Conservatives have repeatedly questioned the courage of journalists in Iraq, even with continuing casualties
SUMMARY: Despite the clear risks undertaken by journalists covering the Iraq war, some conservatives in the media have repeatedly questioned the courage of journalists in Iraq, alleging that journalists covering the war fail to report "good news" because they are afraid to leave the heavily fortified Baghdad "Green Zone" to speak with Iraqis and coalition troops elsewhere in the country. Additionally, some conservatives have claimed that journalists' coverage of the Iraq war is distorted by their alleged hostility to President Bush and the war.
The explosion of a car bomb in Baghdad, Iraq, on May 29 killed two members of a CBS News crew -- cameraman Paul Douglas and freelance soundman James Brolan -- and severely wounded correspondent Kimberly Dozier, a third member of the crew. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, this incident brought the total number of journalists killed in the Iraq war to 71; equaling the number of journalists killed or presumed killed during the Vietnam War, according to an Associated Press article; Editor & Publisher reported that, according to the Freedom Forum, it surpasses the number of journalists killed during World War II. The incident followed the serious wounding of ABC World News Tonight co-anchor Bob Woodruff and ABC News cameraman Doug Vogt in a January roadside bomb explosion in Iraq.
Notwithstanding the clear risks undertaken by journalists covering the Iraq war, some conservatives in the media have repeatedly questioned the courage of journalists in Iraq, alleging that journalists covering the war fail to report "good news" because they are afraid to leave the heavily fortified Baghdad "Green Zone" to speak with Iraqis and coalition troops elsewhere in the country. According to these conservatives, journalists overemphasize reports of violence in Iraq because of their failure to visit areas of the country where "progress" is being made. Additionally, some conservatives have claimed that journalists' coverage of the Iraq war is distorted by their alleged hostility to President Bush and the war.
Media Matters for America has compiled the following summary of such attacks by several conservative media figures:
Nationally syndicated radio host Laura Ingraham:
On the March 21 broadcast of NBC's Today, Ingraham decried NBC News for "report[ing] only on the IEDs [improvised explosive devices], only on the killings ... only on the reprisals" in Iraq, and for "reporting from hotel balconies" instead of in the field. She defended her comments on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor later that day, stating that "before the [Today] segment began ... I actually was watching a report by their NBC reporter, Richard Engel, who was doing one of those from the balcony reports, reporting on the bombs going off, reporting on the difficulties in Iraq." When host Bill O'Reilly characterized NBC as "the most anti-Bush network right now," Ingraham replied that "they seem invested right now." She later criticized "a group of people" in the media "who are invested in America's defeat" in Iraq, further stating that although NBC reporter David Bloom -- who died in Iraq in April 2003 -- "was over there covering the war when he died," she didn't know whether NBC News was -- in O'Reilly's words -- "actively trying to undermine the war in Iraq," and she added that "the media obviously has an element underneath it that really despises Bush, and it's blinding them."
Following the attack on the CBS News crew, Ingraham defended her remarks yet again. On the May 31 broadcast of her nationally syndicated radio program, Ingraham stated that when she "brought up the hotel balconies, that was coming right off a Richard Engel report from a hotel balcony about the latest IEDs going off." She added that "[a]ll the guys [troops] I talked to in Iraq were tired of it, and I was speaking for them." Noting Woodruff's injuries in Iraq, Ingraham later stated that although "our hearts and prayers go out" to the "brave" journalists in Iraq "who are on the ground, getting the facts out," "I will not change my view that giving context in this reporting is important." She continued: "[Y]ou have to see the forest through the trees here. The insurgents not only know how to play to the press, they manipulate -- let's make that very clear."
Ingraham also attacked New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, whose May 31 column (subscription required) criticized Ingraham's assertion that journalists in Iraq were too often reporting from "hotel balconies." Ingraham accused Dowd of misinterpreting her comments "as if we were saying that all reporters are reporting from the hotel balcony." Ingraham claimed: "It wasn't the point. The point was, if you're going to spend two hours doing a goodbye show for Katie [Couric, former Today host], that's fine. But just as interesting would be to do a show from Camp Victory or Camp Taji and just talk to the guys and the gals, just talk to them, find out what's on their minds -- the good, the bad and the ugly." When author Vince Flynn -- a guest on the program -- later stated that Dowd's writing focused excessively on "sexuality and latent sexual desires," and alleged that Dowd "projects a lot of her issues onto other people," Ingraham replied that "the media can dish it out but they can't take it."
On the May 30 broadcast of The Laura Ingraham Show, Ingraham stated that "our prayers go out to" the CBS crew and "all the journalists working hard and in harm's way." But she also complained that "this is where we are in the polls" regarding the unpopularity of the war because the media are reporting that "brave men and women" are being killed and kidnapped in Iraq, and that "these journalists were killed and other journalist seriously injured, and American people see that every day, and that's all they see."
Fox News host Sean Hannity:
As Media Matters previously noted, on the March 23 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Hannity stated that in covering the Iraq war, the media "are fat, they are lazy, they have a pack mentality, they are partisan, and they are not doing their job, and they are not doing a service for the American people, and they are failing in their mission, and they purposely fail in their mission, and they get away with it each and every day." As Media Matters also noted, on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes later that day, Hannity stated that although "[t]here are some good, brave reporters," such as Bloom and Woodruff, "the story is not being told about the good news and about the progress [in Iraq]. There is lazy reporting going on. It is somewhat institutional, and there is partisanship on the part of the media." In response, guest and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich placed the blame on editors who refused to run good-news stories that reporters "risk[ed] their life" to get.
Retired Marine colonel and Fox News host Oliver North:
On the January 31 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, North attacked CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, who -- following the wounding of Woodruff and Vogt -- had said that the Iraq war "has basically turned out to be a disaster, and journalists have paid for it." Although North acknowledged that "Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt know" that "covering a war is a very dangerous business," he decried "the hubris of a reporter saying [the war is a disaster] now that one of us has been hurt -- 61 of them, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists -- have been killed in Iraq." Invoking the names of famous journalists killed while covering past wars, North said that CNN was "not a network that has an Ernie Pyle working for it. This is not a network that has Marguerite Higgins or Dickie Chapelle."
Additionally, in his May 5 syndicated column, North complained that "[s]o few American reporters venture forth outside the Baghdad Green Zone that good news from Iraq is virtually non-existent." He decried "mainstream media hostility to this president [Bush] and the Global War on Terror," calling the U.S. media "the most Anti-American media on earth."
American Spectator contributing writer Mark Yost:
As Media Matters previously noted, on the May 15 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, Yost responded to guest host David Asman's statement that journalists covering the Iraq war are "not going to report on a lot of heroism" by claiming that he had been told that people are "somewhat embarrassed by people or feel lesser of themselves by people who do incredibly heroic things," and that "they don't make a big deal of it, because they themselves know that maybe, perhaps, in the same situation they wouldn't have done the same thing."
From the March 21 broadcast of NBC's Today, featuring guest host and NBC News White House correspondent David Gregory and Democratic strategist James Carville:
GREGORY: Laura, what's your take on this? Because obviously, the White House has made a determination that speaking about the war as candidly as they can is what's important now, and yet it's clear that the president's having a hard time being heard.
INGRAHAM: Well, here's -- where's what I think, David. I think with all the resources of networks like NBC, the Today show spends all this money to spend people to the Olympics, which is great, it was great programming. All this money for "Where in the World Is Matt Lauer?" Bring the Today show to Iraq. Bring the Today show to Tal Afar. Do the show from the Fourth ID at Camp Victory.
GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
INGRAHAM: And then when you talk to those soldiers on the ground, when you go out with the Iraqi military, when you talk to the villagers, when you see the children, then I want NBC to report on only the IEDs, only the killings, own -- only the reprisals.
GREGORY: Right.
INGRAHAM: When people are on the ground, whether it's, recently, David Ignatius of The Washington Post, whether it's recently --
GREGORY: OK, but -- but Laura, let's be -- hold on.
INGRAHAM: Let me finish, David, because you got -- you guys --
GREGORY: Wait a minute, Laura, wait a second. Do you want to be fair --
INGRAHAM: -- are -- no, no, let me state -- let me finish, Da --
GREGORY: -- first of all, the Today show went to Iraq. Matt Lauer --
INGRAHAM: Did you do a show? Did you do a show from Iraq?
GREGORY: -- was there. He reported there. OK, and we --
INGRAHAM: Did -- yeah.
GREGORY: -- we -- we've got a bureau there.
INGRAHAM: David -- David, to do a show from Iraq means to talk to the Iraqi military. To go out with they Iraqi military --
GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
INGRAHAM: -- to actually have a conversation with the people, instead of reporting from hotel balconies about the latest IEDs going off. It is very difficult in Iraq. The people are struggling --
GREGORY: And you -- and you think Iraq is safe enough to have --
INGRAHAM: The -- the -- the --
GREGORY: Have you been there long enough to venture outside the hotel balconies?
INGRAHAM: Yes, I did. I -- I wasn't in a hotel balcony. I was out with the U.S. military.
GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
INGRAHAM: And it can be done in any part of the country. It is dangerous in the Sunni Triangle -- Triangle, but NBC --
GREGORY: All right. So -- so -- OK.
INGRAHAM: -- and the networks of the United States --
GREGORY: Laura, I get -- I get -- I get the point. I get -- I get the anti-network point. James, the argument is that the media --
INGRAHAM: It's not funny.
GREGORY: -- simply isn't getting it. But -- but Ayad Allawi --
CARVILLE: Right. I think he's --
GREGORY: -- the -- the prime minister -- former prime minister said there's a civil war.
CARVILLE: We're going to stipulate for the moment that he's on the ground. OK?
INGRAHAM: No, he actually isn't, James.
From the March 21 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Joining us now from Washington is Laura Ingraham. You know, I had a caller on The Radio Factor that said you went in there just to whack him around. Is that true?
INGRAHAM: No. I actually was sitting there before the segment began, and I actually was watching a report by their NBC reporter, Richard Engel, who was doing one of those from-the-balcony reports, reporting on the bombs going off, reporting on the difficulties in Iraq. And it came to mind that wow, the Today show, think about, No. 1, how informative it would be, how interesting it would be, and what ratings they'd get if they actually did the Today show from one of our military bases in Iraq and got the kind of stories that reporters who have recently gone over to Iraq have gotten, that are a broader view, including the negative stuff. Put that in there but at least offer a broader context. That could be done. They do "Where in the World is Matt Lauer?" And you know, covering the Olympics, they do a great job on that stuff. Why not devote the resources to the most important story of the last 15 years?
O'REILLY: Is it your opinion that NBC News spins the war in Iraq negative?
INGRAHAM: Well, it's not between me and NBC, Bill.
O'REILLY: No, no. Look, you're an analyst. You watch these people. Is it your opinion that NBC News spins the war negative?
INGRAHAM: I think that the coverage of the war by NBC that I've really focused on, especially since I was in Iraq last month, to me it seems bizarrely focused only on the IEDs, only on the latest reprisal killings that are taking place. When -- when stories that are so fascinating and interesting and broader and human interest, stuff the Today show and NBC likes to do, those stories are out there for anyone to get. So I don't get it.
O'REILLY: Is NBC -- OK, well, I don't -- I don't pretend to know what they do over there, but I have said on the record that I think NBC is the most anti-Bush network right now, more than ABC, CNN, and CBS.
INGRAHAM: Well, they seem invested right now. I mean, if I was --
O'REILLY: I don't know if that's true. It just seems to me that way.
INGRAHAM: Yes. Well, it seems to me -- again, it's not hard to get these stories. It really isn't hard to find an Iraqi general to interview. You can do that. Any of us can do that.
[...]
O'REILLY: But here's my problem. And this is a serious problem. We saw it at the top of the show with what's-her-name who was bantering with Bush, the older woman.
INGRAHAM: Helen Thomas.
O'REILLY: Helen Thomas. I believe that there is a segment of the media trying to undermine the policy in Iraq for their own ideological purposes. It's no longer dissent; it's no longer skepticism. It's "We want to undermine it." And that disturbs me. Do you see that?
INGRAHAM: I see that pretty much every day, that there is a group of people who are invested in America's defeat in one of the most important conflicts in our nation's history. And being invested in defeat as an American -- I don't care if you're a reporter, a commentator, or a businessperson. How have we gotten to this point in this country? Regardless of what people think --
O'REILLY: Because of hatred. Ideological hatred brings us to that point. Last point, last question. Is NBC in that category? Do you think NBC News is actively trying to undermine the war in Iraq?
INGRAHAM: You know, I'm going to keep watching it. You know, I know there are brave people. David Bloom was over there covering the war when he died, practically.
O'REILLY: So you don't know whether they are or not?
INGRAHAM: I don't know. I think the media obviously has an element underneath it that really despises Bush, and it's blinding them.
O'REILLY: All right. I think you're absolutely right on that. I think there is an element in the media that has gone way beyond dissent and into actually undermining American policy in the war on terror, and it's frightening. Hey, Laura, thanks -- you're always stand-up. We appreciate you coming on in.
From the May 30 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Laura Ingraham Show:
INGRAHAM: And what's happened as a result is that it's the United States, Britain, a few coalition partners are carrying once again the heavy burden for the rest of the free world, and the Muslim Arab world is, for the most part, is mute when it comes to these types of brutal attacks. I mean, you have these -- not only are brave men and women every day, it seems, dying in Iraq and Afghanistan and committed to their mission but, you know, people are being kidnapped at a ridiculous rate. You have, you know, these journalists were killed and other journalists seriously injured, and American people see that every day, and that's all they see, and this is where we are in the polls. So, is it President Bush's salesmanship that is lacking? Or is there something else that has to happen here for people to say, "Wait, this is worth it."
[...]
INGRAHAM: Obviously, very difficult news out of Afghanistan. It's been very tough times in Afghanistan lately with the resurgence of the Taliban and continued frustration on the part of a lot of the Afghani people, who just want to live in peace and just want to live in safety. And now we're still seeing the violence there -- surge, ebbs a little, surges a little, and in recent weeks, it's been terrible. So we'll get -- we'll touch back onto that. Also in Iraq, two CBS journalists killed, a CBS reporter who's been there for three years badly, badly injured, and our prayers go out to them, and also, of course, all the brave men and women in uniform who were acknowledged and a very somber situation over the weekend Memorial Day observances all across Iraq and Afghanistan.
[...]
INGRAHAM: All right, politics, culture, media bias, and difficult days in Afghanistan and Iraq, especially over the weekend with that accident in Kabul which then sent people, Afghanis, throwing rocks, screaming, "Death to America, death to [Afghani President Hamid] Karzai," and military officials obviously apologizing for what was an accidental traffic situation which ended up injuring people there -- and I think a few people, at least, died. And that, of course, happening at the same time we had eight car bombs go off on one particular day in Iraq, and then the news, of course, about the CBS reporters, two killed, cameraman killed, and one reporter badly, badly injured. Our prayers and thoughts are always with our members of all the branches of our military who are serving in the war against terror, and all the journalists are working hard and in harm's way. It's a very difficult duty for them, and our prayers are with them as well.
From the May 31 edition of The Laura Ingraham Show:
INGRAHAM: We have a lot of stuff linked up under "Need to Know", including a Washington Times story about some of the photos that were taken by some of the Marines at that Haditha massacre -- as it's being dubbed -- the killings in Haditha and what some of the family members of the Marines involved are saying. So make sure to check that out; it's an interesting piece. And it sounds very bad, and it sounds like it could get worse. And lots of emails on our website from our Marines, both in Iraq, Afghanistan and from Camp Pendelton. And understandably, they are the most upset about what they're hearing, and we'll get to some of the emails. But a couple of Marine Corps officers, whose names I'm not going to reveal, but a couple of them said, "Please, just make sure that when you report the bad, you also report the good. Also remember that the duty and sacrifice of the overwhelming majority of men and women in uniform who have served our country throughout history, and now in this very difficult battle in Iraq and in Afghanistan, they work hard to minimize the deaths of innocents. They put their own lives at risk as they minimize civilian casualties. We don't go in and carpet bomb -- we don't go in and flatten villages -- that's not what we do. So please just remember that."
And by the way, when I went on the Today show back in March to talk about the fact that it would be nice for the Today show to go to Iraq and do a show on a military base, and I brought up the hotel balconies, that was coming right off a Richard Engel report from a hotel balcony about the latest IEDs going off. The point of that is all the guys I talked to in Iraq were tired of it, and I was speaking for them. And I heard it consistently from the men and women on the ground in Iraq: Please, don't just report the bad. Come to see what's happening at these hospitals; come to see what's happening with our relationship with these Iraqi villagers. They desperately want us to finish this job. You can report all that stuff, but please talk to us too. And that was my point, and that continues to be my point, by the way. And Lara Logan -- when was that piece, Matt, that Lara Logan did on 60 Minutes? It was maybe six months ago, from Tal Afar, where she was --
MATT FOX (technical producer): I don't even think it was that long ago, maybe a couple months ago.
INGRAHAM: But it was long before my Today show appearance, when we were talking about what a great story she did, walking through Tal Afar with Colonel [H.R.] McMaster [commander of 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and Multinational Force-Northwest] and learning about what happened with that offensive there. It was very informative, very interesting, and I was reminded of the interview I did with the two West Point grads who found Bob Woodruff. They were in the vehicle behind Woodruff when he was hurt in Iraq. And to hear their stories about that day -- because I talked to those guys, I was at the same Camp Taji -- they wouldn't even let me go on a forward combat patrol because a week earlier he [Woodruff] had been exploded, trying to go out there and getting an interesting story.
And he -- the guys at Camp Taji were so grateful that he [Woodruff] had come there. Our hearts and prayers go out to all the men and women in uniform -- the soldiers, the Marines, all branches of the service, and all the brave people, including the brave journalists out there -- who are on the ground, getting the facts out. But I will not change my view that giving context in this reporting is important. It has been very dangerous in Iraq, especially over the last couple of months, and nobody's tried to minimize that. But you have to see the forest through the trees here. The insurgents not only know how to play to the press, they know how to manipulate, and they manipulate, manipulate, manipulate. So let's get that very clear.
Maureen Dowd made some reference to my appearance on the Today show, as if we were saying that all reporters are reporting from the hotel balcony. It wasn't the point. The point is, you know, if you're going to spend two hours doing a goodbye for Katie, that's fine. Enjoy the two-hour tribute, great. But just as interesting would be to do a show from Camp Victory or Camp Taji and just talk to the guys and the gals, just talk to them, find out what's on their minds -- the good, the bad and the ugly.
[...]
FLYNN: You and Maureen Dowd are close buddies, I see.
INGRAHAM: I love her. I actually like her. I actually think she's -- you know, she's a fun writer -- she obviously didn't really hear what I said on the Today show about reporting from balconies, but that's OK.
FLYNN: I think she's probably one of the most talented writers at the Times just by pure -- just by her writing alone. But she gets a little too smarmy sometimes. And then she -- everything has to somehow get wrapped around sexuality and latent sexual desires, and it's -- I think she projects a lot of her issues onto other people.
INGRAHAM: Yeah, well, you know, the media can dish it out but they can't take it. I mean, they can dish it out, and -- As you and I have talked about before, when I went over there for just a short period of time -- I was over there for 10 days -- I came back and I tried to tell people what the soldiers and Marines were telling me, which is they didn't feel like enough time is spent talking to them about the facts on the ground. And they craved more conversations with people who would give a broader perspective.
From the March 23 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Let me talk about the news media, because the president has been very outspoken against them this week. He said, for every act of violence, there is encouraging progress in Iraq. It's not being captured on the evening news. Similar comments by Dick Cheney. It's something I've been saying often. Now, let me first acknowledge: There are some good, brave reporters -- our own Fox reporters, David Bloom, Bob Woodruff. They were putting themselves in harm's way. But, they're -- in my estimation, the story is not being told about the good news and about the progress. There is lazy reporting going on. It is somewhat institutional, and there is partisanship on the part of the media. Do you see the same thing?
GINGRICH: Well, look, it's worse than that, because it's not about the reporters. Very often, reporters will call in with a good, positive story, with something that is happening -- when children, for example, went back to school, and you had thousands of schools, many of them rebuilt, repainted and restructured by American troops, that wasn't news, if you were one of the major networks. The editors refused to put it on the air. So very often, even when the reporter out in the field is risking their life getting a terrific story -- this mayor, who you know, sent this wonderful letter about how the Americans had saved his town -- that's not news.
From the January 31 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Joining us now from Durham, North Carolina, journalism professor Napoleon Byars, a former lieutenant colonel in the Air Force, and from Washington, Colonel Oliver North, Fox News military analyst and host of the weekend program War Stories. Because your opinion is different from Ms. Amanpour's, Colonel North, I'll let you begin. Go ahead.
NORTH: Well, first, those of us who pray for the wounded ought to include Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt in their prayers for a quick recovery. It strikes me, Bill, that the purpose of going out there, having now been there seven times, is to cover the war, document what's going on, perhaps if you will, prepare the first draft of history as [News Corp. CEO] Rupert Murdoch's father did at Gallipoli. Second, when one makes the kind of observation that Christiane Amanpour made last night, it crosses the boundary, it seems to me, from journalism into being a commentator.
That the war in Iraq is a disaster is her opinion and, quite frankly, the facts on the ground don't support it. The dictatorship has been removed, and it's now on trial. They've had three elections. The first constitutionally elected government in all of the Arab world is now in power, and the Iraqi military is becoming increasingly effective. I don't know what her definition of victory --
O'REILLY: Well, I think she's talking about the chaotic terror bombings that occur on a daily basis with, you know, horrible casualties. I think that's what the woman is talking about, Colonel. And surely, you understand that there are analysts -- some of them do work for Fox and feel that the war is not going that well, and that the ultimate outcome is still in doubt.
NORTH: But they shouldn't describe themselves as the chief foreign correspondent when --
O'REILLY: No, I got that. I got that. I just want -- I want to let the viewers know that we don't have a slam-dunk victory there right now. OK --
NORTH: And Bill, I certainly understand that. But understand also: Everybody going out there, to include Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt, know covering a war is a very dangerous business.
O'REILLY: Absolutely, absolutely.
NORTH: And the hubris of a reporter saying now that one of us has been hurt -- 61 of them, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists has been killed in Iraq -- just because one of them has been hurt --
O'REILLY: Well, Ms. Amanpour clearly feels from her vantage point -- and she's been there as well, obviously, a brave woman, I must say -- clearly feels that this is not going well for the U.S.A.
[...]
O'REILLY: Colonel, do you believe that Ms. Amanpour, as Professor Byars does, has been a fair correspondent in this conflict?
NORTH: Well, quite frankly, no, I don't. And I think that her bias has been demonstrated consistently since -- actually the war, before it began. I mean, this is not a network, unfortunately -- and full disclosure here: My first paycheck in this business came from that network. But this is not a network that has an Ernie Pyle working for it. This is not a network that has Marguerite Higgins or Dickie Chapelle, who was killed with the Marines in 1965 covering the war in Vietnam.
From North's May 5 syndicated column:
The consequence of mainstream media hostility to this president and the Global War on Terror is to leave the American people woefully ignorant of what's really going on in places like Iraq and Iran and what our options are in either. So few American reporters venture forth outside the Baghdad Green Zone that good news from Iraq is virtually non-existent. Were it not for U.S., British and Australian military "bloggers," stories about battlefield successes -- like last week's counter-terror offensives in Al Anbar Province -- would be practically unknown to the outside world.
[...]
These are but a few of the non-military "options" available for dealing with the despots ruling in Tehran. They are unlikely to adversely affect the welfare of the long-suffering people of Iran. Regrettably, it's equally unlikely that the American people will see or read about them in the most Anti-American media on earth -- our own.
They won't leave the saftey of their studios.
She was in Iraq, how could you say she wont leave the studio?
Say what you want about her but she did go there.
She did go.
But I don't see her parading happy Iraq stories. These would be huge frontpage headlines on Fox. If she was there, she would have had plenty of opportunity to compile a ****load of joyous success stories. So where are they?
Ingraham did go. I don't think your average reporter had anywhere near the protection that Ingraham had though.
Ingraham likely wrote her reports about Iraq before she even went there. It was a complete waste of time anyway.
I agree though that she went, so it would be wrong to use it against her, but it is still like comparing apples and oranges.
but of course she wasn't embedded. Nevertheless just being there poses some danger. I was referring to the others, particularly the Fox on air bloviators and of course Rush Limbaugh. You know they have as MMFA said repeatedly attacked the imbedded journalists. I know you know that J.
I have seen embeded journalist attacked by the Conservatives. However please remember that Rush did go to Afghanistan.
Going to Iraq or Afghanistan however doesnt make one a better journalist or pundit.
Moron Tucker Carlson went down to New Orleans after Katrina but I dont think it made him more credible.
in the middle of the action and living with the troops does give you first hand experience and that in turn gives them the ability to report a more accurate and complete story. Limbaugh from the saftey of a military compound after the fighting was completed doesn't make him a war correspondent. Al Franken has done several USO shows in Iraq, he isn't a war correspondent either.
These cowards should do us all a nat'l service... take their entire operation to Iraq -- FOX News Iraq.
Karl Rove is the worst thing to happen to American politics since Aaron Burr.
"Attack the messenger" is the Troglodyte mantra. Of course they have to slime the reporters in Iraq, because those reporters will gradually reveal what a Cluster Foxtrot Puddinhead George has created over there.
Hannity make it thru boot camp in San Diego, without the Foxtapo guarding his heini.........or any of the other bozo's that polute cable news..........
Let me tell you something about Hannity and his website. I have been a forum member there, and I can tell you where all the chickenhawks are. Of course, if you even slightly impugn their beliefs, you're removed from the site. This site is where the sea of warmongers exist. Oh, but they love our valiant troops! Yet I'm quite sure most of them (Hannity included) have either never served, had a family member serve, or otherwise came anywhere near "harm's way". And this kind has the gall to criticize these reporters?
That the cowardly always question the courage of those whose actions have proved they're courageous? Is there no depth to which these people will not sink?
There IS no depth to which they will not sink. They are either so brainwashed or so greedy that they think the end justifies any means. They will not hesitate to lie, cheat, or steal to consolidate their political dominance. The fascists who now control our government are a bigger threat to our freedoms than Al Queda could ever be.
I wholeheartedly agree, Nerzog. Hopefully, you know who will keep out of this. Hopefully he got banned, again. Did you notice how more than 90 posts disappeared in that thread from yesterday?
I think the purpose of trolls like him is precisely that; divert the topic onto the personal level so that the thread is deleted. I try not to rise to the bait, but when those cretins make obviously false comments like that, it's hard to let it slide.
It's nice of everyone to stay "on topic". Why don't you guys call each other on the phone and voice your displeasure with someone's opinion.
Back on topic....
I get a chance to listen to Laura Ingraham, now that they replaced Glenn Beck with her, and I think she is very good at telling the truth. I've found you can tell when a conservative tells the truth because all the liberals complain about the truth being so upsetting to them. Does anyone else watch the news? Where do YOU see these reports coming from? I see a lot of "balcony reporting". Someone asked where her "nice Iraq" stories are? Well, you obviously don't listen to her show, because she talks about them frequently.
Sure Iraq is dangerous, haven't you watched the news lately? Apparently "Cluster Foxtrot Puddinhead George" has hired a bunch of murderus/child raping/women killing terrorists and convinced them to fight against our military so that he can have his retribution for what Saddam did to his dad. It's absolutely amazing that people (mainly lefties) clamor on and on about what Bush "created" over there and seem to give a "free pass" to what the murderous terrorists are doing there? I haven't heard one complaint about what bin laden has "created" over there. Sure makes you wonder why, and what side the lefties actually support.
--"I haven't heard one complaint about what bin laden has "created" over there. Sure makes you wonder why, and what side the lefties actually support."--
That quip -suggesting that progressives support al Qaeda- is even more offensive than Ingraham's.
You've furnished a classic example of why an intelligent, reasonable discourse with a right-winger is a fruitless exercise, and why remarks like that generate anger. But, of course, that's why they're said.
And, in true liberal form, while complaining of a conservative's statements you still did nothing to support your position that liberals blame bin laden for the troubles currently in Iraq. Well, do you?
What I hear from liberals is that Bush created a war based on lies and has put media personal in danger of being injured while covering a war that shouldn't be happening. Thus, the war is totally Bush's fault and bin laden is an innocent victim of circumstances. How far off, am I?
(which would imply that conditions are better there) and the reporters don't leave that area, you'd think it'd be inherent that their reports would be more positive, since conditions are better there. right? Do they really think reporters are going to get a lot of "good news" from a soldier who nearly just had his head blown off?
But of course there really isn't any good news happening in the fortress of the green zone either. The Frontline documentary on the "green zone" pointed out the irony behind the name. There's nothing green left--it's a maze of concrete and rubble--and it's still not difficult to get picked off by snipers even within the relative safety of the zone. The conservative commentators who accuse the reporters there of hiding in their hotel rooms are pretending that the green zone is club med.
journalists overemphasize reports of violence in Iraq because of their failure to visit areas of the country where "progress" is being made
Why is the word 'progress' in quotes? Do you people think that there might be at least some progress in Iraq?
Anyone who seriously thinks this smear site covers any real news needs to to a google search on Media Matters, and see who funds it. If there really is conservative media bias, it can't be filtered out with liberal propaganda.
Thanks for your input Mr. O'Reilly. Duly noted.
Those blasted quotation marks expose MMFA's diabolical agenda. Those fiends!
Sunni are leaving shia areas, Shia are leaving Sunni areas. Neiborhoods now have their own militia and road blocks in the worst areas. By AP's count 936 civilians died in May, untold wounded, although this figure is probably low. 20 to 50 bodies are found dead and tortured every morning. Th ex-defense minister walked off with a billion dollars or more. The middle class and educated are leaving Iraq in large numbers. Basra's city administration (aligned with Muqtada al Sadr) is threatening a slow work order to ship oil unless they get the petroleum minister appointment. Maliki just imposed a month long state of emergency bc Sunni, Shia, Marsh Arabs and other tribal feuds have created anarchy not to mention many unreported deaths. Basra was a "model" city at start of war. Our military is investigating Haditha, another shooting in which 8 children were killed (the BBC has footage of children with bullet wounds it seems our troops fired on a house that reportedly Al Qaeda in Iraq was at), and troops recently killed a pregnant woman being rushed to the hospital and her sister. You know how FOx news and the others exploit Natalie Holloway. Well think if you had the bullet ridden bodies of children and a pregnant woman. In the past when Zarqawi was sawing off heads, the % of Iraqis who thought it was ok to shoot at Americans was low, in the 30th percentile if memory serves. It is now at 80% in Sunni areas experts think. Maliki just lashed out at US yesterday. He stated that civilian killings by our troops is habitual. Tony Snow, Bush, and Dennis Hastert all spoke about the civilian deaths today. We are cooperating with Iraq on the investigations. What does that tell you? Please tell me some good news bc I need it.
Seriously, that's much more in depth than what I'm finding online.
I know that schools are opening up, and that the Iraqi police and military are getting stronger. The government is beginning to form, and hopefully, things will begin to stabilize. These things will not be done quickly, and reguardless of anyone's position on Iraq, we now have an obligation to finish the job. If we were to leave tomorrow, the hell you describe would be 10 times worse.
Civilian casualties are an unfortunate part of war. We should not judge our military, or the entire Iraqi war based on some instances of collateral damage. I know that many have already claimed that these were war crimes and massacres, but the jury's still out on that, and I'm willing to wait for the facts come out.
Since when are war crimes considered collateral damage? I think this really is Bill. Hey Bill, go suck a falafel.
I read Juan Cole's informed comment(he links to international press frequently), NYT's John Oneill, also read a few blogs by Iraqi themselves( an Iraqi dentist has a blog but I lost the link cant find it help anyone?), and washington post. I really dont know what the answer is. I do know things are not getting better. If this keeps up our troops will not be able to function at well. The worry is the supply line from kuwait can be cut off, at least interdicted easily, just need a combined will. Our troops keep open warfare from happening, ie several thousand Sunni militia men descending on Bagdad. But what is the plan here? Corruption is rampant and there is a power vacuum despite the new govt. This leaves militias, tribal chiefs, terrorists and criminals to fill that void. I have tried the right wing blogs but they are really a joke. Bash liberals for being weak and talk about the will to win. Almost no context in the lot of them. What is floating around on RW blogs is that powerful countries never unleash their full power bc they are constrianed morally. I read Global Guerillas but I dont know if that qualifies as right wing. GG has in depth tactics and strategy, sometimes technical but fascinating. PS the police and army are infiltrated by militias. The interior ministry carries out some of the worse atrocites against Sunnis.
Exactly how do you know this? Because Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity (who haven't been there either) said so.
Think about that.
Something tells me that no matter what happens to your posts, you will always be proven right (at least in your own mind).
--NORTH: "So few American reporters venture forth outside the Baghdad Green Zone that good news from Iraq is virtually non-existent."--
I believe the very fact that there IS a maximum-security Green Zone sort of belies the statement that there's tons of jolly "good news" outside of it. But if North, Fox & Co. believe it's safe, they ought to set an example by doing a week's worth of shows in Tikrit. Maybe they could conduct some man-on-the-street interviews.
Randy Meier an anchor from MSNBC was interviewed on the local radio yesterday (he has some ties to the Twin Cities as a former news anchor here). He acknowledged that there are good news stories that aren't getting the same coverage or are underreported mainly because the travel to get to these stories is so dangerous. The IEDs are a huge problem.
This is just a bogus dodge fabricated by Bush's apologists to distract us from what is really happening over there. Not reporting "good news" is just the way the news business has always behaved. If there's a 20 car pile up at an intersection with 12 fatalities, and the school located at that same intersection hires a new principal that day, which story gets the headline?
The Bush propaganda machine desperately wants us to look the other way while Bush's Iraq adventure slides into the muck. The reporters are just doing their jobs by showing us what's happening. When people are getting blown up everyday on the streets of Baghdad, it's more important news than how many Hershey bars they've passed out to Iraqi kids. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
If you really want to know what's happening over there, then you would welcome the good with the bad. "News" items are things out of the ordinary. If things are so bad or have been so bad for the past three years then good news would indeed be "newsworthy".
Yes, but kids going to school is not out of the ordinary. Kids were going to school before the war too. It is certainly good but it isn't news. I think Americans simply assume that, at the very least, we are trying to help the civilian population return to normalcy as much as possible.
In the context of a war, I think "good news" would mean news of advances made towards resolution of the conflict.
I haven't heard any liberals complaining about too much good news, have you? Conservatives, if they're interested in accuracy, should welcome the bad news with the good, should they not? Yet, they're the ones complaining that the press isn't covering all that "good news". Like what? Could it be that the bad news far outweighs the good news, but the Cons just can't force themselves to accept that painful truth?
I think the right has a point when they argue that some of the positive things in Iraq are underreported. Where I don't agree is when they say, as MMFA has noted here, that the reporters lack courage. I think that's entirely wrong to say that.
As for your post, while I certainly don't welcome bad news about my country, I expect that the truth about what is going on to be reported to the extent that it doesn't jeapordize our national security.
Have you ever watched the local news? It's all muders and house fires, etc. If there is a dedication of a new school or a 5 alarm fire which will get the focus?
Of course when you watch the local news then by definition you are living in that community so you can see the good things with your own eyes and experience what's going on around you.
Face it, I have read on these boards over and over about how nothing positive is happening over there and it has been a disaster in every way. I'm not saying it's good overall, I'm saying it's not ALL bad.
I am certain that there is something positive happening somehwere in Iraq as we speak, but the focus has to be on the issues that are PRECLUDING our departure from that mess. The electricity could be at 100% capacity, but if there are still killings happening around the clock and the country remains lawless with no FUNCTIONING authority that can take control that has to be the focus since that is what's keeping our troops there.
Let's take up a collection to fund a special unit made up of all these bravado-spewing, correspondent-slamming keyboard hawks.
We can probably scrape up a surplus M-113 that they can use to charge into the fray over in that scathole and give us the real story about what's going on.
Hell, they won't even need a military escort. I'm sure they'd all like to get their hands on grenade launchers and some full-auto toys and they'd probably cream their jeans at the thought of a group photo with a half-dozen grenades hanging off their shiny new web belts.
Ollie can fill two roles: he can be their unit leader and man the M-2 up on top.
Where do I send my dollar?
I'm in too. I think that O'Reilly should be the NONCOM because of his past combat experience. I'm sure they'd wrap this up PDQ.
"I think that O'Reilly should be the NONCOM because of his past combat experience."
-----
He's already a NONCOMPOOP.
The coservative bobbleheads want you to believe that the reporters lack the courage to leave the green zone and get the good news.
Back in March, CBS Baghdad correspondent Lara Logan lashed back at this very accusation:
[link to www.crooksandliars.com]
The bottom line, according to Logan, is that she knows of NO reporter in Iraq who would rather fester in a hotel room than go out and land stories. They simply cannot always get the security that they need in order to venture out. They ask the US Military to take them to where the good news is, but they are prevented from doing so because the military is afraid that broadcasting a success story will also make it a target for insurgents.
Conservatives are misleading, twisting, spinning and cherry picking in a desperate last gasp to put a smiley face on this war. Pathetic.
If anyone has any doubts as to just how physically and mentally strong the Iraq insurgency is, I recommend viewing this episode of Frontline:
[link to www.pbs.org]
But they do that to everyone. Please don't feel like you're being singled out. We're always willing to listen to opposing views. We can be pretty civil too. But when provoked, we'll resort to whatever tactics are used against us.
Always use these 3 words when writing to them ... "COWARD" "UNPATRIOTIC" and "TRAITOR" Let's give them a little of their own medicine ... as distateful as it is ... these words actually represent their ideology and positions correctly ... So time to get down and dirty.
I'll sit out, thanks.
I am a liberal and I believe there is absolute validity to 99.5% of what MMFA posts, but I simply cannot engage in this kind of activity.
More power to you though.
I don't want to beat those guys by becoming just like them. I like to feel (even if it may not always be true) that there is a real difference between how we act and how they act.
If we act civilly and argue reasonably, that should be enough to win over other reasonable people. If we act like the howling wolves than we will only attract other howling wolves and we will be thusly damned.
Of course, considering the dearth of reasonable people these days we are probably already damned anyway.
I suppose the frightened optimist in me would rather lose the good fight than win dirty like they often do.
Happy thoughts!
But you are not dealing with rational, reasonable people. These people believe everything that Rush Limbaugh says. They believe everything that Sean Hannity says. They still believe that invading Iraq was an act of self defense. They want to rid the country of liberals, because they believe liberals are evil. Being nice to them only convinces them that you're a panty waist; believe me, I've tried.
You will never win over those kinds of people. Why would you want such weak-minded people on your side anyway?
The other thing to consider is others who might read or listen to your arguments. Do you really care to win over people who are shallow enough to buy into name-calling and bullying?
If you do get such people to join your cause, it is forever diluted by their very presence.
I think the Democrats are bound to win in November due completely to Republican incompetence unless something drastic happens between now and then. There is no real need to try to appeal to unreasonable people who are drawn to such silly tactics. Even when the Democrats are likely to lose, it is better to avoid using Republican tactics.
This kind of reminds me of the steroid debate. If you knew that you would make it into a major league sport, would you cheat and take steroids or take your chances on your own natural abilities. The Republicans don't mind cheating. Is it really worth it, though?
In his tirade on O'Reilly's show North mentions the Saddam trial and the Iraqi elections. I seem to remember those things receiving very, very extensive media coverage here in the U.S.
I get a lot of my news from NPR during drive time, and I've heard numerous in-depth stories about both topics, as well as other so-called good news human interest stories about Iraq. I've heard stories about the military families and their hardships and stories about public works projects we're doing over there. Isn't NPR supposed to be "liberal"?
This whole notion that the coverage is skewed is another Rovian fabrication. They want nothing out of Iraq except controlled pro-Bush propaganda, and the fact that the lapdog press is defying them drives them up the wall.
How unpatriotic for a traitorous coward like Oliver North to do this.
The same thing happened during Vietnam. War correspondents were accused of being "anti-war" just for pointing out how the lies promoted by the military at their "Five O'Clock Follies" briefings diverged from the facts on the ground. In fact, the journalists were just trying to get the U.S. military to remedy their shortcomings. The one lesson from Vietnam we need to learn is how a no-win war fosters a culture of dishonesty and corruption within the military fighting it.
A good story is of the first big helicopter operation conducted by the U.S. in Vietnam. After hyping it to the max, and dragging journalists out into the jungle, the three-day operation achieved NEGLIGIBLE results. The VC had wisely evacuated the area, leaving the G.I.s to "conquer" empty ground. A military P.R. officer tried to put the best spin on this by saying there was no story worth reporting in this. But an old war correspondent corrected him: "The story I'm going to tell the folks back home is that the U.S. military just tried out its 'wonder weapon' that's supposed to win the Vietnam War--and it doesn't work!"
I'd like to recommend "Dispatches" by Michael Herr. He was one of a group of journalists who covered the grunts exclusively. He got to the truth of what Vietnam was all about.
That was chronicled in the film "We Were Soldiers"?
Just curious.
After all. They spend so much time and energy questioning the journalists' courage in Iraq. But no. They won't leave their compy air conditioned studios. But imagine if you had the likes of Gibson, Hannity, O'Reilly, Hume and Cavuto covering Iraq? I imagine a few of these clowns actually believe they are journalists! Hell. Let's give them some guns. Let's see how long they last without crapping in their pants.
The mere fact that it escapes Hannity, Ingraham, et al. that they are media is truly and hillariously ironic.
This is one thing that's bugged me about the right-wing pundits since this grudge match we call The War started. They're constantly talking about how there are no good news stories, yet they never report them either! Even when Ingraham was in Iraq, she didn't have anything new to tell us. So some schools got painted... so they got to vote... comparatively small considering all the death and mayhem taking place. For all the talk to something good, you have another story about tennis players being killed for wearing shorts, or Marines snapping under the pressure and killing innocents.
I fail to see how reporting about what's happening is—in and of itself—biased against the war or the administration.
So Sean and Laura, if you're so upset about the lack of reporting of "good news" out of Iraq, go cover it, and then report it. Remember, you're part of the Media machine! Taking this "outsider" position is ridiculous considering how many people listen to you daily!
Lovely Laura doesn't get it. Iraq is totally off the rails right now with unbelievably tragic results for the Iraqi people and American soldiers and their families. Of course she was embedded; God only knows what she was doing when she was embedded. The Cons and Neo-cons are doing the usual; working the refs so they can blame the media for "losing" the war when we bail. The fact is the media was principally responsible for getting over there when they bought the lies of Bushco about the "WMD's" and "Al-quaeda links." Remember Colin Powell's "convincing case" before the UN? I'll bet the NY Times has already forgotten it. The American people should ignore this whiny, draft dodging, self promoting group and keep the pressure on to get out....OH DAMN, I forgot, that's a decision for "future American presidents to make."
INGRAHAM: And it came to mind that wow, the Today show, think about, No. 1, how informative it would be, how interesting it would be, and what ratings they'd get if they actually did the Today show from one of our military bases in Iraq and got the kind of stories that reporters who have recently gone over to Iraq have gotten, that are a broader view, including the negative stuff "
Putting the Today Show at a secure military fortress isn't much better than the balcony of the hotel. Neither will give an adequate picture of what is going on in Iraq. The big stories should not be about the lives of the military from the bases which are islands of refuge with water, electricity, pools, Burger King and so forth which don't reflect the realities of Iraqi's lives. If everything is so great over there, why not put the Today Show in the streets Iraq?
I would think the most traitorous act one could perform would be to destroy one's country, or contribute to destroying one's country.
Who has done more to destroy our country (both here and abroad) than King George?
It is time you wised up to reality...During Vietnam less journalists were killed. That's like 1956 to 1973 vs 2003 to 2006. If Iraq was anywhere near secure, journalists would not be using stringers to get reports. Having embedded journalists is right next to communism! In Laura's reports I do not recollect but a few very limited sources other than , what I would call propaganda. Yes there is and has been good things happening, but until reporters can roam the country without being embedded, it can only be described as a totally unsecured country. If I remember correctly Larry Lindsay was fired for saying this conflict will cost us more than 200 billion, it is now approaching 400 billion with no end in site. General Shenseki was fired/his replacement was named 18 months before his retirement for speaking the truth that we will need more than 200 thousand of our troops to do the job. And now the General in charge of operations, now retired is ripping into the canning of the proper war plans for Iraq and replaced by neo-con ideology. I could probably write a book on the stupidity of Rumsfeld, et al, on this, I'm just very disappointed that W bought this hook line and sinker. But I will never forget the intelligence communities leaders that kowtowed to ideology in place of good intelligence. Watching W give out "Medals of Freedom" was A great slap in the face to all who have served in any form of intelligence gathering, and Colin Powell who had my greatest respect lost it all. An old saying goes one aw sh*t removes 1000 at a boys. The British set Iraq up back in the early 1920's, bringing the Kurds, Shia and Sunnis into one country was impossible then, and totally impossible today, Basra/southern Iraq is already being run by Islamic fundamentalists allied with Iran, and I will guarantee you that Shia law is rampant their. The Kurds will go their own way... I would go on, Hope you can study the history, and then you will finally come to the conclusion that the ideology behind this adventure is totally flawed. And as a final thought - until Congress declares war this is a police action or conflict, period end of discussion!
You're right, Iraq is not fully stable yet. It is a warzone, and reporters should understand that when they go there. We could discuss the politics of why we went there all day long, and we'd probably end up agreeing to disagree. The reality is, while we're trying to figure out if Bush lied or was misled, the war is continuing. The safety of news reporters should not be the sole indicator of how secure the country is, or how much progress has been made.
We are at a point now where we can't blame Bush for every single problem in Iraq (not that I love the man or all of his policies). Where's your outrage towards the insurgents/terrorists that are killing these reporters?
You think Iraq is such a wondeful place, why don't you take the family there for summer vacation? I hear they're even building a water park. Make sure to the American flag at all times so the Iraqis can thank you and George Bush for liberating them.
Thanks for the comprehensive rundown on the noise machine’s efforts to defame and slime Iraq war correspondents in Iraq. Ingraham, Hannity, and North are bad, no doubt about it, but they don’t hold a candle to syndicated right-wing radio lunatic Mike Gallagher. Here’s a couple of gems from Gallagher’s May 30 show:
Listen to the audio [link to guerrillanoises.blogs.com]
Soldiers are heroes, says Gallagher, not reporters. But Gallagher would get an argument from one who knows – the soldier who [link to www.cbsnews.com] his purple heart to Dozier because “she'd suffered as much as any soldier.”
Not sure why links didn't work.
Here's the audio link:
[link to guerrillanoises.blogs.com]
Here's the link to the quote:
[link to www.cbsnews.com]
He's a combat vet; just ask him. He was in several firefights in Central America and could even tell that people were shooting specifically at him (ask any soldier if the could tell that).