget Reuters, although that was a hit against Israel, and Newsweak's "Koran flushing" fantasy) ARE doing all of the above. And it's not just American lives that are lost because of their greed for headlines and controversy, but somehow I think THEY (and their illiberal sycophants in the lefty blogosphere) are the ones who hold no value for their mascot(s), the "oppressed brown people."

Funny, that.

The above hissed in response by: Beth [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 9, 2007 1:31 PM

The following hissed in response by: Salvatore Coglione

Big 'Liz -- what I was getting at wasn't so much that every media source is unreliable/corrupt, but that we can get a reasonable sense of what's really going on if we make a habit of venturing beyond the usual domestic MSM suspects and cross-check information.

In particular, we can look for (and give more credence to) reports that name and quote US & UK military sources, such as this CNN report, this Oregonian article, and this Knight Ridder article, which quotes the Iraqi Defense and Interior Ministers from a joint press conference.

More generally, we ought not let the incompetence and cynicism of AP cause us to forget the widely-known violence and death squad activity like in Basra, which al-Maliki personally vowed to crush last June, or last month's dramatic raid there by British troops on a renegade police unit. As one who strongly suspects Iran is aggressively positioning itself in Iraq, I'd hate to see us underestimate just how much bloodshed the Ayatollahs are orchestrating behind the scenes.

I also think we should rely on reports from veterans who served on the ground in Iraq. I personally know and have spoken with 5 people who have served in Iraq since 2003, four of them members of my extended family.

I can say that just one of them came back with a positive impression of the mission, or otherwise felt that news coverage was unduly negative (and she served during the first year-plus). The others, to a person, told me that things are far worse in Iraq than what we hear about from the news media, especially concerning Iraqis trustworthiness, gratitude and ability to run their own affairs. Probably the most common theme was frustration with (and in some cases seething contempt for) the Iraqi people, whom they described in language I'd rather not repeat. To a person they expressed no confidence in Iraqis to do anything but destroy the place once we leave.

Anyway, that's my two cents while you keep keepin' the hacks honest!

The above hissed in response by: Salvatore Coglione [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 9, 2007 8:35 PM

The following hissed in response by: circlethewagons

And the Left long ago seized control of the mainstream network news and the major newspapers, going all the way back to the New Deal era of FDR. The Iraq War is a Republican war... so it must be turned into a defeat by any means necessary -- just like Vietnam.

Um. The Tet Offensive occurred while Lyndon Johnson was President. And last time I checked, Johnson was a Democrat. (Remember the old war protest nugget: "Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?")

The above hissed in response by: circlethewagons [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 10, 2007 10:47 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Circlethewagons:

The Tet Offensive occurred while Lyndon Johnson was President. And last time I checked, Johnson was a Democrat.

Actually, that was a snare, Circle: Johnson was technically a Democrat... but he was not part of what the New Left of the time would have called "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

That is, they -- and in particular, Walter Cronkite -- saw very little difference between Johnson in 1967 and Nixon in 1969 (yes, I personally remember hearing that chant).

Despite Johnson being the architect of the Great Society, the fact that he was also the primary architect of the escalation of Vietnam from small conflict to major conflagration morphed him into yesterday's "Joe Lieberman."

And just as lefties today frequently opine that Lieberman is really a Republican (despite his very liberal voting record on everything but the war), the lefties of 1967 said that Johnson may as well be a Republican.

When Nixon was elected the next year, the cognitive dissonance ceased. But make no mistake, in 1967, the anti-war Left did not consider Johnson to be an bona-fide Democrat... they equally despised Johnson's VP, Hubert Humphrey; their candidates were the anti-war Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, and especially Bobby Kennedy -- whom they considered the "real Democrats" in the 1968 race.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 10, 2007 3:04 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved