Media Coverage of the War in Iraq

[Gunnar]

Media's coverage has distorted world's view of Iraqi reality



By LTC Tim Ryan
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Editors' Note: LTC Tim Ryan is Commander, Task Force 2-12 Cavalry, First Cavalry Division in Iraq. He led troops into battle in Fallujah late last year and is now involved in security operations for the upcoming elections. He wrote the following during "down time" after the Fallujah operation. His views are his own.


 
Photos by CPT Joseph James, 2-12 CAV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All right, I've had enough. I am tired of reading distorted and grossly exaggerated stories from major news organizations about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. "The most trusted name in news" and a long list of others continue to misrepresent the scale of events in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a fraction of the events in Iraq and, more often than not, the events they cover are only negative.
The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453389.0680555557.html for the full article.

 

[jmackenzie_15]

Somehow, i don't doubt a word he says.People seem to only want to hear about bad news these days, ever since sept11.... its almost as if the media is feeding the anti war citizens in the country.But he is right, how often do you see "Heroic American Victory!" or something to the extent of the bad guys being vanquished on the news? I can't recall really =/

Kinda similar to the medias attitude toward vietnam i think... they often told everyone how many american casualties there were (im not sure of the exact number, maybe around 100,000?) when there were 1.1 NVA casualties.From what I had heard in read in schools and such growing up I was under the impression the americans lost the war in vietnam.The numbers tell a different story.I don't understand how you can destroy your enemy at a 10:1 ratio and be 'defeated'.What really happened was the American Govt simply chose to cease its efforts there, and once they were gone, the NVA ovverran the south.

 

[jmacleod]

For truly balanced, accurate reporting on the Middle East wars, go to DEBKAfile - the reporters
-journalists have an penetrating knowledge of the military and security situations in Israel, Iraq
Syria and Iran in particular, with a great deal of knowledge about the PLO, Hamas, Hizbollah,
etc. An Israeli friend mentioned that some of the editorial staff are former Mossad, the famous
Israeli security agency. DEBKAfile is published daily except Saturday as far as I know. MacLeod

 

[JBP]

What really happened was the American Govt simply chose to cease its efforts there, and once they were gone, the NVA ovverran the south.

Exactly, a retreat/surrender. They gave up = Defeated. They certainly didn't win although they may have been WINNING.... If they won, history would paint a very different picture and I'm sure the lines on a map wouldn't be the same geopolitically...

*Shrug*  :-\

 

[Gunnar]

Giving up isn't the same as being defeated.  Being defeated is being MADE to give up.  If you give up because you've simply lost interest, you weren't defeated. 

The US won almost every battle in the Vietnam War.  They didn't go on to win the war because the political will wasn't there.  The lack of interest of the American public (or say, the vehement opposition of the American public) made the war politically untenable...so they left.

If you're having a fight with a bully and his mom comes out and calls him in for lunch, so that he casually stops beating on you and goes in for mac n' cheese, have you won the fight?  Do you want to show him how you "won" the next day by going out of your way to tick him off?  He's simply decided he has other priorities.  You don't enter into the equation.  You're not a threat - he was beating you.  He just left because he was more interested in lunch.

I can see it all in the school yard....You shoulda seen him run into that macaroni and cheese guys!  I bruised his hand so bad with my face that he got hungry!

 

[LF(CMO)]

Actually much the same could be said as per the Civil War in the Colonies circa 1770's.  ( this is sometimes referred to as the American Revolution).  There was considerable opposition to continuation of it on the home front, it was expensive, the troops were needed elsewhere, recruiting was becoming increasingly difficult etc. 

The British army was a long way form defeated, but the interest was just not there, if it ever was!

The support in the 'Colonies' was probably something like this, 1/3 rebels, 1/3 Tories, 1/3 'sitting on the fence waiting to see which way it is going to go!

 

[jmackenzie_15]

they didnt give up as in 'tap out'...... thats what france did in ww2  

deciding that the war is pointless and you dont want to spend your money there any more and packing up and giong home is not the same thing at all.I stress again, 100,000 dead to 1.1 million.

I thought that you had won  a war when the enemy you are fighting is destroyed..... i think destroying them at a 10:1 ratio is a pretty good start!

 

[Cliff]

 
I can see it all in the school yard....You shoulda seen him run into that macaroni and cheese guys!   I bruised his hand so bad with my face that he got hungry!

mac 'n cheese, lol.    All of these news media outlets seem to focus on the negative which is what sells.

 

[old medic]

That really depends how many of them there is. Body counts are notoriously
inaccurate. They are best left to video games.  Winning or loosing is judged
on objectives met.

America lost. 
The foreign policy of stopping the spread of communism failed.
The objective of maintaining a separate government in the south failed.
When the dust settled, The North was in control.

You can be revisionist all you want and say the US just left, but it boils
down to the north controlling the south at the end of the day. 
They beat them with drawn out attrition. They beat
the US by defeating them on the home front.

 

[JasonH]

The media report what sells.  And unfortunatly hearing about aid doesn't sell but hearing the death of "How many troops died this week" for some sick and twisted reason does.
The media has spun everything into a negative because that's almost what they ever bloody report.  So then it's left to the viewer to decide whats truley going on and they
get stuck being brainwashed by this mostly bullshit reporting.  But in the end the only people who REALLY know whats going on are the people in iraq now.

 

[Patton jr]

America lost.  
The foreign policy of stopping the spread of communism failed.
The objective of maintaining a separate government in the south failed.
When the dust settled, The North was in control.

amen to that. the battle of Lundy's Lane(the War of 1812) is another example of America losing without being beaten. it was a night battle with no moonlight to aid visibility and soldiers were using muzzle flashes to locate the enemy. eventually, the Americans quit the field. they weren't beaten, but they decided it wasn't worth the cost in lives to take the field. they left and the Canadians "won"

we also cant blame the media all of the time. there are always 2 sides to a story, our side and their side. what people are asking the media to do is to look at it fro, our point of view, to which people of opposite oppinion might view as unfair or biased. I'm not saying it's not right to not want to see our side, but we also have to remain aware of innocents who suffer as a side-effect of this conflict. bad P.R., as awful as it may seem, allow us to look at more than what our side reports.

:threat: