The Media Contributes To The Deaths Of Our Troops?

Upton · #31 (**permalink**) 10-18-2007, 01:59 PM

NewsBusters is right wing biased themselves.

Smitty0311 · #32 (**permalink**) 10-18-2007, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

Hey, I'm quoting myself... I don't see a great deal of correlation between GWB's approval rating (which I am equating to America's approval of the war) and US casualites. His approval rating has declined at a steady rate with a few bumbs along the way. Coincidentally, US monthly fatalities have averaged ~ 76 with a standard deviation of 27.9. 9 months have been above the average + one SD: 11/04, 4/04, 5/07, 1/05, 4/07, 12/06, 11/03, 10/06, & 6/07. Now, 11/04 was Fallujah where ~ 100 Marines were killed; without that 41 died that month. 10/06 coincides with an election; however, the rest do not.

HEY! IM QUOTING MYSELF AGAIN!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smitty0311

Bush, Congress at record low ratings: Reuters poll

Wed Sep 19, 2007 8:41am EDTPost Your Comments | All Comments Email | Print | Digg | Reprints | Single Page | Recommend (15) [-] Text [+]

Bush, Congress at record low ratings: Reuters poll | Politics | Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress registered record-low approval ratings in a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday, and a new monthly index measuring the mood of Americans dipped slightly on deepening worries about the economy.

Only 29 percent of Americans gave Bush a positive grade for his job performance, below his worst Zogby poll mark of 30 percent in March. A paltry 11 percent rated Congress positively, beating the previous low of 14 percent in July.

.................................................. ............................

I THINK ITS FUNNY HOW OUR VETS ARE PRO REPUBLICAN. EVEN WITH IRAQ GOING ON! AND OUR VETS KNOW WHAT THERE TALKING ABOUT WHEN IT COMES TO WAR ISSUES! DO THEY NOT?

DID YOU EVER NOTICE THAT THE MOST VIOLENT TIME IN IRAQ (AT THE TIME) WAS DURING THE NOVEMBER ELECTIONS?

Smitty0311 · #33 (**permalink**) 10-18-2007, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upton

NewsBusters is right wing biased themselves.

FINE THEN. FIND SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE SAID THAT IS FALSE TO PROVE IT. ELTS YOU SHOULD JUST DROP THE SUBJECT!

OR YOU COULD LOOK AT THIS!

There is no liberal media?
Liberal Media Bias

List of journalists taking sides - Politics - MSNBC.com

Journalists give to Democrats 9-1
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Shocka! Journalists give to Democrats 9-1

Like that 1990s survey revealing that about 90 percent of the Washington press corps supported Clinton, a president who didn’t crack 50% in either 1992 or 1996, didn’t tell us this years ago. Still, it’s one of those things the confirms what we already know: Journalists tend to be a bunch of libs who are are out to “change the world” rather than just report on it:
The following 144 journalists made campaign contributions from 2004 through the first quarter of 2007, according to Federal Election Commission records studied by MSNBC.com.
Key: (D) contributed to Democrats or liberal causes, (R) to Republicans and conservative causes.
Click on “details” next to each name to see the amounts and what the journalists have to say.
Television:
(D) ABC News, Mary Fulginiti, “Primetime” correspondent.
(D) ABC affiliate in Boston, WCVB, Sangita Chandra, producer.
(D) ABC affiliate in Wichita, KAKE, Susan Peters, anchor.
(D) CBS News, Serena Altschul, correspondent for “CBS Sunday Morning.”
Etc. The list goes on for a while and you see mostly (D) in front of the names. Not surprising, even though it’s getting giant headline treatment elsewhere. In other shocking news, the sun shines.
We all know that j-schools attract post-Watergate types who want to get the next scoop that brings down the next president, as long as that president has (R) in front of his name. We all know that most journalists will carry water for the NOW gang while ignoring the Concerned Women of America, whose ideology is conservative and whose membership dwarfs the far left NOW. We all know that most journalists cover environmental issues like they’re a huge threat, while downplaying the very real and ongoing threat from Islamic radicalism. We all know this. It’s not much of a surprise to see it confirmed via political donations.
What might be a bit more surprising is that MSNBC’s David Shuster showed up for a forum at the far left Take Back America confab yesterday. Click here, go to Day 3 and look at the 11 am session, the one called “The Mainstream Media: Fair and Balanced.” You have far left blogger Duncan “Atrios” black, a Clinton guy, two Air America guys, a WaPo guy, a Newsweek guy, a freelancer who specializes in Latino issues, and David Shuster of MSNBC. They used Fox’s branding motto to title the session, but didn’t include anyone from Fox, just a guy from one of its (distant, as the ratings go) rivals, and who once worked for Fox. I doubt Shuster defended Fox, since he works for MSNBC now and shows up on Hardball all the time. I’m guessing that that forum as co So what was alleged news reporter David Shuster doing at a far left pep rally that seems designed to be nothing but a Fox bash? Hmmm?

StormanNorman · #34 (**permalink**) 10-18-2007, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smitty0311

HEY! IM QUOTING MYSELF AGAIN!

Hi Smitty,

I guess you are not really following my statistical analysis. See, I see very little correlation between a negative attitude towards the war spurned on by negative media coverage and US casualties in the war. Bush's approval rate is a good gauge for American opinion (driven in part by the media) towards the war. Fatalities have been fairly consistent since the start of the war...a 27.9 standard deviation isn't very large compared to an average of 79 fatalities per month.

And the last statement in your image that says "....most violent times in Iraq was during the November elections?" is wrong and misleading.
- 2004: Oct/2004 was below average in terms of US fatalities; Nov/2004 had the highest US fatalities...but why? Because of the elections??? I don't think so. That was when the Marines stormed Fallujah leading to approx. 100 casualties. Without that, Nov/04 is siginificantly below average.
- 2006: Oct/2006 had 110 US fatalities; Nov/2006 had 78 fatalities..right at the average. Oct/2006 is one of the higher months and is the 7th highest...but is it unusually high? It's barely outside one SD...that typically doesn't constitute an outlier.

So, I don't buy your media argument, Smitty....in fact, I think it's just your scapegoat.

Smitty0311 · #35 (**permalink**) 10-18-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

Hi Smitty,

I guess you are not really following my statistical analysis. See, I see very little correlation between a negative attitude towards the war spurned on by negative media coverage and US casualties in the war. Bush's approval rate is a good gauge for American opinion (driven in part by the media) towards the war. Fatalities have been fairly consistent since the start of the war...a 27.9 standard deviation isn't very large compared to an average of 79 fatalities per month.

And the last statement in your image that says "....most violent times in Iraq was during the November elections?" is wrong and misleading.
- 2004: Oct/2004 was below average in terms of US fatalities; Nov/2004 had the highest US fatalities...but why? Because of the elections??? I don't think so. That was when the Marines stormed Fallujah leading to approx. 100 casualties. Without that, Nov/04 is siginificantly below average.
- 2006: Oct/2006 had 110 US fatalities; Nov/2006 had 78 fatalities..right at the average. Oct/2006 is one of the higher months and is the 7th highest...but is it unusually high? It's barely outside one SD...that typically doesn't constitute an outlier.

So, I don't buy your media argument, Smitty....in fact, I think it's just your scapegoat.

No I wasent misleading. The November elections were on November 7th. That means October was leading up to the election with 106 Casualtys! See here> iCasualties: OIF US Fatalities by month . It also had 3543 Innocent Iraqi Casualtys (the highest ever!). See here>> IraqiDeathsByYear . YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS MISLEADING!Or misinformed?

StormanNorman · #36 (**permalink**) 10-18-2007, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smitty0311

No I wasent misleading. The November elections were on November 7th. That means October was leading up to the election with 106 Casualtys! See here> iCasualties: OIF US Fatalities by month . It also had 3543 Innocent Iraqi Casualtys (the highest ever!). See here>> IraqiDeathsByYear . YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS MISLEADING!

Well, first of all, Smitty, your poll question is about US casualties...is it not? Second of all, I addressed 10/06 in my post above....did you read and understand what I wrote? BTW, there were 110 US fatalities in 10/06....at least that is what I have.

Smitty0311 · #37 (**permalink**) 10-18-2007, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

Well, first of all, Smitty, your poll question is about US casualties...is it not? Second of all, I addressed 10/06 in my post above....did you read and understand what I wrote? BTW, there were 110 US fatalities in 10/06....at least that is what I have.

Here is what I said>

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smitty0311

[color="Red"][b][size="4"] DID YOU EVER NOTICE THAT THE MOST VIOLENT TIME IN IRAQ (AT THE TIME) WAS DURING THE NOVEMBER ELECTIONS?

Here is what you said>

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

And the last statement in your image that says "....most violent times in Iraq was during the November elections?" is wrong and misleading.
- 2004: Oct/2004 was below average in terms of US fatalities; Nov/2004 had the highest US fatalities...but why? Because of the elections??? I don't think so. That was when the Marines stormed Fallujah leading to approx. 100 casualties. Without that, Nov/04 is siginificantly below average.
- 2006: Oct/2006 had 110 US fatalities; Nov/2006 had 78 fatalities..right at the average. Oct/2006 is one of the higher months and is the 7th highest...but is it unusually high? It's barely outside one SD...that typically doesn't constitute an outlier.

So, I don't buy your media argument, Smitty....in fact, I think it's just your scapegoat.

Then I said>>

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smitty0311

No I wasent misleading. The November elections were on November 7th. That means October was leading up to the election with 106 Casualtys! See here> iCasualties: OIF US Fatalities by month . It also had 3543 Innocent Iraqi Casualtys (the highest ever!). See here>> IraqiDeathsByYear . YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS MISLEADING!Or misinformed?

So can we conclude that the november election time frame was the most violent time in Iraq?

Can we conclude that the enemy was playing a hand in OUR politics?

StormanNorman · #38 (**permalink**) 10-18-2007, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smitty0311

Here is what I said>

Here is what you said>

Then I said>>

So can we conclude that the november election time frame was the most violent in Iraq?

Can we conclude that the enemy was playing a hand in OUR politics?

I don't know....I would have to look at and analyze the civilian casualty data...look at the trends before and after, etc.....although the problem with that is its reliability.

But, as far as US Servicemen and women fatalities go (that was the theme of this thread), NO...you can't conclude that 10/04 or 10/06 were any higher for reasons other than randomness in the data. Like I said, Smitty, 10/06 was barely outside one SD from the average....not an outlier....and there were six other months with higher totals.

Cookie Parker · #39 (**permalink**) 10-18-2007, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Middle of the road

The more dead body’s that the insurgents can get shown in the American press the more it weakens our resolve at home. It plays right in to the hands of the enemy. I hate to say it but it’s a good strategy.

What dead bodies in the US media? corporate america, more specifically the military complex, the biggest corporate welfare bitch, owns the media..they don't even show the caskets of the soldiers at home...

where do your guys stick your heads in order to avoid reality ?

Cookie Parker · #40 (**permalink**) 10-18-2007, 02:58 PM

The Military-Mass Media Complex

Quote:

by Guy Reel

In 1961 President Eisenhower famously warned of the dangers of an overly strong military- industrial complex. He cautioned that inseparable ties between the military and for-profit arms merchants could distort national policies and priorities, leading to negative "economic, political, even spiritual" consequences.

As the Bush administration ignores the warnings of the past by contracting out an unprecedented number of military obligations to private firms, we have seen Eisenhower's warned-of disasters unfold. This has led not only to the humiliation and degradation of Iraqi prisoners (in a country we said we were liberating) but has caused untold damage to American prestige and even severely compromised the safety of the American men and women who are unwittingly putting their lives on the line for - the military-industrial complex. The spiritual consequences that Eisenhower warned about are becoming even more apparent, with national and local right-wing demagogues spewing radio novels of garbage about the traitorous Democrats, rampant with paranoia and delusions, as their callers ring in their dittos and curse the rest of the world.

Eisenhower has received a sort of folk-hero status as a result of his farewell address, and deservedly so. But today we have a more insidious, possibly even more damaging, alliance unfolding - what could be called the military-mass media complex.

Not long ago, the American press was the best in the world. But within the past ten years or so, its interests have coincided too closely with state interests, so that in many cases it has become a vehicle for the government. This development, one would think, would alarm conservatives who profess a distrust of government. Yet they seem all too happy to let the press abandon its watchdog role, as long as it fits with their agenda. Their distrust of government apparently does not include a distrust of that most laborious of government bureaucracies, the military.

It's not difficult to consider the dangers of such a myopic view. Consider two recent cases:

ABC's "Nightline" showed the pictures of 721 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, but the media giant Sinclair Broadcast Group decided to pre-empt the broadcast on its ABC affiliates. (In one market it ran a rerun of "Dharma and Greg.") Why? Sinclair CEO David Smith said he believed that Ted Koppel's attempt to give faces to the dead amounted to a political statement against the war. In a statement on the Sinclair website, a public relations release says, "Before you judge our decision ... we would ask that you first question Mr. Koppel as to why he chose to read the names of 523 (sic) troops killed in combat in Iraq, rather than the names of the thousands of private citizens killed in terrorist attacks since and including the events of September 11, 2001."

Put aside for a moment that ABC and other media provided countless hours of coverage to the terrorist attacks, showing thousands of victims and their families. Also put aside that the answer to that question is that the Iraq war had nothing to do with Sept. 11, 2001 - except that Sept. 11 was used as an excuse for the invasion. The real issue is that a leader of a big media company feels he may - or rather, that he must - censor a news broadcast when he feels that the broadcast is not in keeping with U.S. war objectives.

The Walt Disney company announced that it was blocking its Miramax Division from distributing a film by Michael Moore that links the Bush family with prominent Saudis, including Osama bin Laden. According to the New York Times, Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to back out of the deal with Miramax. "Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor," the newspaper reported. Disney officials denied that specific charge, but said it was not in the economic interests of a media company to get involved in a highly partisan political battle.
In this case, the multi-media giant linked its best interests with the Bush administration either because it receives tax breaks from the government or because it could lose money by distributing a film that contains the truth. (Disney, by the way, owns ABC, but to its credit did not try to stop Koppel's broadcast.)

The military-mass media complex works in many, many other ways. Fox News, controlled by Bush supporter Rupert Murdoch, who has been given even more control of the airwaves by the Republican-dominated FCC, is a primary outlet for favorable White House and Iraq War news. Rush Limbaugh, who is in effect a White House spokesman, speaks to millions of radio listeners daily in the most demeaning of tones as he propagandizes for the war and against Democrats and John Kerry. Even mainstream media outlets such as CNN or CBS ran American flags as part of their run-up-to-war coverage.

In addition. the apologists for the military in the mass media tended to downplay the images of the humiliation of Iraqi soldiers. One compared the activities to fraternity hazing. And a right-wing radio host said the treatment of Iraqis was nothing compared to the torture endured by many U.S. soldiers - as if that was the standard by which we should judge ourselves.

In the 20th Century, America became a mass communications state. Our chief exports now include the cultural, entertainment and news products spewed out by vast media conglomerates. When the media moguls in control of these products decide they want to promote an agenda - in this case the interests of the military-mass media complex- we are entering extremely dangerous territory. We are lulling half a nation to sleep with the exploits of Dharma and Greg while our news divisions hesitate to show the consequences of an optional war.

It is one thing to support the country. It is another to censor the names of dead soldiers because you're so in favor of war that you cannot allow an expression of its costs. When media deny or distort the spread of information because they're afraid of losing a few dollars in profits, they have ceded their right to broadcast on public airwaves.

Guy Reel is an assistant professor of mass communication at Winthrop University. He can be reached at reelg@winthrop.edu

###

Sorry, but those invested in this war control the media....you want fair and unbiased coverage, you must compare and look at overseas papers...