PDA

View Full Version : Why don't military good guys make the front page?



thedrifter
06-11-06, 09:16 AM
OUTSIDE THE TENT

In this paper, war heroes are MIA
Why don't military good guys make the front page?

By Frank Schaeffer, FRANK SCHAEFFER is the author of the forthcoming novel "Baby Jack" and coauthor with Kathy Roth-Douquet of "AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes from the Military and How it Hurts Ou
June 11, 2006

DURING THE last two weeks, the Los Angeles Times has printed at least four front-page articles, and several others on inside pages, about a Marine squad accused of killing 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha and possibly falsifying reports about the incident. Some of the information reported by The Times was based on the military's own investigation. The Times' reports seemed fair, stressing the conditions of combat and confusion faced by our troops.

As the father of a Marine who served two combat tours in Afghanistan and participated in missions in Iraq, I'm glad the newspaper reports military failures. I want the military to be better too. I'm also grateful for the many poignant stories about our troops that Times' reporters such as Tony Perry and David Zucchino have written for the paper.

However, if the "chattering classes" ever wonder why those of us in the military family sometimes bitterly resent the media, they need look no further than the "Haditha story." What bothers me is that I haven't seen one recent story dedicated to the heroism of our troops given such consistent prominence in The Times or other leading papers. Nor have I read a front-page headline about a military medal ceremony and the story behind it, although every year I see front-page treatment in The Times of who wins the Oscars.

Apparently some awards are more equal than others — say, for being a supporting actress in a forgettable movie rather than risking one's life to save a group of Iraqi children.

If there is such a thing as "anti-military media bias," it is not in how stories are reported. It is in what stories are ignored and the editorial "values" implicit in those daily choices.

Who decided that dramatic acts of military heroism no longer merit front-page treatment? During World War II, the Korean War and even the early years of the Vietnam War, such stories got Page 1 attention. Where are today's front-page headlines that read "Marine Dies Saving His Squad" to balance "Marines Accused of Massacre"?

The prominence of stories about military malfeasance, absent stories about military heroism, creates an out-of-whack impression. When it comes to reporting on the military, it's as if we're back in the 1950s, only this time the media prejudice and insensitivity are aimed at military service rather than race. In the 1950s, you rarely saw a story about an African American unless he or she committed a crime or was portrayed with condescension as a victim.

What I would like to see is acts of military heroism regarded once again as newsworthy. Here is one story that would have merited a front-page headline if the editorial values of this paper were less dismissive of military valor.

Staff Sgt. Anthony L. Viggiani is one of the recently distinguished heroes of the Marine Corps. On Feb. 24, he was awarded the Navy Cross for his actions in Afghanistan in June 2004. Viggiani had been fighting Taliban remnants who were killing teachers and burning girls' schools. He led his men in combat after being wounded. He chased down and killed or captured the enemy. He humanely tended to the wounded enemy fighters he had been fighting moments before. He led his men to safety and honor. Was a Times reporter sent to cover the medal ceremony and to report on what lay behind it? If not, why not? Whose values dictate that winning a Navy Cross is less important than a Pulitzer, an Oscar or a PEN award?

I have no problem with reporting on the military's occasional failures. But it's unfair and out of context when, at the same time, editors at our best papers ignore much more routine acts of individual heroism that balance this grim picture. The Times should help us be as proud of our heroes as we are disappointed by those very few who dishonor us.

Ellie

booksbenji
06-11-06, 09:57 AM
@ our local fishwrap(newspaper) with this ? on the end of email:

I hope that MRT will answer or they have not done the 1st part of this sentence or has done 2 much of the latter: The Times(MRT) should help us be as proud of our heroes as we are disappointed by those very few who dishonor us.

An ANSWER, pls Charles, Gary or Stewart?

Maybe everybody should fwd this article to their newspaper and ASK AS WHY WE NEVER GET TO READ ABOUT THE GOOD, THE HUMANITARIAN EFFORTS AND THE HEROIC STORY. http://www.thesquadbay.com/forum2/Smileys/default/salute.gif

booksbenji
06-11-06, 10:37 AM
Fourth estate or fifth column
Jan 25, 2005 by Thomas Sowell

There are still people in the mainstream media who profess bewilderment that they are accused of being biased. But you need to look no further than reporting on the war in Iraq to see the bias staring you in the face, day after day, on the front page of the New York Times and in much of the rest of the media.

If a battle ends with Americans killing a hundred guerrillas and terrorists, while sustaining ten fatalities, that is an American victory. But not in the mainstream media. The headline is more likely to read: "Ten More Americans Killed in Iraq Today."

This kind of journalism can turn victory into defeat in print or on TV. Kept up long enough, it can even end up with real defeat, when support for the war collapses at home and abroad.

One of the biggest American victories during the Second World War was called "the great Marianas turkey shoot" because American fighter pilots shot down more than 340 Japanese planes over the Marianas islands while losing just 30 American planes. But what if our current reporting practices had been used back then?

The story, as printed and broadcast, could have been: "Today eighteen American pilots were killed and five more severely wounded, as the Japanese blasted more than two dozen American planes out of the sky." A steady diet of that kind of one-sided reporting and our whole war effort against Japan might have collapsed.

Whether the one-sided reporting of the war in Vietnam was a factor in the American defeat there used to be a matter of controversy. But, in recent years, high officials of the Communist government of Vietnam have themselves admitted that they lost the war on the battlefields but won it in the U.S. media and on the streets of America, where political pressures from the anti-war movement threw away the victory for which thousands of American lives had been sacrificed.

Too many in the media today regard the reporting of the Vietnam war as one of their greatest triumphs. It certainly showed the power of the media -- but also its irresponsibility. Some in the media today seem determined to recapture those glory days by the way they report on events in the Iraq war.

First, there is the mainstream media's almost exclusive focus on American casualties in Iraq, with little or no attention to the often much larger casualties inflicted on the guerrillas and terrorists from inside and outside Iraq.

Since terrorists are pouring into Iraq in response to calls from international terrorist networks, the number of those who are killed is especially important, for these are people who will no longer be around to launch more attacks on American soil. Iraq has become a magnet for enemies of the United States, a place where they can be killed wholesale, thousands of miles away.

With all the turmoil and bloodshed in Iraq, both military and civilian people returning from that country are increasingly expressing amazement at the difference between what they have seen with their own eyes and the far worse, one-sided picture that the media presents to the public here.

Our media cannot even call terrorists terrorists, but instead give these cutthroats the bland name, "insurgents." You might think that these were like the underground fighters in Nazi-occupied Europe during World War II.

The most obvious difference is that the underground in Europe did not go around targeting innocent civilians. As for the Nazis, they tried to deny the atrocities they committed. But today the "insurgents" in Iraq are proud of their barbarism, videotape it, and publicize it -- often with the help of the Western media.

Real insurgents want to get the occupying power out of their country. But the fastest way to get Americans out of Iraq would be to do the opposite of what these "insurgents" are doing. Just by letting peace and order return, those who want to see American troops gone would speed their departure.

The United States has voluntarily pulled out of conquered territory all around the world, including neighboring Kuwait during the first Gulf war. But the real goal of the guerrillas and terrorists is to prevent democracy from arising in the Middle East.

Still, much of the Western media even cannot call a spade a spade. The Fourth Estate sometimes seems more like a Fifth Column.


Thomas Sowell is the prolific author of books such as Black Rednecks and White Liberals and Applied Economics


http://www.thesquadbay.com/forum2/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=27892.0;id=12544;i mage

http://www.thesquadbay.com/forum2/Smileys/default/salute.gif

His_angel
06-11-06, 04:09 PM
It's quite simple really. Good news doesn't sell. News media by in large part are not in business to educate people or tell they truth. They are in business to make money. The higher their...

FistFu68
06-11-06, 04:19 PM
:usmc: LISTEN TO LYRICS~OF EAGLE'S~(THE BAND) DIRTY LAUNDRY SONG! :usmc:

Osotogary
06-11-06, 05:58 PM
DIRTY LAUNDRY SONG
FISTFU68-
If there was ever a song that fit this situation, Dirty Laundry is it.
Good one.

quillhill
06-11-06, 11:01 PM
In order to sell newspapers, a publication must have complelling content, and unfortunately, journalists do tend to believe that the negative is also always compelling. Personally, as a reporter, I...

Deduke
06-12-06, 07:18 AM
If it were true that people don't want to read good news stories, why are those stories so popular on forums such as this, and, indeed, all over the internet? I don't buy the excuse from the media that only bad news sells. The popularity of John Stossels is a good example. He slowly moved from being a liberal, hate-America-first, media type to being a conservative, pro-capitalism journalist. Of course, his bosses and the talking heads can't understand him, but the public watches his reports and buys his books. Go figure.

Semper Fidelis

Deduke

redneck13
06-12-06, 02:17 PM
:mad: :flag: Newspaper's of the main media Flat suck, that's why I don't read them, buy them. I'm not going to watch or buy news that doesn't show both sides. I talk tot those who were/have/ there, been there, even with a little war exaggeration in it, possibly, not saying there is, I get the straight skinny.
That's my 2cents

horselady
06-12-06, 05:51 PM
Visit my thread on just this topic, if you haven't. I need all the good news stories you can find. Don't expect to read about them in the mainstream
media newspapers and magazines, but there's a whole new
world of alternative media out there (talk radio, FOX News)
and they've been begging for more positive stories.

Well, I've taken it upon myself to see that they put their
money where their mouths are. I am preparing stories right
now for Sean Hannity (major national radio host), whom I met with
recently, and he promised that he would read them on the air
if I would provide them.

Details about what I am looking for are found here:

http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30671