If the media is liberal, why are they reporting the positive outcome of last night's attack in Iraq?

Question

I thought they only reported on the negative sides of the war? Is it possible that there just aren't that many positives to report on?

del, your answer is like a shell game. But you haven't fooled me

well, all I heard yesterday was about the death of al-Z, so I guess EVERYONE reported on it. You reading into it as negative (because I didn't hear anything negative, only realistic) is your opinion. I do not share your opinion. That doesn't make me closed-minded, just sure of how I feel. And I didn't have to watch Fox News to get the fair and balanced report, just good old NPR

Answer 1

They are only allowed so many lies about Bush in a given week. Didn't want to reach their quota on Wednesday. :P

Answer 2

No, its just the second biggest news since the end of the war. The negative side usually gets more ratings. But this like the capture of hussein will get even better ratings.

Answer 3

This is a fact that can't be ignored. The liberal bias is found in how the fact is reported.

Ask yourself: Is the "good news" partially or substantially undermined by the reporting of other 'facts' - some not directly related to the main story?

The first reports I heard made sure to include "the fact" that a woman and child were also killed. Reporters like including the phrase "SAFE house" since it wasn't safe at all. I can't wait till the emphasis shifts a little more and we start reading about how it was someone's home that was bombed. Or the moral indignation rises that we were following Z's 'spiritual advisor', [implication - what happened to religious freedom].

The first article I looked at after reading your question was mostly positive - but it adds unrelated (except for -- BIG STRETCH -- a timing coincidence) bad news:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060608/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_al_zarqawi

>> Around the time news reports announced al-Zarqawi's death, two bombs hit a market and a police patrol in Baghdad, killing at least 19 people and wounding more than 40. Police differed on whether the bombs struck shortly before or after the 10:30 a.m. news. Later, a parked car bomb exploded in north Baghdad, killing six people and wounding 15. <<

The implication we are to take from this is that killing Z really won't make any difference at all. The violence goes on and on.

In the next article, the author at least admits [*yes, anyone can make implications through word choice] he is editorializing [doesn't analysis 'sound' more positive than editorialize?] right [* - it is right in the headline, but the way I phrased it, makes it sound like an accusation, doesn't it?] in the headline:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq_the_big_question;_ylt=Asx1.LlzRhEcWuTVfJDrw71X6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

>> Analysis: al-Zarqawi death boosts Iraq rule By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer

>> The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may provide a much-needed morale boost to Iraq's new government. But it is unlikely to end the country's brutal insurgency.

Instead, the death of the most visible and feared terror leader in Iraq simply may give the United States and its Iraqi allies another brief chance to build some momentum toward stability and away from violence.

If the effort stumbles, then al-Zarqawi's death may in the end have no more impact on the insurgency than the capture of Saddam Hussein. <<

You see, this "positive outcome" is being invalidated/undermined within just about every sentence.

Instead of 'providing' a morale boost, the reporter says it only "MAY provide" a morale boost.

Then he says that, in the end, any morale boost really means nothing because Z's death is >> unlikely to end the country's brutal insurgency. (Do you hear an echo yet? - the liberal spin - read between the lines -- is that the insurgency will NEVER end. The difference when the president says, >> We have tough days ahead of us in Iraq. <<

instead of being able to simple say >> (The air strike) delivered justice to the most wanted terrorist in Iraq<<,

is that the Prez is expressing his belief in a positive outcome eventually

Because of past ongoing press bias (blowing out of proportion his 'victory' speech), he has always remember to stress that the war is not over, that we have a long tough road still ahead, and that, in the end, we, the outsiders, like parents of teens, have to hope that all we've done 'will take', & the Iraqis will have been given the means to take control of their own lives/country. [They won't need us anymore. They may even, like teens struggling for their own independence, dislike us intensely for awhile.]

Exhausting, isn't it? What happened to that positive glow of accomplishment? Crushed by the mentality of - never good enough -- putting 'our side' constantly on the defensive from within.

If the Prez doesn't list all the potential negatives, he's denounced as a pollyanna and pictures of him in a flight jacket declaring victory are evoked by the press.

[Negative thinking, negative results. Self fulfilling prophecies. We would have lost WWII if we had the press then that we have now. Imagine (if they had tv then) putting the pictures of all who had died 'as their pictures become available' as PBS does at the end of the The Newshour. They probably wouldn't have run out of pictures before the next night's newscast. Do you think, just maybe, that might have sapped the morale of the people on the home front? ]

The "positive accomplishment" is belitteld at every turn:
>> SIMPLY [implication: it may have taken forever to accomplish (what was a biggie in the negative column until it WAS accomplished) but now that it is accomplished, we're told it really wasn't a biggie: there won't be any synergistic, concomitant, accretive, add-on effects - it was 'simple'] MAY [implication: in fact, there may be no positive end result at all] give the United States and its Iraqi allies[it's just the US and Iraqi's - the contributions of other allies are swept aside] ANOTHER [ implication: we must have blown other chances] BRIEF [implication: hey this may have taken a long time to accomplish, but it's just a flash in the pan, ephemeral] chance [implication: dream on] to build some momentum [implication 1: it's too much to hope that we might actually get stability, implication 2: there is no stability anywhere in Iraq already] toward stability and away from violence<<

>> If the effort stumbles, <<
Thousands of our guys killed on D-Day, trying to get a toehold in Europe. Imagine a news analysis the day after D-Day that had the words, 'if the effort stumbles'. I wouldn't be surprised if "treason", "Nazi sympathizer", "how dare he?" didn't spring into the minds of the mythical readers.

>>have no more impact on the insurgency than the capture of Saddam Hussein <<

How soon we forget. How bad was the insurgency before Saddam Hussein's capture anyway? When captured, did Saddam look as if he was in control of or running anything, much less an insurgency? If not, is this comparison valid in anyway? Or is it used merely to bolster the faulty [* we don't know this yet, but hey, what's an adjective here and there?] premise that nothing has really changed?

Try this test. Next time there is positive news. Write down your thoughts about it before hearing more than the 'bare bones'. A week later, after being told by the press what to think about it, write down your impressions again. Go back and read what you thought initially and compare it to your later take.

**********************************************************************

I don't understand how my answer is a shell game.

I took two articles that I found on your chosen subject and tried to show you how the words used to present the news gave a slanted view of it.

I even critiqued my own statements - pointing out how the words that I used could be seen to create a slanted view.

I asked you to try an experiment wherein you could check for yourself, by yourself, if the way the news was presented over one short week had an effect on your initial perception of 'the facts'.

I didn't hear a whole lot about the 'good news' in the following story. Did you?

It seems to me that there must have been an awful lot of good 'human interest' stories that led to this success. I don't recall hearing about any? Did you?

http://indymedia.us/en/2006/02/14649.shtml

"To the courageous men and women of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, who have changed the city of Tall Afar (Iraq) from a ghost town, in which terrorists spread death and destruction, to a secure city flourishing with life"? ....

To those who spread smiles on the faces of our children and gave us restored hope, through their personal sacrifice and brave fighting, and gave new life to the city after hopelessness darkened our days and stole our confidence in our ability to reestablish our city."

I'd quote more here, but I now don't think you were actually inviting a serious discussion. If I've mistaken your answer to me, and you really are openminded, check out the link. And ask yourself, why haven't I heard about this?

Is it possible that there are other towns in Iraq with similar success stories?

There's an old saying: Good news doesn't sell papers.

Answer 4

Ah, finally a smart question.

Answer 5

Last night's attacks were a big deal....they are liberal not stupid