| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| James Duinnigan: Journalism Versus Reality in Iraq |
| 2005-11-20 |
| EFL & emphasis added. Hat tip to Austin Bay If it weren't for Internet access to troops, expatriates and Iraqis in Iraq, you would think that coalition military operations in Iraq were a major disaster, and that prompt withdrawal was the only reasonable course of action. But the mass media view of the situation is largely fiction, conjured up in editorial offices outside Iraq, with foreign reporters in Iraq (most of them rarely leaving their heavily guarded hotels) providing color commentary, and not much else. So what do the troops and Iraqis say? First, there is definitely a terrorism problem. Not an insurgency, not a guerilla war, not a resistance. A portion of the Sunni Arab population refuses to recognize the Sunni Arab loss of power in early 2003. They are supporting a campaign of terror to either get back power or, more pragmatically, to get immunity for most Sunni Arabs for crimes committed during Saddams decades in power. . . . Remember, this is where the legal concept of "eye-for-an-eye" was invented thousands of years ago. . . . All the prevents a wholesale descent into mutual slaughter is the presence of coalition troops. In other parts of the world (and there are many to examine at the moment) this sort of thing is called peacekeeping. Withdraw the peacekeepers, and what peace there is goes with them. Second, there is a cultural crises, in the Arab world in particular, and the Moslem world in general. The crises is expressed by a lack of economic, educational and political performance. . . . Third, the bad guys are really, really bad, but they have many prominent allies around the world. Most Iraqis cannot understand how so many media outlets in the West can keep giving favorable coverage to the Sunni Arab terrorists. These guys are butchers, and many used to work for Saddam, committing the same kind of mayhem. Yet these European reporters come looking for Sunni Arab "victims" of "American imperialism." How strange is that? Nothing strange, just another cultural quirk. The Europeans are much more risk averse than Americans. We all remember the 1930s, where most of Europe left Hitler alone, hoping that they could talk sense into him, or that he would go away. Eventually, the good people of Europe (at least those that had not been conquered by the Germans) had to fight the nazis. Americans, most of them descendents of refugees from European foolishness, wanted no part of this latest chapter. But the Japanese and Pearl Harbor intervened, and there we were. After that, Europeans had to deal with another of their inventions, communism. This one had also started off in a promising fashion, but had eventually descended into mass murder and tyranny. Still, many Europeans remained fans, at least from a distance, and defended it until communism collapsed in a pile of contradictions and dead ideas. Europeans have a thing about tyranny. While not wanting it for themselves, they are more willing than most to tolerate it for others. Thus the disagreement over going after Saddam. Many Europeans believe that taking down Saddam was just wrong, and continued American peacekeeping in Iraq just compounds the error. Europeans had made their peace, and many business deals, with Saddam. And the Americans went in and screwed it all up. Europeans have been screwing things up far longer than Americans, and consider themselves experts. They are unhappy that the Americans do not follow the lead of Europe in these matters. Moreover, Europeans cannot accept that they could be wrong, despite any evidence to the contrary. This is a major component of European cultural superiority. And, lastly, we have the major differences between the media version of what's going on, and the military one. The media are looking for newsworthy events (bad news preferred, good news does not sell, and news is a business). The military sees it as a process, a campaign, a series of battles that will lead to a desired conclusion. The event driven media have a hard time comprehending this process stuff, but it doesn't really matter to them, since the media lives from headline to headline. . . . |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #3 The MSM has dished up "camel dung" for a long time. They are lefties and would like to shape world events or be the story rather than unbiasedly report events. |
| Posted by: John Q. Citizen 2005-11-20 15:13 |
| #2 But the mass media view of the situation is largely |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-11-20 11:25 |
| #1 I am developing an extreme dislike for the MSM. They have turned into a Walter Cronkite, Vietnam-redux. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2005-11-20 11:01 |