One Soldier's Viewpoint of Iraq

by ThiChi 92 Replies latest social current

  • Simon
    Simon
    I did write it and I am in Kuwait now on my way home. I wrote it while at home ...

    I can't work this out. If, when asked, he was in Kuwait on his way home then when did he write it at home. Does this mean he wrote it before he'd even gone out there? Did he go, come home, write it, go back and then come home again?

    The second part really gives it away:

    ... because I felt that too many people were exploiting the violence in Iraq to sell papers and gain votes
    So, it's clearly a piece of political propaganda and not an objective view.
  • hawkaw
    hawkaw

    hmmm .....

    www.foxnews.com

    By Liza Porteus FoxNews

    NEW YORK ? Tests of the artillery shell that detonated in Iraq on Saturday have confirmed that it did in fact contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly sarin (search) nerve agent, Defense officials told Fox News Tuesday.

    The artillery shell was left as a roadside bomb, the U.S. military said Monday. Two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to the nerve agent when the 155-mm shell exploded before it could be rendered inoperable.

    The soldiers displayed "classic" symptoms of sarin exposure ? most notably dilated pupils and nausea, officials said. The symptoms ran their course fairly quickly, however, and as of Tuesday, the two had returned to duty.

  • dubla
    dubla
    because of distorted coverage on FOX, then they would see saying anything bad about soldiers there as wrong, as they were there defending the USA and should be supported.

    This is why the right-wing in the USA have used their propoganda machines so effectively.

    ive supported ousting saddam for 10+ years.....i dont get the fox news channel on my cable network (i usually turn on cnn for world coverage). these "fox news is the right-wing brainwashing machine" theories are hilarious, imo.

    aa

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    You don;t watch FOX. I assume you have done some research on FOX to form your opinion (""fox news is the right-wing brainwashing machine" theories are hilarious") on it then?

    How does it compare to this previously highlighted research from FAIR?

    For example, 33 percent of Fox News viewers incorrectly believed it was true that the U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction; only 11 percent of people who said they relied on PBS or NPR for news got this wrong. Thirty-five percent of the Fox viewers thought that world opinion favored the U.S. invasion of Iraq; only 5 percent of those who get their news from PBS or NPR had this misconception. And an overwhelming 67 percent of those who relied on Fox thought that the U.S. had found clear evidence that Saddam Hussein had worked closely with Al Qaeda; if you got your news from PBS/NPR, you had just a 16 percent chance of believing this falsehood.

    In Fox's defense, viewers of CNN and the broadcast networks, particularly CBS, were not much better informed. But on three major questions central to the debate about Iraq, Fox viewers were the most likely to get it wrong.

    THREE times as many FOX viewers were misinformed about WoMD compared to PBS or NPR.

    SEVEN times as many FOX viewers were misinformed about World opinion over the Iraq iunvasion compared to PBS or NPR.

    FOUR times as many FOX viewers were misinformed about AL-Q and Iraqi links compared to PBS or NPR.

    Now, either FOX is

    • a newsation of incompetant morons who just happen to be incompetant in a way that fellows the Republican party line (it's the staff's fault)
    • a newstation viewed by morons who can't even follow a newbroadcast (the viewer's fault)
    • a newstation that is biased in its coverage as a result of policy (the bosses fault)

    Can you come up with alternative explanations? I think this is an excellent party game; "Why are FOX viewers so misinformed?"

  • Simon
    Simon
    Now, either FOX is
    • a newsation of incompetant morons who just happen to be incompetant in a way that fellows the Republican party line (it's the staff's fault)
    • a newstation viewed by morons who can't even follow a newbroadcast (the viewer's fault)
    • a newstation that is biased in its coverage as a result of policy (the bosses fault)

    You missed an option:

    • All of the above

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    You guys really crack me up....

    Fox News Fair And Balanced?
    By Reed Irvine
    November 6, 2003


    Salon, a liberal Internet magazine, recently published a long article about a former Fox News employee who scoffs at Fox?s claim that it provides its audience with news that is fair and balanced. Charlie Reina, 55, who left Fox last April after working there for six years as a writer, copy editor and producer, decided to unburden himself about the highly successful cable news channel when Chris Wallace disclosed that he was leaving ABC to take over as host of Fox?s Sunday morning talk show. He said that Wallace?s description of Fox?s reporting as serious, thoughtful and evenhanded had shocked him into posting a message on the Internet to set the record straight.

    Reina had previously worked for AP Radio, CBS Radio News and ABC. It must have been a shock for him to transfer to a news organization where liberal Democrats were not running the show and the staff was diversified. It included liberals, moderates and conservatives. If he was uncomfortable in that environment he didn?t make it known to his employer. A Fox spokesman said that Reina liked to boast that he was a liberal Democrat. It appears that his six years at Fox may have moderated some of his liberal views.

    He wrote, "Part of what Fox?s message is, and I have to say that to a certain extent I agree with it, is that political correctness is a terrible thing. There are a lot of assumptions that are simply made and not questioned, and a lot of that, liberals like me have perpetrated. And I have to agree there is too much of that."

    Reina?s efforts to cite bias that he observed at Fox are not impressive. He cites one case in which he says he refused to do a story about a controversial environmental issue the way his editor wanted it done. He says the editor told him not to let the pro-environmentalists have the last word. If there is any area in which a lot of assumptions are simply made and not questioned by the liberal news media, it is environmental issues. In 1989, Time?s senior editor, Charles Alexander, admitted that in covering the environment, "we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy." When he headed CNN, Ted Turner, who confessed that he was fanatical about the environment, not only had CNN air many dubious environmental programs, but he also boasted that he had been able to influence the TV networks to do "a lot of environmental programming." Telling Reina to not let an environmentalist have the last word can be seen as a subtle reminder that Fox did not want him to cross the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.

    Reina says that before he went to work for Fox he was never told how to slant a story. That is probably true, because the editors in the liberal organizations where he worked knew that he was a liberal and didn?t need to be told to give his stories a liberal slant. That was not what Fox wanted. Salon asked, "So people at Fox know what management?s political views are and they know that management wants to see those views reflected on their television screens?

    They must have been disappointed by this response from Reina: "Yes, but it?s not because the people on the second floor?Roger Ailes and so forth?come down and say, ?This is what we want.? It kind of filters down. And very often, the people overreact and take it upon themselves and do things that even management wouldn?t expect them to do." He cited an example. When a judge ruled that the words "under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, a Fox anchor said, "Because we want you to have as much information as possible about this important story, we want you to be able to go right to the source. We?re giving you the address and phone number of the judge." Reina said, "Everybody knew that was a call to harass this guy." He said that when the people on the second floor saw that they stopped it immediately.

    A spokesman for Fox says that Reina?s records show no evidence that he ever complained about editorial policy. He didn?t get the highest ratings, and when the Iraq War put a strain on the staff he was asked to pitch in and do some extra work. He refused, and that led to his separation from Fox. He was described as a "disgruntled employee." He wasn?t working as a journalist when Salon interviewed him.

    Reed Irvine is the Publisher of the AIM Report and can be reached at [email protected].

  • dubla
    dubla

    abaddon-

    You don;t watch FOX. I assume you have done some research on FOX to form your opinion (""fox news is the right-wing brainwashing machine" theories are hilarious") on it then?

    no, havent done any research on fox, and i wouldnt care to. i just think its funny that some people get so worked up over this channel and that channel. my point was simply that fox hasnt shaped the u.s. opinion (or any broad opinion for that matter) of saddam/the war, which is what is seemingly implied by the brainwashing theories. saddam made his own bed with the public long before fox news even existed.

    aa

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    ThiChi

    I don't know what, in your mind, you think you've done by C&Ping that with added highlights. Whatever. Do you watch FOX to?

    dubla

    I havent done any research on fox, and i wouldnt care to. i just think its funny that some people get so worked up over this channel and that channel.

    Damn dubla, I wished I had your ability to know about things without looking into them; it must save an awful lot of inconvenient checking-of-facts etc., that the majority of us resort to when we are forming an opinion.

    my point was simply that fox hasnt shaped the u.s. opinion (or any broad opinion for that matter) of saddam/the war, which is what is seemingly implied by the brainwashing theories.

    And your point is "made-up". You've decided what your opinion is without anything to support it. It isn't a point. It is a non-point. It is a blunt, if you will.

    FOX demonstrably does aid in shaping US opinion (some 80 million people). That's what the statistics showed. They also showed that FOX viewers were more likely to be wrong about a particular subject to do with Iraq than viewers of other newservices. Why it's viewers are more likely to have misconceptions boils down to a rather short and unpleasent list of options; unless of course you will stop saying what you'd like to be the case and actually try to suppoprt your assertations.

  • Satans little helper
    Satans little helper

    the original mail is bogus, girls were schooled before the war, Iraq was a secular state not the backward islamic regime like Iran

  • dubla
    dubla

    abaddon-

    Damn dubla, I wished I had your ability to know about things without looking into them

    when did i say i knew about fox? what i said was i knew that the u.s. in general had a poor opinion of saddam before fox news existed. i think youd have a hard time disproving that.

    And your point is "made-up". You've decided what your opinion is without anything to support it.

    no, its not made-up....its simply observed. why cant i make a observation based on personal experience? everyone i know personally (family, friends) that has supported the ousting of saddam, has done so since the gulf war....before fox news existed. simple observation-conclusion. perhaps fox has somehow brainwashed us in our sleep though?

    aa

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit