Bash persists with CNN's use of "surge"
Persisting in calling what President Bush is expected to propose in a January 10 prime-time speech a "surge," despite no indication that Bush's expected proposal will be for a short-term increase, CNN congressional correspondent Dana Bash reported on the January 8 edition of CNN's The Situation Room that Democrats "already said that they oppose a surge in U.S. troops to go to Iraq." Moments later, Bash reported that Democrats were considering "withholding funding for what they call an escalation of the war," suggesting that only the term "escalation" has political overtones, while "surge" does not.
But, as Media Matters for America documented, on the January 5 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider noted that the words "surge" and "escalation" imply different timeframes: " '[S]urge' sounds temporary. ... 'Escalation' sounds long-term." And as CNN correspondent Brian Todd noted later on the January 8 edition of The Situation Room, the administration has not said whether the proposed troop increase has a time limit: "What no one is saying, at the White House or the Pentagon, is how long the new American troops will stay." Yet, by continuing to label Bush's reportedly desired troop increase a "surge," CNN reporters are suggesting the proposal is for a short-term increase.
From the January 8 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BASH: Well, [host] Wolf [Blitzer], Democrats had already said that they oppose a surge in U.S. troops to go to Iraq, and what's happening now is what they're -- they're trying to figure out what to do about that.
And what we're hearing is something that had been unthinkable. Democrats are trying to figure out ways to say no to some or part of the $100 billion funding request for the war that they're expecting very soon.
[begin video clip]
BASH: Senate Democrats opposed to sending more troops to Iraq are now openly considering using a controversial congressional tool -- withholding funding for what they call an escalation of the war.
[...]
TODD: The president prepares to turn the corner. Sources tell CNN he'll line up at least 20,000 more troops for Iraq and will reaffirm his trust in the country's prime minister to go after those doing the sectarian killing.
What no one is saying, at the White House or the Pentagon, is how long the new American troops will stay.
ROMAN MARTINEZ (former Bush adviser): I don't think that it would be wise to announce a sort of a -- you know -- a surge of limited duration that allows everyone to know when the good guys are going to be leaving.
First this..........,
"And as CNN correspondent Brian Todd noted later on the January 8 edition of The Situation Room, the administration has not said whether the proposed troop increase has a time limit: "What no one is saying, at the White House or the Pentagon, is how long the new American troops will stay."
Then this.........,
Yet, by continuing to label Bush's reportedly desired troop increase a "surge," CNN reporters are suggesting the proposal is for a short-term increase.
Now do we like CNN, or not? I am confused.
No misinformation here right?
Who are we puny citizens to question it?
The point is are you, the liberal poster, supposed to be upset at CNN because of Bash's "surge" comment - or are you to be applauding them because of Todd's questioning how long the troops will stay?
CNN's business decision to approach this from both sides appears to be the correct one. I am not sure what "business decision" of theirs you were questioning?
If one correspondent uses loaded language to describe a news event on January 8, then it doesn't matter if a different correspondent said something different on January 5. Said correspondent still said what she said on January 8.
The whole point of this site is to catch the media when they screw up, either inadvertently or by design. You know this, Tommy.
Sometimes you just mail it in, man.
The point is you can cherry pick tidbits of "misinformation" all day long, from both sides. Unless you take a news organization or any media outlet in totality, then highlighting what fits your ideology is unfair.
Look, even this piece only highlights Bash's comments but does not give Todd's the same boldface. I felt it important to show both.
Manichean view of everything? Even if CNN were an absolute bastion of liberalism they could STILL be guilty of conservative misinformation or framing. No one is saying here that CNN is EEEvil. Only that THIS is misinfomative framing.
"Misinformative?" Good word; thanks. "Count that day lost, etc."
The problem is that twhen the media, or press--what shall we call it: "predia?", "mess?" Fourth Estate?--accepts the labels which this administration, or any administration, uses, it undercuts the scepticism which should be their default position. In so doing, they become an extension of the White House Press Office, rather than the People's watchdog. Let's take the most extreme example: in the spring of 2003 no broadcast or cable outlet I can think of resisted the Bush Administration's jingoistic title, "Operation Iraqi Freedom," when airing war-related stories. Well, this slanted the story at the outset. I'm not suggesting that they should have used my title of choice, "The Chicken Hawk War," but it seems to me that simply reporting on "The War in Iraq" would have been more responsible.
Republicans and their media megaphones understand the advantages of controlling language very well. They use and abuse language ("feminazis,") to short-circuit thought and evoke a Rorsarchian response. (I'd love to read the memo which discusses depriving the Democrats of their "ic." Are the Rovians extending their "we create new realities" idea to the language and seeking to brand their opponents, or do they feel threatened by the meaning of the word, "democratic," and wish to deprive us of the association? All of the above, probably.)
So it is important to parse the language. The Administration clearly wants no part of "escalation," with its Vietnam implications. Understandable. But what do they mean by "surge?" Twenty thousand troops, short term, might more accurately be called a spurt. To be effective you'd probably have to put in three to five times that number, long term. That would be a "storm surge." But the time is long past, if it ever even existed, when that would have been effective. Gary Hart put it very well in yesterday's Huffifngton Post, callin this talk of a surge Bush's "... almost demented insistence that the U.S. military could put the lid back on a 1300 year old Islamic struggle that he himself had ignorantly removed. "
"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/a-surge-of-constitutional_b_38211.html
I'll only leave the troops in a little bit. I'll pull them out right away, swear to God.
to put some body armor on them.
Could be SQUASHED!!
Thanks to Senator Ted Kennedy, MY Senator BTW :-)
Well ok, I usually write nasty stuff about him...BUT today I'm PROUD to have him representing Massachusetts!
Read & Smile:
WASHINGTON (CNN)Sen. Edward Kennedy launched a pre-emptive strike on Tuesday against President Bush's anticipated plans to send more troops to Iraq.
The Massachusetts Democrat introduced legislation to require congressional approval before force levels can be increased, more than a day before the president is expected to propose such an increase.
[link to www.cnn.com]
I, too, have never really been a fan of ol' Ted... But, this is good! I especially like... "the mission of our armed forces today in Iraq bears no resemblance whatever to the mission authorized by Congress."
And, that is the truth. Whoever voted for the invasion way back were sold a bill of goods.
I'm smiling and supporting the Kennedy Legislation. Thanks for all those great Links to WebSites!
Sam I Am
YES!
Democratic Legislators are looking for a way to Surgically Cut the Specific Budget for Implementing an Escalation of Troops.
This would not in any way harm the current budget for existing troops. Blocking money will be risky but I hope they can figure a way to do it.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said senators are working on a nonbinding resolution opposing more troops, and he said several Republicans are likely to support it.
Bush will just ignore a non-binding resolution!
As soon as I see Jenna and Barbara in fatigues.
As soon as I see Jenna and Barbara in fatigues.
- worrierking
That would be the proposed "binge" in troops. Hoping the "binge and surge" works better than "shock and awe".
The rhetoric and the word-play is fast and furious at this hour... for both the hack "media" and the political interests they serve, the bull is being slung fast and furious at this very hour.
Just now, the NYT web page goes with it's Top Story...
"Troops Sent in Surge to Have Limited Role, Bush Aide Says"
Boy, that's a use of the word "surge" now, isn't it...
Those troops aren't simply being proposed to go to Iraq, or even to just being in the U.S. Armed Forces...
They're in a SURGE, those Troops are... they're now officially SURGE TROOPS!
You ever heard of SHOCK TROOPS?
You know what they are?
Well, that's what SURGE TROOPS are I guess... they're SHOCK TROOPS!
But it's unclear to me just who it is that's supposed to be "shocked" by these Troops being proposed to be sent to Iraq... just who it is that's supposed to be "shocked" by this "surge"...
The "insurgency" in Iraq?
Or the American People, who's Sons and Daughters it is, whom these Troops are? (and who have resoundingly registered they're disapproval of Iraq, and of the president, in the recent election)
Or those American People's true agents, their Senators and Representatives in Congress? (newly-elected or otherwise)
That's what the SURGE TROOPS are...
SHOCK TROOPS!
But just who's supposed to be "shocked" by this "surge" isn't exactly clear...
I guess we'll have to watch as this madness plays out, to know for sure.
Is it just me, or anyone else...
Do you find that looking at the face of the hack who's picture accompanies this item... the hack named bash...
Does it hurt your sinuses too, to look at her face?
Or is it just me?
I was up very late sending messages to Legislators and to News Outlets to Cancel the Escalation and to demonstrate some Balance on the coverage of the Escalation.
We must all invest some time to produce an effect on this crucial issue.
Send your Demands to the News Outlets and Legislators.
Tell them to be Fair and Balanced.
Tell them to answer the call of the people to stop this Escalation.