Article

2005-03-20 Iraq-Jordan

NYT: Insurgency Is Fading Fast, Top Marine in Iraq Says

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-03-20 12:10:56 PM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Proposal for another "RB Law" or plural "Laws"...

Rationale:
An observation which may account, to some degree, for the fact that the NYT is fading fast as a credible source...

When the news is positive, and credit must be given to the Bush Admin - even if indirectly, there are numerous named sources quoted.

When the news is negative, and blame is being issued, three conclusions may be made without reading the article:

1) No Asshat Terrorists will ever be defined as such. Any absurd substitute (i.e. insurgents, militants, etc.) will do, just never call a spade a spade if they oppose the Bush Admin. To wit: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

2) The blame will, regardless of who did what, ultimately be laid at President Bush's feet, personally, if at all possible, or against an Admin official deemed to be an enthusiastic Bush Doctrine supporter, if at all possible. To wit: we will institute BDS as a StyleBook requirement.

3) The number of named sources will be inversely proportional to the ferocity of the attack upon, in order of editorial importance:
a) George W Bush
b) The Bush Administration
c) The Religious Right
d) Republicans
e) Conservatives
f) Red or Flyover State Citizens
h) Everyone "too stupid" to vote Dhimmicrap

To wit: All news is to be treated as a hand grenade:
1) If "Bad" get it as close to Bush as possible.
2) If "Good" keep it as far from Bush as possible.

Articles published or distributed by The New Yellow Times, Wash Roast, Boston Butt Probe, Asshole Press, Asshole French Press, Rooters, et al, may be graded into
1) Good News; recourse: spin only.
2) Bad News with blame elsewhere; recourse: spin only.
3) Bad News with fuzzy blame; recourse: seek out every semi-credible (desirable, not req'd) ex-official who will blame Bush.
4) Bad News with clear Chain of Command; W00t! BusHitler / American Hegemony cum Imperialism

The category into which the story will fall is inversely proportional to the number of credible named-source quotes in the item.

Corollary 1) The title and the article content need have no connection whatsoever.

Corollary 2) The emphasis will be placed upon the facts least flattering to the Bush Admin; i.e. the color of the wheel will be deemed more important than the physics and advancement of humanity its invention represents.

Corollary 3) Where no credible named-sources are quoted, the screech against the Bush Admin will be incoherent and deafening.

Corollary 4) "Reportage" regards the US Military:

a) Despite the deep and unrequited desire for massive US Military casualties, the US Military will be shown in a positive light - if no sinister motives can be extracted from the facts - and this unhappy requirement will be implicitly divorced and distanced from the Bush Admin in every manner possible.

b) Any actions which can be exploited due to the beloved "fog of war" or any actual misconduct, will be ruthlessly reported in the negative, above the fold, for as long as it takes to make the US public believe "Our good sons and daughters are being wasted / abused / brainwashed / murdered (choose best fit) by the evil BusHitler NeoConRelRightHateMongers" and smeared across everyone in uniform... or until subscription numbers take a nose-dive.

Moonbat Journalism 101.

I reiterate a point I made some time back:

Since the aforementioned entities have consciously chosen to manipulate everything within their power to the negative, and that includes editorial spin, columnists, op-ed selections, story placement and repeat rates, etc., they should be ignored - utterly - on the Good News stories and receive no credit, whatsoever, for publishing them. They deserve no association with Good News for it is reported as is only because it was beyond their power to distort it to their negative ends.

Posted by .com 2005-03-20 2:34:20 PM|| 2005-03-20 2:34:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Written and by omission:

Posted by .com 2005-03-20 2:40:16 PM|| 2005-03-20 2:40:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Note also that the Good News article was ~~buried~~ published on a Saturday on an interior page. If the story went the other way, it would be on Page 1 on Sunday.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-03-20 2:47:58 PM|| 2005-03-20 2:47:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Did I miss the "once positive source will be refuted by three negative generalities from un-named sources - "They're way down on their attempts, and even more on their effectiveness," General Sattler said.

Which is WAY MORE THAN OFFSET BY -

First: Several senior military officials have noted, however, that many insurgents fled before or during the Falluja battle to fight elsewhere in Iraq. Second: And although there are fewer lethal attacks in western Iraq, commanders say, remotely controlled bombs used against American and Iraqi forces in other parts of the country have become more deadly. Vague generality, followed by really vague generality, third: Many bombs, for instance, are artillery shells strung together and buried under roadways.

How predictable! How despicable.

Posted by Bobby 2005-03-20 4:17:54 PM|| 2005-03-20 4:17:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Great post,.com

Posted by Matt 2005-03-20 5:17:47 PM|| 2005-03-20 5:17:47 PM|| Front Page Top

03:45 stickyour democracyinyourarses
23:57 Bobby
23:32 Anonymoose
23:27 Anonymoose
23:27 phil_b
23:19 Sock Puppet Oâ Doom
23:12 Bomb-a-rama
22:56 Bomb-a-rama
22:50 Bomb-a-rama
22:46 .com
22:39 AzCat
22:35 Robert Crawford
22:33 Robert Crawford
22:33 Pappy
22:26 AzCat
22:17 Bomb-a-rama
22:14 Bomb-a-rama
21:35 Barbara Skolaut
21:29 JosephMendiola
21:17 Michael Sheehan
21:11 .com
21:04 .com
20:57 .com
20:55 Frank G