For those who doubted Faux News's place as a totally biased tool of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, note which news source didn't have big "4000"-shaped cakes topped with 4,000 candles, all ready to be lit while 4,000 black balloons were released in front of the shiny "4000" logo that they just happened to have had whipped up for the occasion.
I'm frankly surprised that ABCNNBCBS didn't have a news truck on the lawn of the lucky mom in time for the early AM news cycle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
The mainstream media has been gearing up for this for a while with headlines like, "American war casualties near 4,000" during the past week or so. I could envision them all breathless with anticipation - they deserve their tenterhooks.
I don't think that 4000 dead and many more maimed troops in this war is a subject for scorn or polictical gain. The dead remain dead and the maimed have to struggle for recovery with little help from our gov't or support from the people.
Or have I missed the point?
BRB
"I'm frankly surprised that ABCNNBCBS didn't have a news truck on the lawn of the lucky mom in time for the early AM news cycle."
I'm sure they would have if they were certain which of those 4 was actually the last to die.
Damn.
It's always amazing to me the lows our authorized journalist outlets will go to.
ABCNNBCBS - Clever!
lucky mom - I know how you meant this, but in this context I find your choice of phrase distastful.
It was meant to be sardonic and twinge-inducing on more than one level.
Brbiswrite, the mainstream media is gloating. They are absolutley thrilled that 4,000 of our finest young men and women are dead.
avenger29:
The mainstream media are bandwagon-jumpers. It wasn't that long ago they had embedded reporters and we watched with fascination how easily we took down a sovereign nation to the polite applause of all.
Now that there is no end in sight, and many in the nation have turned against the war, the media jumps off one wagon and onto another. What ever pays the best.
And the troops still pays the most.
BRB
The troops still pay the most.
(Proof-reader I am not)
From the Pew Research Center, March 18, 2008:
Public awareness of the number of American military fatalities in Iraq has declined sharply since last August. Today, just 28% of adults are able to say that approximately 4,000 Americans have died in the Iraq war. As of March 10, the Department of Defense had confirmed the deaths of 3,974 U.S. military personnel in Iraq.
In August 2007, 54% correctly identified the fatality level at that time (about 3,500 deaths). In previous polls going back to the spring of 2004, about half of respondents could correctly estimate the number of U.S. fatalities around the time of the survey.
Well, they just fixed that.
From Strategy Page, however:
The war in Iraq is passing from the American memory, before it's even over. Analysis of news reports on the war, show that 15 percent of news stories were about the Iraq war last Summer, but are only three percent now. It's out of sight, out of mind. For example, a recent survey asking people how many U.S. troops had died in Iraq, only about a quarter knew the number (4,000). That's half the number who knew the correct number all the way back to 2003.
News directors say they are putting more effort into covering the presidential election, and the usual stories (celebrity scandals, disasters of any sort, notorious criminals). But there are other reasons for ignoring Iraq. Since last Summer, more good news than bad news began to come back from the front. This was not useful for news organizations. Bad news makes money (by attracting larger audiences for advertisers), good news is useless. Moreover, only about five percent of Americans (military personnel and their families) have any personal interest in Iraq. There are even fewer Iraqi Americans to care. There are also fewer veterans.
If It Bleeds, It Leads.
"Good news is useless." Sort of says it all, doesn't it?
Some things (unfortunately) never change.
You know what I want to know? How many of them have we gotten?
None of the newsies want to talk about the 5,000 servicemen that died during Bill Clinton's administration.
"You know what I want to know? How many of them have we gotten?"
Oh, that would be a "body count", which would be gruesome and wrong.
rob k,
the answer, from those involved, is "lots and lots". I've also seen it stated as "a shit load". Also, "too many to bother counting". I like the "who counts? it's not like we're cleaning out prairie dogs here" response.
So after 5 years we still haven't lost as many as the combined dead at the Battle of Gettysburg. Which lasted three days.
Context is our friend. The media provides none whatsoever.
Casualties are always regrettable, but for the media -- or anybody else -- to trumpet a number like 4000 in a 5 year battle and claim it is "too high" is sophistry of the highest order.
Post a Comment