Media Elites: 'Public Numb to US Deaths in Iraq'explains the latest mainstream meme, the public is "numb" to Iraq war deaths:
But with the U.S. military death toll hitting 2,787 on Friday, and with 73 deaths so far in October, it is shaping up to be the deadliest month for U.S. forces since the Falluja offensive two years ago. Analysts said even local media coverage struggles to overcome the numbing affect of the steady flow of deaths. "In Iraq, certainly while we were losing relatively small numbers of soldiers early on, I think that was a huge shock," said Max Boot, a senior fellow of national security studies at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations. "But now that it's kind of accumulated it doesn't have as much of a shock value. This is reminiscent of (Soviet dictator Joseph) Stalin's phrase about how 'one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.' There's some truth to that."This is exactly the sort of story one could expect from Reuters, which still refuses to use the word terrorist. They have a tendency to throw Occam's Razor overboard, and over-intellectualize the things that puzzle them. Apparently, the think-tankers and journalists see "numbness" because of the lack of Vietnam-era style mass demonstrations, as no other reason for believing Americans don't care about their war dead is mentioned. What they're really saying is that Americans are not reacting in the way they would prefer, by calling for retreat and surrender in the War on Terror. Here's a hint for these poor souls: We are at war. We were attacked in our own homeland. Our soldiers are fighting a war. Everyone, with the exception of certain elite types, knows that people die in a war. The remarkable thing about this war is not that American warriors are dying, but that so few are - a tribute to their training, tactics, and determination. And many of us are onto the tactics you treasonous weasels have been perfecting since Vietnam. Leave it to al-Reuters to write a story about American dead in the War on Terror...and never once mention 9/11. We are at war, and most Americans know it.
Posted by: QC at October 20, 2006 12:17 PM
Posted by: Dan at October 20, 2006 12:50 PM
Actually more like pseudo-intellectualize, so as to quibblingly talk they way around the true and the obvious.
This pseudo-intellectualism of the vociferous left is almost as repugnant as their inability for moral discernment.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at October 20, 2006 01:41 PM
Posted by: Greg at October 20, 2006 01:46 PM
Posted by: white at October 20, 2006 02:05 PM
Posted by: tbone at October 20, 2006 02:18 PM
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 20, 2006 03:09 PM
You're a brain dead, walking organ donor.
Posted by: Greg at October 20, 2006 03:38 PM
Democrat Leadership have very similar goals and motivations to the
If the Democrats didn't try to obfuscate the fact that they AND THE TERRORISTS have the exact same hopes for Iraq, then they wouldn't get any votes.
Not from any true Americans that is....
Isn't it strange that:
1. When terrorists take over a town in Iraq:
Democrats gloat and seem gleefulTerrorists gloat and seem gleeful
2. When anyone mentions BOOOSH's name in public
Democrats get enragedTerrorists get enraged
3. When anyone mentions US victories scored in Iraq
Democrats are silent and grumpy and fight all the more to show what a bad thing our fighting for freedom is there.Terrorists are silent and grumpy and fight all the more to show what a bad thing our fighting for freedom is there.
4. Who desires that BOOOSH is disgraced...
the list goes on and on.
If you don't like the similarities between the democrat leaders (and
their bootlicking followers) and the terrorists....then I suggest you
take a good look at distancing yourselfs from the terrorists BY
SHOOTING FOR A DIFFERENT OBJECTIVE....
A Pro-Freedom objective
Posted by: mrclark at October 20, 2006 03:41 PM
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at October 20, 2006 03:45 PM
Oh, never mind. Habeas Corpus is so Old Europe.
Posted by: Greg at October 20, 2006 03:46 PM
Posted by: tbone at October 20, 2006 04:02 PM
February, give it till December, if Iraq is still unstable then, bring us
and all troops HOME!
Posted by: Ken Hoop at October 20, 2006 04:05 PM
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 20, 2006 04:28 PM
Where I live (outside one of the major military installations), we take casualties very seriously. I wish the rest of the country would, but the first and biggest mistake that President Bush made was to NOT call the country to sacrifice and support the military. Like his daddy before him, he bought the Cheney-Rumsfeld line of a cheap war easily won. It has not been either.
Do not get me wrong. I do not support the cowardly Dhimmicrats and their "quitter" mentality. I do want the Republicans to retain control of the Congress in November because otherwise, all our sacrifices will have been in vain. I also want the Republicans to grow a pair of balls and act like they were elected tolead the country.
Posted by: Old_dawg at October 20, 2006 04:35 PM
quit trying to play the victim, the right-wing have dominated and oppressed the majority of the population for too long. Its creepy when you act helpless. Like a grown man having a hissyfit.
"I have to admit they don't trust you." Anakin Skywalker.
"Or the Senate, or the Republic, or Democracy for that matter..." Emperor Palpatine
Posted by: yermom at October 20, 2006 05:01 PM
When are you going to stop drying your hair in the microwave?
Posted by: Greg at October 20, 2006 06:02 PM
Seriously, man, only idiots try to make the unbiased media argument anymore.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at October 20, 2006 06:20 PM
The disembodied casualty count makes it sound like our soldiers are like fish being shot in a barrell -- and I think that's really far from the truth.
Posted by: FrauBudgie at October 20, 2006 06:32 PM
And, as for dread pundit, no one tries to make the 'conspiracy theory' arguement anymore. Just look at who owns the media and who funds them. Its simple economics, not rocket science. And, if you want to see people 'making the media is biased' arguement, scroll up. Many of your fellow morons are doing it right here.......
Posted by: yermom at October 20, 2006 08:47 PM
Public Numb to US deaths in Iraq???????
You see, I'm still numb from 3000 murdered Americans in Manhattan. Oh, yeah I forgot, you people don't like to talk about that ,or when you do you blame it on US. Well screw you .
Posted by: Billy at October 20, 2006 10:05 PM
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at October 20, 2006 10:27 PM
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 20, 2006 10:29 PM
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 20, 2006 11:02 PM
Posted by: REMF at October 21, 2006 04:08 AM
Posted by: Rob Crawford at October 21, 2006 07:59 AM
The reason the U.S. military doesn't count Iraqi dead is because it's not its friggin job to count Iraqi dead and do your PR work for you-- that's your job (or the Iraqi's job if they want us out so bad). Doesn't give you the right to make up numbers as you go along. One set of moonbats says less than 50K, and another set of moonbats says 650K. One of them is a friggin liar.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 21, 2006 09:07 AM
Conservatives love this one especially. And well they should; it serves several purposes:
* it raises public skepticism
about the news
* hides conservative bias when it appears
* goads the media to the right.
GOP water-carrier William Kristol put it very well "I admit it: the liberal media
were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as
an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
Even that famous New Dealer Pat
Buchanan comes clean: "The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more
comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would
receive." He further concedes: "I've gotten balanced
coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked… For
heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican
on earth does that."
So what gives? This gives: conservatives have
powerful friends in the media, the corporations that own them,
and the corporations that pay for their advertising. These
firms have gotten better at bending the media's
message to suit their self-interests, which include a conservative
and pro-corporate agenda.
Nice try anyway, Bluto.
Posted by: Gleep! at October 21, 2006 09:49 AM
Or put differently, it goads the MSM from the Left.
So what gives? This gives: that the other cable channels are playing catch up now and starting to copy Fox (i.e., they are being goaded from the Left).
But the primary issue isn't how many conservative commentators the MSM decides to carry (although that does count)-- it's in the way they report their so-called straight news.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 21, 2006 10:28 AM
That is entirely perception-based; if you've got a conservative mind set and you hear something from the media you don't like, it will prove to you they are liberal--much as when Chuck Hagle, McCain and other Rockefeller-conservatives became "RINOs" when they began to question the administration's policy in Iraq.
Posted by: Gleep! at October 21, 2006 11:35 AM
It's partly perception-based. You'll perceive conservative bias wherever you find it because you're Liberal, but miss the Liberal bias. And vice versa. That's why we see the Liberal bias in the MSM, while you completely miss it. It's like being too long in the kitchen. You no longer perceive the aromas, while someone just walking in does.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 21, 2006 01:01 PM
Oh, I won't deny that's always a possibility and I try to keep my eyes open to it. Slanted journalism is not impossible to find.
My claim is that one of the pillars of the Republican power strategy over the past 25 years has been to establish the idea that the media has an institutional bias, and that bias leans liberal.
By establishing this concept, the modern conservative movement has been able to establish themselves as victims of this bias. This in turn has justified the need for media alternatives, both underground such as blogs still basically are, mid-stream, such as
Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt and Michelle Malkin, and mainstream, such as Fox News.
And this, in turn, has laid the groundwork for not only controlling news flow, but literally
shaping it, setting the rules for what is discussed, how it is
discussed, and what the conclusions mean.
These alternatives are neccessary, say supporters of the movement, to offset the liberal bias rampant in a system run by media elites.
But beofre anything else happens, you have to buy into the central theology of all this: that the so-called MSM is liberal.
I don't because it usually follows no particular logic other than vauge feelings that this is the case. Yes, you will probably find examples to challenge my assumptions; and I will find examples to challenge yours.
However, the proof of instutionalized bias has never been proven to my satisfaction.
Posted by: Gleep! at October 21, 2006 03:38 PM
truth, the repent of it immediately. A good lefturd is a dead one.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 22, 2006 05:22 AM
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 22, 2006 08:48 AM
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 22, 2006 10:12 AM
Article:4 Not Found." What's the gist of it?
Posted by: Gleep! at October 22, 2006 11:55 AM
admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is
dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against
Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.
A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC
chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC
and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the
war on terror.
It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a
dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would
broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity.
Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar', wants Muslim
women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.
At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by
veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation
is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities,
deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American,
anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than
One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread
acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of
'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.'
In one of a series of discussions, executives were asked to rule on how
they would react if the controversial comedian Sacha Baron Cohen )
known for his offensive characters Ali G and Borat - was a guest on the
programme Room 101.
On the show, celebrities are invited to throw their pet hates into a
dustbin and it was imagined that Baron Cohen chose some kosher food,
the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran.
Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show's actual
producer and the BBC's head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could
all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending
In a debate on whether the BBC should interview Osama Bin Laden
if he approached them, it was decided the Al Qaeda leader would be
given a platform to explain his views.
And the BBC's 'diversity tsar', Mary Fitzpatrick, said women
newsreaders should be able to wear whatever they wanted while on TV,
Ms Fitzpatrick spoke out after criticism was raised at the
summit of TV newsreader Fiona Bruce, who recently wore on air a
necklace with a cross.
The full account of the meeting shows how senior BBC figures queued up to lambast their employer.
Political pundit Andrew Marr said: 'The BBC is not impartial or
neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally
large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has
a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better
expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'
Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so
biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had
secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added
that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no
Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a
'very senior news executive', about the BBC's pro-multicultural stance
but was given the reply: 'The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism:
it believes in it and it promotes it.'
Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work
but was rebuked with: 'You can't do that, that's like the National
Quoting a George Orwell observation, Randall said that the BBC was full
of intellectuals who 'would rather steal from a poor box than stand to
attention during God Save The King'.
There was another heated debate when the summit discussed
whether the BBC was too sensitive about criticising black families for
failing to take responsibility for their children.
Head of news Helen Boaden disclosed that a Radio 4 programme
which blamed black youths at a young offenders', institution for
bullying white inmates faced the axe until she stepped in.
But Ms Fitzpatrick, who has said that the BBC should not use
white reporters in non-white countries, argued it had a duty to
'contextualise' why black youngsters behaved in such a way.
Andrew Marr told The Mail on Sunday last night: 'The BBC must
always try to reflect Britain, which is mostly a provincial,
middle-of-the-road country. Britain is not a mirror image of the BBC or
the people who work for it.'
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 22, 2006 12:22 PM
As your article states, the BBC starts at the executive level; however, UK news programming is not beholden to corporate interests and profit motive to the degree of CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and major newspaper execs. In fact, I believe the BBC remains a public/private partnership, with significant ownership and oversight held by the British government. Could that explain many of what we see as PC requirements on who broadcasts what and where? Well, with heavy government involvement, it does here, so I think that's a safe assumption.
Posted by: Gleep! at October 22, 2006 01:08 PM
The BBC is telling you it's Liberal, and you're telling them no, they're not Liberal. LOL. Sounds very much like how you Libs ignore what the jihadis are telling us so you can instead blame Bush. It must be the mental disorder you suffer from (Liberalism). Next you'll tell me Fox is conservative (even though the MSM isn't Liberal).
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 23, 2006 08:28 AM
Posted by: yermom at October 23, 2006 10:43 AM
February. Simply google "Zogby Poll" "Iraq" US soldiers.
Only 37% agreed we should follow Bush's "stay the course"
policy, and the myriad troops who attend Murtha rallies,for example, bear out the poll's accuracy.
Posted by: Ken Hoop at October 23, 2006 04:23 PM
JC--Uh..no, I'm saying what's the BBC got to do with American media? It's publicly held, unlike American media; it's not beholden to corporate interests, unlike American media; therefore it could be have a liberal slant, unlike America media. Go ask Kristol and Buchanan why you're wrong. Again.
Posted by: Gleep! at October 23, 2006 05:53 PM
Tillman, Iraq Vet, expresses many common vet views about the
war and its "dear leaders" Bush, Cheney and Co.
Posted by: Ken Hoop at October 23, 2006 06:03 PM
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 24, 2006 06:05 PM
Posted by: blyahamuhapopandossoul i56or6h2oc at December 08, 2006 07:05 PM
Posted by: blyahamuhapopandossoul y50qh2xqms at December 08, 2006 07:07 PM
Posted by: Xcam-1 at December 23, 2006 05:26 PM
Posted by: Xcam-1 at December 26, 2006 11:07 PM
Posted by: crazy_girl at January 18, 2007 01:50 PM
Posted by: wert at January 21, 2007 03:41 PM
Posted by: klon at January 26, 2007 06:29 AM
Posted by: link at January 29, 2007 11:43 PM
Posted by: tran at January 30, 2007 05:34 AM
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0087 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0033 seconds, 61 records returned.
Page size 42 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.