CNN reported Army's recruiting goal without noting previous CNN report on new recruiting incentives
During the August 7 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, guest host Suzanne Malveaux reported: "The Pentagon says for the first time in two months the U.S. Army expects to meet its recruiting goals. Initial tallies show the Army with 9,000 new recruits for July." Malveaux did not report, however, that a change in Pentagon policy may have assisted the Pentagon in meeting these numbers. CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr reported on the July 30 edition of The Situation Room that "the Army has been having trouble signing up new recruits. So, it has got a new idea: a $20,000 bonus if you sign up and you agree to ship out for training within 30 days." A U.S. Army statement dated August 2 said:
The new bonus was one of the initiatives highlighted by Army and Defense Department leaders who testified before the military personnel subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee yesterday about recruiting and retention efforts in the Army. The Army missed its active-duty recruiting goals in June for the second month in a row, but leaders said they are confident the service will make year-end recruiting goals.
An August 4 Chicago Tribune article reported that the Army had begun giving $20,000 "Q.S. bonuses," short for "quick-ship," 10 days earlier. The Tribune added that in March, the Army first offered "$15,000 bonuses for soldiers who agreed to a quick training and deployment schedule," but "as the future of the U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan becomes more uncertain and conditions for soldiers fighting those battles grow more trying, the Army has had to raise the offer."
Media Matters for America has documented examples of media hyping previous Pentagon statements that recruiting goals were met or exceeded without noting changes in Pentagon policies that helped achieve such results (here and here).
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the August 7 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
MALVEAUX: The Pentagon says for the first time in two months, the U.S. Army expects to meet its recruiting goals. Initial tallies show the Army with 9,000 new recruits for July. Official numbers will come on Friday.
From the 7 p.m. ET hour of the July 30 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
WOLF BLITZER (host): The U.S. Army is stretched thin and facing new recruiting problems, but it may have come up with a solution. Let's go to our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr -- Barbara.
STARR: Wolf, the Army's been having trouble signing up new recruits. So, it's got a new idea: a $20,000 bonus if you sign up and you agree to ship out for training within 30 days. It applies not to just new recruits, but soldiers who may have gotten out of the Army and want to come back in.
The Army's been trying this out at some recruiting stations in Ohio. It's worked so well that within the next few days, they're going to announce that the program has gone nationwide. And being the military, they have a name for it all. That $20,000 bonus, it's called the "quick shipper" bonus. Thirty days to training, and then most likely on to Iraq or Afghanistan -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Barbara Starr, reporting for us from the Pentagon. Thank you, Barbara.
Wow, maybe I should sign up.
Why don't ya? If you support the war and the "surge" (and you are under 40). If you believe military= good then don't you also want to be good and join them? You would really be helping take the place of a shell-shocked soldier who wants to see their family again.
If no; is this country not good enough for your service? And then wouldn't that make you a totally hypocrite?
I mean I'm just asking.
The incentives that the military is currently providing has given me pause to think about joining. Were I single again, I'd probably have already done so.
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.
Ok, I'm confused what does CNN reporting Army's recruiting goal without noting previous CNN report on new recruiting incentives have to do with Conservative MIS-information or anything else in MMFA's stated mission?
Unless MMFA is saying the Military is only Conservative?
The conservative agenda that's being forwarded in this case is that the Army is able to meet its goals without mentioning the qualifier that they had to increase their bonuses to do so.
Did you actually read what MMfA had to say about this?
"Media Matters for America has documented examples of media hyping previous Pentagon statements that recruiting goals were met or exceeded without noting changes in Pentagon policies that helped achieve such results."
That's why this is here.
So you're saying the Army is a Conservative organization?
If not, I'll ask again. What does this have to do with Conservative MIS-information? Or Conservative anything.
Jeter, The army is an American organization. The problem is some of the left bloggers have made the military equal conservatives. That is of course wrong thinking.
The problem is some of the left bloggers have made the military equal conservatives.
SueEld,
That's it exactly.
I'm surprised MMFA would include this here as it only lends to the charge that Liberals are Anti-Military. Which of course they're not.
Sueeld you are right, no one political group supports or is opposed to our military, We are all Americans. This story should not be on this site.
Correct me if I am wrong, Jeter, but I think the reason this is here is that CNN reported the army made its goals without reporting possibly why. CNN, in my opinion, should have connected the dots and mentioned the incentive program when mentioning the Army making its goals.
I hope I am reading that right.
Ok, but why is it conservative misinformation instead of plain-old shabby reporting?
Gotcha, good question. I am guessing because the conservative media outlets have been stating that the army is in good shape and meeting its goals, but I am not sure either.
Fried,
I think this truly classifies as a legitimate reason to ask= Why Is This Here?
Well it may be here because of someones anti war feelings. They should have nothing to do with support of our military.
I agree, an explanation would be very helpful!
Although it doesn't seem to be a cut and dried case of conservative misinformation, to me it seems that CNN, by ignoring the increased signing bonuses) is trying to push the neo-conservative story that the war is more popular than it actually is.
And the media and many conservative organizations have been trying to paint the military and veterans as mostly conservative Republicans.
I know many conservatives who themselves are not vets but they assume that anyone who is a vet is a conservative.
I'm not sure where this comes from. Whether from the media or not, but I find it happens pretty often.
You're making a baseless assumption by implying that CNN is pushing an neo-conservative agenda by reporting recruiting numbers.
You're also showing your true stripes. Military = bad.
Sorry pal you're showing everyone that you're an ass.
I'm a Vietnam Vet.
Worrierking, that was priceless:-)
Not exactly on topic but I found this on www.huffingtonpost.com.
Romney: No Army For My Sons...They Show Patriotism By "Helping Me Get Elected"
Funny coming from a party that questions patrisiom when you dare to verbally disagree with their policy.
Thankyou for the link. I think it is relevant. They all are war mongering but only want someone else to do the fighting and dying for them.
Thank you Pearlene.
I think your post is very much on topic.
We have a candidate who supports both this war and the administration that insisted this war was necessary.
Most in the administration, made the same or similar choices that Romney and his sons have made, which is to be in favor of wars as long as someone else does the fighting and the dying.
Worrierking, Mitt and those "young republicans" who are "showing their support" for the war by getting their degrees or "helping get their father elected" and pardon my french some other bull s**t story. I cannot believe Republican candidates who go around this nation telling us why it's OK for our sons and daughters to dodge ieds and bullets daily and endlessly but please accept that my sons are showing their support by traveling in cushy air conditioned motor homes. Are they blind or do they honestly think were stupid?
You're also showing your true stripes. Military = bad. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There was no such implication in his post, YOU are a liar.
Although it doesn't seem to be a cut and dried case of conservative misinformation, to me it seems that CNN, by ignoring the increased signing bonuses) is trying to push the neo-conservative story that the war is more popular than it actually is.
King, you could be correct, but I still think that's a stretch. And there's no evidence that CNN is pushing any agenda on this. It could classify [as someone wrote earlier] as simply shabby reporting.
I agree. Although I'm suspicious, there's no evidence of them pushing an agenda but plenty of evidence that they're getting more sloppy in their reporting.
Exactly.
MMFA does not assert that CNN is deliberately short-changing this report. They're simply saying that this report is not thorough, and thus is not credible.
The WITH Patrol needs to have this explained to them on a daily basis. I'm doubtful it will ever sink in.
Wrong Pete.
Read MMFA's mission statement.
No where do they claim to point out shabby reporting or reporting that is not thorough--UNLESS it furthers the Conservative agenda.
This does not.
This has nada to do with Conservative MIS-information, or furthering the Conservative agenda.
Unless you think the Military is only Conservative?
Is it not the conservative position that the war is going splendidly and our military is in wonderful shape and ready to meet any and all challenges?
If not, then you're right.
Jeter, Army recruiting numbers have definitely been at the center of the Iraq debate. A Google search should turn up many articles and statements on the subject. Read this recent article from Newsbuters from a recent example of the conservative view.
One of the arguments of war opponents is that the Iraq war is having a negative impact on the quality of our military. The Army's troubles with recruiting quality candidates has been offered as one item of evidence of that. Reporting of the recruiting numbers without full context undermines the argument, even if unintentionally.
Does that connect the dots sufficiently?
You are missing the point. By playing up the recruiting success without aknowleging the lengths gone to achieve it these MEDIA not military talkers are implying a support for the war itself which isnt really there. IF this were a war America believed in then they wouldnt have to offer huge bonuses they would have all the enlistees they wanted like in WW2. THAT is the point nothing to do with the military being conservative
I think the conservative agenda may be not that the military is conservative but that those who have weakened our military and attempt to obscure that are conservative (this administration). We have lower recruitment, less training and longer deployments in an overextended military. That is the fault of this administration and the attempts to pretend it is not happening is part of the agenda of this administration that has an inability to face reality and work to fix the problem in a way that will not cause further harm (such as fast tracking training and deployment) IMHO (-:
When are they going to report on the broken lives from those "quick ships" over to Iraq? The dead and the maimed, the endless rotations and the broken families? The daily horror of life in Iraq? When are the reporters going to tell these young men and women what they are signing their lives away for?
Every week, it seems, I talk to someone who has a family member or friend suffering from PTSD.
Not on the news. No, it's all press releases and reports from the military public relations machine.
You have adequately answered tommy's whine: this subject is conservative mis-information because the speaking end of the military, the administration public relations, is conservative, and full-time serving the conservative agenda (while lying "to support the troops").
If this issue were examined objectively, the question would be "can we raise a sufficient force to even defend our troops on their way out of Iraq, given the blundering and lying that the administration has perpetrated upon that force already?"
Of course, an as-yet unseen aspect of the recent recruiting "success" is the wholesale induction of the Crips, the Bloods, and all the Hispanic gang members in the Southwest. Unseen, at least, in the Corporate Media, for who wants to admit that the only way to get fresh bodies is to arrest them? Who wants to wonder how we deal with whole armed units consisting solely of one or another gang's members? Do we envision, truthfully, all these recruits working well throughout their enlistment, then returning peacefully to civilian life?
Or do we see a corruption of our military, with eventual treaties among the gangs, dividing the rest of us for victimization?
WHY IS THIS HERE? Because the so-called Conservative politicians, military bass and enablers in the press have consistently tried to paint a rosy picture of this invasion/civil war. Nothing to see here, only that recruitment goals are being met. Now they're taking anyone...one mother here in Oregon had to get a newspaper article printed to get the army to release her son from the contract he signed without her knowledge...he is mentally challenged and she begged the army to consider what they were doing. Without the publicity he would be in Iraq by now.
they've already enticed poor teenagers with no prospects, dangling dollars and prospective college education in front of them...No death, no dying, no despair; why, things are looking up!
30 days is insuffient time to properly train an infantryman (regardless of sexual identity). A conscientious news organization might find a fine story of two investigating this.
I'm going to hate myself for appearing to defend the recruiting, BUT: the 30 days is not pre-Iraq, it is pre-training. Training will still take as long as usual, although certainly not long enough to find uniforms and weapons and equipment for all the recruits.
I've heard different. but I suspend any feeling of surity on the training time issue.
Has anyone told CNN that they are just another right-wing tool for the neo-cons?
Who's next? the NYT? MSNBC?
Anyone who actually believes CNN leans to the right probably believes Marx was a conservative.
"Anyone who actually believes CNN leans to the right probably believes Marx was a conservative."
Correction: Anyone who actually believes CNN leans to the right has been paying attention. Happy to help you out there.