What is losing the war is the idiot in the Whitehouse! This is not the first war that the media has reported, nor will it be the last!
The media is not the one being the "Decider", it is mearly a scapegoat!
Lets look at the facts,
#1 The media is right of center, not liberal!
#2 The media is not the one leaking information- it is those in charge that are telling the media what the military is going to do- often before they tell the military!
#3 The media showing up at raids, or being there before the military is not their fault, see #2
#4 The media is letting the American public know what is going on- If the Whitehouse doesnt like what they are finding out it needs to
(a) Change its strategy
(b) quit playing for the media
#5 You cant use the media for your advantage, then criticize it when it isnt (or can you)
#6 If we allow the media to be controlled, are we any better than our enemies?
(yes)control it- Then there is no reason for us being there
(no) dont control it- then the need for this question does not exist!
2007-01-28 01:46:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anarchy99 7
·
0⤊
3⤋
You've got an excellent point there. Can you imagine if the media had covered D day the way they are able to cover the war in Iraq today? Who could have seen that and not wondered if we were doing the right thing? But, of course, we were. And we are today I believe as hard as it is to see what we see each day. I agree too that seeing the disagreements and the protests does nothing but help the insurgents feel like they can keep going and eventually we'll cut and run. The people protesting want us to talk things out which we have tried. I want them to tell us the specific words to say then, you know, because how do you reason with an enemy that is unreasonable?
There can never be a blackout though because we have a free society. That is a part of what we are fighting to preserve. All we can do is pray for and support our troops and challenge incorrect media portrayls and reports.
2007-01-28 01:40:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by Hopeful girl 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
All you nay sayers up there, think about this for a moment. We have the best equipped, highest trained, most dedicated military force in the world fighting in Iraq. Yet according to the media, the only time Americans leave the base, they get blown up. Don't you think it's likely that there are American platoons over there that are using information supplied by free Iraqi's to root out and destroy terrorist enclaves? How is it that we may get the occasional 10 second sound bite of a high ranking enemy leader being killed or captured, but three or four stories on the number of dead from homicide bombers?
Truth is in how you tell it. If all I show the American people is verbal gaffs by the President, and not the parts of a speech spoken eloquently and from the heart, your impression is he is stupid.
There is a Middle Eastern adage about blind men finding an elephant. In America, the media hands us the tail and says see the horrible rope. We don't get shown the power of the rest of the elephant.
Freedom sometimes seems to be too high of a cost. Freedom of speech allows websites like this one to operate. If you remove freedom of speech from the media, you remove it from all of us. If you really want to effect the media. Start writing letters of complaint to the owners and to the sponsors. Of course that takes some effort. And today's Americans aren't used to trying to fix anything unfortunately.
2007-01-28 01:49:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by sparkletina 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
^Aquida don't really care if they are winning or loosing,
stop thinking like an American general, the enemy has no desire to win or loose because they know that as in all the past the war we loose has always been at the hands of our own people if we really wanted this war won and over it would be done in a year and no one would question how or what we did to do it, such as sending 3.million men as we did during the second world war.( Point of information) we have spend twice as much as we did in the second world war in Iraq already. so cost wouldn't be an item.or concern.
all we have done up until now is send a few well trained well equipped warriors to a shooting gallery as they get knocked off they replace them. all this because American President's trying to run a cheap acceptable war .
If they put the same effort they used in the second world war, and sent as many men it takes to do it. we would be somewhat successful. but the real truth is . this entire problem could be settled internally if ans when the Muslim world decided it had enough of these terrorist over achievers they could end it in a new York second, because a true Muslim is obedient and would shut it down as fast as it started, but that would involve us getting out and soon..
2007-01-28 02:20:24
·
answer #4
·
answered by t-bone 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
Houston ... Most of the other answers are quite good. They've said it all. Unfortunately, I think the press is "winning" this battle for themselves, right now. In other words, it's all about the ratings and most of them don't seem to care about whether they make things look bad or not.
I fear things will get worse ... perhaps MUCH worse ... before they begin to get better. When THEY start getting blown up, when THEIR broadcast stations are jeopardized, or when THEIR press plants are put at risk, who are they going to be asking for help?
I don't expect the media to lie, but I DO expect them to remember they're Americans and at LEAST be thankful that patriots are voluntarily joining the service to preserve the freedoms that the media so much enjoy. I don't think that most media outlets know this, though.
Your question is great, by the way ... and not very easy to answer. Thanks for being so insightful and expressive. Good luck.
2007-01-28 01:59:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Of course this is a very emotionally charged issue. But, I think the thing that confuses most people about the "war" is a lack of understanding of what "winning" looks like. Does winning mean that we destroy all of the insurgents? One of the things we need to be accountable for is that our actions had the unintended consequence of destabilizing Iraq. Granted, Iraq was run by a despot, but the iron-fisted approach prevented the sectarian violence that exists now. Democracy is a messy experience, and yes, sometimes freedom of the press may allow someone to hear a message that others wish they would not. But, that same freedom of the press prevents the despotic experience that existed in Iraq. Diversity of opinion preserves democracy. We had our own civil war and, too, had influence from other nations during that time.
2007-01-28 01:36:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by Kimberlee G 1
·
0⤊
2⤋
The mainsttream media hates Bush period. They want to make the United States look bad and loose the war. The media might leak things to the terrorist. I do not trust the elite media.
2007-01-28 02:59:49
·
answer #7
·
answered by c1523456 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
HAHAHAHAHA
No.
The media are not what's blowing things up in Baghdad.
Muslim extremists are the ones blowing things up in Baghdad.
You think they don't have their own media?
You think that, if our media suddenly goes inactive, extremists will suddenly be lost and unable to communicate with each other? Or will suddenly stop blowing people up because Americans are no longer watching them?
Not so much.
The war is not being fought (and lost) by the media - the media are having an effect on how the war is viewed in the U.S. and an effect on how much support it has here. Poor military, economic, and especially cultural policies are what are losing the war.
2007-01-28 01:30:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by somebody 4
·
0⤊
3⤋
I believe the media wants America to be committed more and more in this war; nothing else. Though Iraqi resistance is very tough, the fact is that America has already occupied Iraq! Again, may be America's losses are very high, but the fact remains that the government set in Iraq is pro-American.
2007-01-28 01:28:33
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I agree with the freedom of press but when it infringes on the rights of others it needs to be limited.I think that they are getting in the way too much. If you look at the track record we have lost allot of reporters over there and that is not right. I believe that what we hear should be limited and we shouldn't see it all on TV.
2007-01-28 01:41:21
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋