Echoing Cavuto's baseless criticism of Haditha coverage, Thomas blamed media for covering -- and not covering -- violence in Iraq
SUMMARY: On Fox News Watch, syndicated columnist Cal Thomas complained of "an imbalance" in the media coverage of the alleged killings of Iraqi civilians by U.S. Marines in Haditha, Iraq, because "[e]very time we see one of these atrocities ... we never hear much about the atrocities of the other side. Certainly not by name, certainly not the killing of women and children and innocent people on the other side." But Thomas has previously alleged that the media focus too heavily on the violence in Iraq and that public opposition to the war in Iraq is a direct result of such reporting.
On the June 3 edition of Fox News' Fox News Watch, syndicated columnist Cal Thomas complained of "an imbalance" in the media coverage of the alleged killings of Iraqi civilians by U.S. Marines in Haditha, Iraq, because "[e]very time we see one of these atrocities ... we never hear much about the atrocities of the other side. Certainly not by name, certainly not the killing of women and children and innocent people on the other side." But Thomas has previously alleged that the media focus too heavily on the violence in Iraq and that public opposition to the war in Iraq is a direct result of such reporting.
For instance, on the August 20, 2005, edition of Fox News Watch, Thomas suggested that the media's mentality in covering Iraq and the war on terror is that "[i]f it bleeds, it leads." Thomas complained that such coverage provided "an incomplete picture" and argued for more coverage of "[p]ositive things" in Iraq. He concluded:
Now, look: "If it bleeds, it leads" might be fine for the local crime story, but this is a world war. It seems to me the media have a responsibility, a journalistic responsibility, to inform the people fully so they can make up their own minds.
More recently, Thomas has articulated a similar argument. On the March 18 edition of Fox News Watch, media writer Neal Gabler commented that "we're on the verge of civil war, it hasn't turned out the way it was supposed to have turned out, the casualties have been enormous. This is not good." Thomas responded by suggesting that the media's coverage of Iraq focused excessively on the negative and that such coverage was eroding public support of the war, stating it was "incumbent upon" President Bush "to tell more of the story." Thomas argued that Iraqi insurgents "think they're winning when they read polls and they see the American media coverage" is "discouraging" the public.
Thomas' contradictory complaints about the media's coverage of Iraq echoed those made by Fox News host Neil Cavuto, who argued on May 31 that the media were "bias[ed]" for covering insurgent attacks, but complained on June 1 that the media are "bias[ed]" for covering the Haditha allegations while providing "virtually no coverage" of insurgent attacks.
From the June 3 edition of Fox News Watch:
JANE HALL [Fox News contributor and weekly panelist on Fox News Watch]: Well, I think we are. And let me make what may sound like an opposite point, or a conservative point, which is: We've got -- what -- 130,000 troops over there? I do think that the United States military is held to a higher standard, and I think the media need to put this story in context, however it comes out.
THOMAS: Every time we see one of these atrocities -- and they are, if they're true, atrocities -- we never hear much about the atrocities of the other side. Certainly not by name, certainly not the killing of women and children and innocent people on the other side. That is an imbalance.
From the August 20, 2005, Fox News Watch:
THOMAS: Does the media go out and take these polls, the polls are based on perceptions of the people who are getting their news from The Washington Post, New York Times, and the major television media. If it is an incomplete picture, then their opinions cannot be fully formed.
There were 700 embedded journalists at the beginning of this war; there are only about three dozen right now. And what prompted this AP consideration was a lot of soldiers coming back and telling their relatives that they were doing and seeing things and the relatives were saying, "Wait a minute, we never read that in our newspaper."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Positive things.
THOMAS: Positive things. Building schools, handing out candy to kids. Now look: "If it bleeds, it leads" might be fine for the local crime story, but this is a world war. It seems to me the media have a responsibility, a journalistic responsibility, to inform the people fully so they can make up their own minds.
From the March 18 Fox News Watch:
GABLER: Absolutely. Let's face it: Even now, this is not a stellar moment in the history of media coverage. This is going to rank with the Spanish-American War.
But in the ramp-up to the war, they were cheerleaders. They did not ask tough, hard questions. For the first two and a half years of the war, they virtually bought the Bush line, hook, line, and sinker. And believe me, there are a lot of mea culpas that ought to be issued out there, especially by the right-wing press.
But lately -- I mean, it is -- it is undeniably, except being denied by Bush and [Defense Secretary Donald H.] Rumsfeld and [Vice President Dick] Cheney -- this war is a disaster. And there is no way that the press -- to the extent it can cover the war, which is very difficult for them to do -- can say anything other than the fact that we're on the verge of civil war, it hasn't turned out the way it was supposed to have turned out, the casualties have been enormous. This is not good.
THOMAS: The president should be reminding the public, and we should be reminding ourselves, that the media war is an important component in [Al Qaeda leader] Osama bin Laden's strategy, and those who are insurgents in Iraq. It's fine for the president to say that -- what he just said in that sound bite. But what is he doing to counter it with information that proves his point?
He ought to be having Iraqis over here. He ought to be having Kurds praising the United States. He should have had the mayor of Tal Afar, who wrote this incredible letter -- I think I'm the only columnist that wrote about it -- praising the troops and thanking them for liberating his town. Where are the pictures? Where are the people who are benefiting?
GABLER: Yeah, but -- but Cal, you're talking about PR.
THOMAS: I am.
GABLER: We're talking about reporting.
THOMAS: No. No. Well, but he's saying -- he's making the case that basically one side of the story has been told. It's incumbent upon him to tell more of the story, if there's one to tell.
GABLER: On him, but not on reporters.
THOMAS: Well, them, too.
[...]
THOMAS: Once again, Osama bin Laden has said that Vietnam, "Black Hawk Down," Lebanon, all of this stuff is his model. And General [Vo Nguyen] Giap, of course, from North Vietnam, said, "We knew we couldn't win the war on the ground. We had to use the American media to undermine the resolve of the American people." Three years is nothing. They think they're winning when they read polls and they see the American media coverage going discouraging on us.
There must be some kind of memory-affecting chemical in the Grecian Formula, copier toner or whatever it is that Cal uses to achieve that coal-black sheen for his hair and eyebrows.
Or maybe he's just contracted that "makes new friends everyday" condition that afflicted his idol Ronnie Raygun before he started his second term.
THOMAS: “Wait a minute, we never read [Positive things. Building schools, handing out candy to kids] in our newspaper.”
Thomas displays just how out of touch he is with the situation in Iraq. I keep having to refer back to Lara Logan of CBS and her excellent response to the whole rightwing “where’s the good news?” campaign. She said that the military will not take them to report on things like building schools, reactivated power stations or water sources, BECAUSE IT WOULD TURN THEM INTO INSURGENT TARGETS. What is it going to take to get this through to the thugs sitting in the studios at Fox that the security situation in Iraq dictates what journalists can and cannot report?
THOMAS: ”There were 700 embedded journalists at the beginning of this war; there are only about three dozen right now.”
Citing this fact is just plain stupid. At the beginning of this war, there were huge armored convoys of US forces tearing a path across a wide open area of desert. Today, there are small patrols in cramped city streets where enemies could be hiding anywhere. There is a huge difference between open desert warfare and urban warfare, thus the difference in the level of security that can be provided and assured for journalists.
There were "700 embedded journalists at the beginning of this war; there are only about three dozen right now' is that at the time we were using the journalists as used war salesmen. They did their job well. Now after the war was sold to the public, this administration has bungled the prosecution of the war and the subsequent occupation. Now they've turned over the job to the PR people to try to distract attention from their abortion. Now we'll take care of the really important things. Like whipping everyone into a frenzy about illegal immigration, an amendment to ban gay marriage and an amendment to ban flag burning. There's still the nationwide debate on intelligent design. Just because a small town in PA wasn't able to get away with it, doesn't mean they can't try a nationwide anti-evolution rally.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
Then these two clowns make sense.
give up and drop their arms -- like that will happen -- perhaps we could make the call on which insurgents are committing "atrocities of the other side". Of course I hear about IED's and shootings almost every day. And why does it matter what the "hordes" of Islam do? Should not we "good" Christians behave in a more -- I don't know -- Christian manner? No matter what side of the political spectrum you are on, this we should all agree on, "don't shoot unarmed civilians. Especially, women and children. Look the soldiers have a difficult, horrible job to do -- courtesy of Bush Co. -- however, if you really support the troops you should be all over this. Events like this will make more Iraqis less likely to support anything we do and will undermine the public confidence in the military. Both of which could easily be a major issue for the Iraq campaign. For too long we have ignored the stress on soldiers and the lousy record of this administration in following the Constitution, any law really, and any accords that were entered into by us internationally. This is the result and unfortunately the soldiers will pay for this, but we must make sure that those higher up who made this situation possible pay as well.
... this, whenever things aren't going my way, and the NEWS is both true and critical of bad Republican policy, this means that Osama is happy.
Understand what Cal (and hundreds of other rightwing drones) is saying: The FAILURE in Iraq is not Bush's fault. It's not the ill-concieved, poorly planned, and disasterously executed DECISIONS made by the Administration. No siree. Instead, it's the MEDIA COVERAGE which is causing the disaster.
Guess what, Cal? Kiss my butt. If you refuse to accept responsibility, that's fine. But spare us your victim's whining about how unfair the REAL NEWS is to your guy Bush. The news is BAD because the POLICY is bad, and the leadership is bad. It's called REALITY.