thedrifter
12-27-06, 10:53 AM
12/27/2006
My Opinion: This time, it won't be that easy to blame the messenger
By: Lawrence J. De Maria
I have close friends who, like myself, are Vietnam-era veterans. Unlike me, they saw combat in Asia. (When I was in the service, the U.S. was still trying to win the war; thus, I was sent to Cuba, which is why Florida never lost a golf course during my tour in the Marines.)
Many of my friends are still understandably bitter about how they were treated upon their return home, and by the way that their sacrifices, they believe, were ignored by the American media. To some, the media poisoned the U.S. public against the Vietnam War, and was largely responsible for our defeat. In that belief they have some support, ironically, from the North Vietnamese, including the famous General Giap, who admitted that Americans usually won the battles (and inflicted horrendous casualties on his army) but lost the war at home. Giap's brutal strategy was simple: America would run out of patience before he ran out of Vietnamese. Pretty good plan, as it turned out.
My buddies send me a lot of emails about the war in Iraq. Typically, those emails will contain a story, accompanied by photos, of American soldiers and marines helping Iraqis. One recent photo showed a burly American serviceman cradling a wounded little girl in his arms so that she felt safe enough to fall asleep. The email noted, "This is something you won't see in the media."
Well, that's not quite accurate, at least here in Florida, and, I'd bet, in many places across this country where the support for the troops, if not the war, is unflagging. I've seen plenty of stories extolling the bravery and compassion (and military prowess) of our servicemen and women. Even on TV, many of the feature stories - and some of the dramas - portray the U.S. military in a positive light. The media has, of course, shown the ugly side of the war, and many commentators don't hide their opposition. But just as many, especially on cable, have been vocal supporters. All in all, I'd say the media - whatever it consists of in this era of blogs and cable - has done a creditable job. If anything, much of the media criticism, including that coming from people who initially opposed the invasion, has been about the Administration not giving the military the support it needed to win. You didn't hear THAT during Vietnam.
Critics usually concentrate on The New York Times and the major networks when they accuse the "mainstream" media of undermining the war effort. Well, much as it grieves me to say this (being a former "Times man"), I don't believe that the Old Gray Lady has as much clout as people think. Its circulation has been declining, as have the circulations of most major daily newspapers. (An aside: the combined circulations of the nation's weeklies have been soaring; computers have made it easy for people to start weeklies and monthlies, thus democratizing the industry and strengthening the Republic). And fewer people are watching the traditional networks.
So if the "media" has turned against the Bush administration's war (but not the troops), it's because you - the people reading this page - have turned against it. YOU are the new media. And you didn't need the Times or Katie Couric to tell you how to think.
Of course, that won't stop the demagogues from eventually trying to pin the blame for the "loss of Iraq" on the "media." Might be a little harder to do this time, given the fact that the President and his "brain" trust - Rumsfeld and Cheney - went from saying the war was being won to not being won in a little over two weeks.
What, did they just start reading the papers? Or the polls?
Ellie
My Opinion: This time, it won't be that easy to blame the messenger
By: Lawrence J. De Maria
I have close friends who, like myself, are Vietnam-era veterans. Unlike me, they saw combat in Asia. (When I was in the service, the U.S. was still trying to win the war; thus, I was sent to Cuba, which is why Florida never lost a golf course during my tour in the Marines.)
Many of my friends are still understandably bitter about how they were treated upon their return home, and by the way that their sacrifices, they believe, were ignored by the American media. To some, the media poisoned the U.S. public against the Vietnam War, and was largely responsible for our defeat. In that belief they have some support, ironically, from the North Vietnamese, including the famous General Giap, who admitted that Americans usually won the battles (and inflicted horrendous casualties on his army) but lost the war at home. Giap's brutal strategy was simple: America would run out of patience before he ran out of Vietnamese. Pretty good plan, as it turned out.
My buddies send me a lot of emails about the war in Iraq. Typically, those emails will contain a story, accompanied by photos, of American soldiers and marines helping Iraqis. One recent photo showed a burly American serviceman cradling a wounded little girl in his arms so that she felt safe enough to fall asleep. The email noted, "This is something you won't see in the media."
Well, that's not quite accurate, at least here in Florida, and, I'd bet, in many places across this country where the support for the troops, if not the war, is unflagging. I've seen plenty of stories extolling the bravery and compassion (and military prowess) of our servicemen and women. Even on TV, many of the feature stories - and some of the dramas - portray the U.S. military in a positive light. The media has, of course, shown the ugly side of the war, and many commentators don't hide their opposition. But just as many, especially on cable, have been vocal supporters. All in all, I'd say the media - whatever it consists of in this era of blogs and cable - has done a creditable job. If anything, much of the media criticism, including that coming from people who initially opposed the invasion, has been about the Administration not giving the military the support it needed to win. You didn't hear THAT during Vietnam.
Critics usually concentrate on The New York Times and the major networks when they accuse the "mainstream" media of undermining the war effort. Well, much as it grieves me to say this (being a former "Times man"), I don't believe that the Old Gray Lady has as much clout as people think. Its circulation has been declining, as have the circulations of most major daily newspapers. (An aside: the combined circulations of the nation's weeklies have been soaring; computers have made it easy for people to start weeklies and monthlies, thus democratizing the industry and strengthening the Republic). And fewer people are watching the traditional networks.
So if the "media" has turned against the Bush administration's war (but not the troops), it's because you - the people reading this page - have turned against it. YOU are the new media. And you didn't need the Times or Katie Couric to tell you how to think.
Of course, that won't stop the demagogues from eventually trying to pin the blame for the "loss of Iraq" on the "media." Might be a little harder to do this time, given the fact that the President and his "brain" trust - Rumsfeld and Cheney - went from saying the war was being won to not being won in a little over two weeks.
What, did they just start reading the papers? Or the polls?
Ellie