Mainstream Media’s REFUSAL To Acknowledge Success Of The Surge
The greatest story of the year, IMHO, is the unbelieveable turnaround in Baghdad. More precisely, the success of the Surge. General David Petraeus’ strategy was beautiful. But you won’t hear this from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc etc etc ad nauseum MSM outlets because to do so would be to admit that they were wrong. To do so would be to admit that they had a bias in reporting the news that came out of Iraq. To do so would make them look like the losers that they want us to be.
To do so, would give up any ground in the battle for the White House. And we all know what kind of person the MSM wants to put in the Oval Office.
There was an editorial piece in Investor’s Business Daily yesterday (nods to LftBhndAgn) that really put some good perspective on just how the MSM has been handling the coverage in Iraq since the announcement of the Surge.
Television Networks Fade To Black As The U.S. Surge Succeeds In Iraq
By RICH NOYES
Eleven months ago, when President Bush decided to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Iraq in an effort to win the war, correspondents for the big broadcast networks were openly hostile.
On NBC, anchor emeritus Tom Brokaw scoffed that sending more troops would “seem to most people . . . like a folly,” while White House reporter David Gregory touted the charge of unnamed critics that “the President’s resolve has become stubbornness.”
Over on CBS, Baghdad correspondent Lara Logan chastised that the last time troop levels were increased “it made absolutely no difference. In fact, security here in Baghdad got even worse.” The day after Mr. Bush unveiled his “surge” strategy, Katie Couric argued that “selling the American public on it could be a mission impossible.”
Her Evening News highlighted the reaction of GOP Senator Chuck Hagel, a media favorite: “I think this speech, given last night by this President, represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.”
No Victory In Sight
So now that the president’s surge strategy has demonstrably paid off in lower casualty rates for our troops and improved security for Iraq citizens, where are the network stories documenting this achievement?
A new Media Research Center study of the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts finds that as the news from Iraq has steadily improved, the war has practically disappeared from TV screens.
In September, when Gen. David Petraeus told Congress that the surge had begun to bear fruit, the networks offered lots of Iraq coverage (178 stories), but were decidedly skeptical of the positive trend. “Victory is not at hand, not even in sight,” Pentagon reporter David Martin contended on the Sept. 10 CBS Evening News.
November Shift
The producers at NBC Nightly News so liked a pessimistic video report from New York Times reporter Damien Cave, they aired it themselves. “The gains look encouraging, but shallow,” Cave intoned. “There may be fewer killings, but the reality is that Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents still rule the streets.”
In October, as the number of U.S. troop deaths dropped to their lowest levels in a year and a half, the networks trimmed their war coverage by 40%, to 108 stories. Most of the coverage continued the negative spin. NBC’s Richard Engel argued in an Oct. 14 report that the continuing war has hurt U.S. security. “The war in Iraq created a giant recruiting tool for al-Qaida,” Engel asserted.
Only in November did all three networks begin to shift their coverage away from the pessimism that prevailed for most of the year. Yet as the news became unmistakably good — fewer casualties, displaced refugees returning — TV coverage dropped by another 38%, to a mere 68 stories.
Combined, all three networks in the month of November aired just 11 reports actually from the war zone itself. ABC’s World News has stood out as the best of the Big Three in documenting this new, more encouraging phase of the Iraq War.
“Not only is there a huge increase in Iraqi citizens groups who are coming forward to help the Americans, but overall levels of violence have gone way down,” ABC reporter Terry McCarthy told viewers on Nov. 22.
In a Thanksgiving week interview with President Bush, anchor Charles Gibson was actually congratulatory: “You took a lot of doubting and rather skeptical questions about the surge. I’ll give you a chance to crow. Do you want to say I told you so?”
Read the whole IBD Editorial by Rich Noyes here.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
There’s a reason that I havent watched the news on TV in almost a year now, and this article pretty much summed up why.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:20 pmLike warhawk, I havent watched TV news for a long time. Further more, the biased OIF coverage by the MSM has been a real eye opener, I was allways aware of the anti-American, left wing bias in our newspapers and on the tube but I never appreciated how virulent and pervasive it was. Combine that with studies that show that greater than 90% of media people in the US and liberals/Democrats and I will probably never return to the MSM as a source of news. In some ways the shit coverage of the liberation of Iraq has been a good thing, I think it has been a wake up call for many Americans. Its probably why mainstream newspaper circulation is in the crapper, hollywood is tanking and FOX is the number one cable channel. Fuck you you lefty journos, you may have killed off your profession. Dont worry, I dont think McDonalds will hold a journalism school diploma against you.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:55 pmI watch Fox!
December 6th, 2007 at 5:10 pmI come here for news. Fuck the MSM. They ain’t fit to lick my boots.
December 6th, 2007 at 5:36 pmdeath;
The remaining talking-points emphasize that 2007 is certain to have the highest US hostile casualty/KIA total of the OIF. However …
As we know, statistics are very sensitive to start-stop points and so on. So from the data we have, how about a comparison by half-year? Start with either Jan. ‘03 or March ‘03.
6 months ending:
Calendar | From Onset
2003/06 134 | 2003/08 178
2003/12 189 | 2004/02 196
2004/06 311 | 2004/08 359
2004/12 408 | 2005/02 405
2005/06 309 | 2005/08 333
2005/12 367 | 2006/02 335
2006/06 293 | 2006/08 301
2006/12 410 | 2007/02 463
2007/06 529 | 2007/08 502
2007/12 226 | 2008/02 104 (to date)
Total: 3176 3176
6-mo. Ave: 317.6
Ist half of year averages:
315.2 | 334.6
2nd half of year averages:
320 | 300.6
6-mo averages excluding ‘07:
~303 | ~321
1st half excluding ‘07:
~262 | ~293
2nd half excluding ‘07/’08
~344 | ~350
So: the 1st half of calendar ‘07 exceeded the previous average by ~267. The second half is, so far, below the average by ~118; there is the rest of December to make up the difference. Any shortfall will represent a 6-mo total below the average of the 2nd halves of the year. Compared to the previous overall 6 mo. average, the 6-mo calender 2nd half of ‘07 is 92 lower.
For the 6-month periods since onset, there is longer to make up in the final period, but the 1st half of ‘07/08 is ~209 above the previous averages. The second half is 246 below the previous average, with about 3 months to make up the difference. If the current total (last 3 months ) doubles, the total will be 208, 142 below the previous 2nd half average. If the ~29/month number from Oct/Nov holds, the total will be 187, or 163 below the previous average.
So two opposing predictions come out of this.
If you believe this is a fluke, not a trend, you need 118 more fatalities in December, or 246 before the end of February to bring the current 6-month averages up to snuff.
If you believe the numbers show a trend, you’d expect about 20 more fatalities by the end of December, and perhaps 40 more total by the end of February.
So the differences in predictions are: anti-liberationists need 118 combat deaths by the end of December; liberationists expect no more than 20, a difference of 98.
Anti-liberationists need 246 US combat deaths by the end of February to bring things back on track, and liberationists expect no more than 40, for a difference of 206.
Place yer bets, ladies and gentlebongs!
December 7th, 2007 at 1:28 pm