Monday, June 13, 2005
Bad News Travels Fast
I posted late Saturday about a developing story out of Iraq concerning the death of some officers under suspicious circumstances and the rush by the press to call it "fragging." (Thanks to Hugh Hewitt for linking to that post.)
At that time, the investigation into the incident was being reported, but the use of the term "fragging" was fairly limited. NOT ANY MORE. Google News produced 77 'related' hits(not all of which contained the magic word, but a good number of them did) and a Technorati search produced 866 hits at press time. (Again, not all of them in this context, but a real good percentage).
Of course, I have not had time to get through all of that material. But of all of it I have, the MSNBC report has to be my favorite. They trump CNN in their efforts to call it "fragging." Check the lead
I think the press is going to take some heat over this. They are guarding themselves closely, but it's coming. Note the narrow definition of the term "fragging" MSNBC gives, "...the intentional killing of a friendly soldier by another soldier in a wartime setting." That is exceptionally narrow, enough so to justify their choice of the term, but it completely avoids the historical context of the word and it's almost entirely derogatory implications. No, they are leaving it up to the lefty bloggers to set the rest of the plate.
There is one other question I have. Remember back in April when a sergeant was convicted of murdering two officers with a grenade? How come we did not hear the word "fragging" back then? That incident certainly meets the criteria MSNBC so narrowly offered above. My theory is that the miscreant was apprehended almost immediately in that instance and his motives were clear -- which robbed the MSM of their opportunity to speculate and by so doing undermine the military.
The bias and intent is obvious here. In our nation, it is only the citizens like us that can exercise control over the media. Please join me in doing so, If you blog, post on other instances you find. If you are not a blogger, please complain to the particular news outlet of your choice that engages in speculation like this.
UPDATE: Lest you think I am making "much ado about nothing" - Powerline's Iraq correspondant in a post yesterday, notes precisely how important the press coverage is:
At that time, the investigation into the incident was being reported, but the use of the term "fragging" was fairly limited. NOT ANY MORE. Google News produced 77 'related' hits(not all of which contained the magic word, but a good number of them did) and a Technorati search produced 866 hits at press time. (Again, not all of them in this context, but a real good percentage).
Of course, I have not had time to get through all of that material. But of all of it I have, the MSNBC report has to be my favorite. They trump CNN in their efforts to call it "fragging." Check the lead
The military has opened a criminal probe to determine if two Army officers who were killed earlier in the week in Tikrit died in a "fragging incident," the intentional killing of a friendly soldier by another soldier in a wartime setting.Note the use of scare quotes around the term. Now, of course, they justify the quotes by putting the definition right after them, but it also calls immediate attention to the term as well. They justify the use of the term in the last paragraph of the story
One U.S. military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said investigators were looking into the possibility that the case was a fragging incident since the company commander and the operations officer were killed.Note the term is not in quotes in this paragraph, indicating it is likely the anonymous official did not use that term.
I think the press is going to take some heat over this. They are guarding themselves closely, but it's coming. Note the narrow definition of the term "fragging" MSNBC gives, "...the intentional killing of a friendly soldier by another soldier in a wartime setting." That is exceptionally narrow, enough so to justify their choice of the term, but it completely avoids the historical context of the word and it's almost entirely derogatory implications. No, they are leaving it up to the lefty bloggers to set the rest of the plate.
There is one other question I have. Remember back in April when a sergeant was convicted of murdering two officers with a grenade? How come we did not hear the word "fragging" back then? That incident certainly meets the criteria MSNBC so narrowly offered above. My theory is that the miscreant was apprehended almost immediately in that instance and his motives were clear -- which robbed the MSM of their opportunity to speculate and by so doing undermine the military.
The bias and intent is obvious here. In our nation, it is only the citizens like us that can exercise control over the media. Please join me in doing so, If you blog, post on other instances you find. If you are not a blogger, please complain to the particular news outlet of your choice that engages in speculation like this.
UPDATE: Lest you think I am making "much ado about nothing" - Powerline's Iraq correspondant in a post yesterday, notes precisely how important the press coverage is:
The insurgents have fought to break the will of the troops and have failed. They have fought to break the will of the Iraqi people and failed. They will continue to attack both fronts, but there remains another strategic front that they are now targeting more and more. The insurgents, in my opinion, are now seeking to break the will of the American people.In other words, each of us has a very important role to play the war -- we cannot juts leave it to "them." Do what you can by supporting our troops, and by ignoring, and correcting, the press.
To do this, they are using more car bombs which make great sound-bite visuals on television, but while the weapon is sometimes tactically effective it is strategically irrelevant. They also conduct attacks against symbolic targets such as the Abu Ghurayb prison complex which are tactically ineffective and strategically irrelevant. In the most potent enemy action, all attackers were killed and none penetrated even the outer fence. These tactics cannot stop our mission here from moving forward, unless the frequency and manner in which they are reported makes the American people think we are not winning or that it is not worth the sacrifice.
Please do not let that happen. This is worth the fight.
If the daily bad-news bombardment from networks and newspapers starts to erode your confidence in the effort, remember the confidence shown by the troops, the Terps, and the Iraqis who stood in line for hours to cast a vote--even after a murderer struck.
Just as you are counting on us out here in Iraq, we are counting on you back home. Thank you for your support and prayers. Things are going much better out here than some who sell news--or pathologically despise a certain Commander-in-Chief--would like you to believe.
