Good News is No News

By Lance Thompson Posted in | Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Promoted from Diaries - MartinAKnight

Why don’t the main stream media report our victories an enthusiastically as they do our defeats?

On Monday, Iraqi army troops, supported by American and British forces, delivered a major defeat to an insurgent cult and averted a deadly attack on Iraqi. News of this this victory has been overshadowed by coverage of the weekend’s anti-war rally in Washington, which purported to show how unjust, unwise and winnable the war is.

The victory occurred twelve miles from Najaf when Iraqi troops attacked a concentration of militants from the group Jund al-Samaa (Soldiers of Heaven). The terrorists had planned to disguise themselves as Shia pilgrims and attack Shia clerics and worshipers gathering in Najaf during Ashoura, the holiest festival in the Shia calendar. The attack was to include up to 700 terrorists, and would have resulted in a devastating and brutal massacre.

Instead, Iraqi troops discovered and attacked the Soldiers of Heaven as they gathered, igniting a fierce battle which raged for almost 24 hours. Iraqi troops requested assistance, and received American and British air support and help from American armored units. Iraqi military sources estimate 200 enemy dead, including the cult’s leader, Dia Abdul Zahra Kadim. A further 100 terrorists were captured, along with hundreds of automatic weapons, mortars and Russian-made rockets. Iraqi forces suffered 5 fatalities. Two Americans were killed when their helicopter went down during the battle.

This story has been given scant attention in the main stream media because of the preference endlessly to play excerpts from the massive anti-war rally in Washington over the weekend. Jane Fonda came out of protest mothballs to aid and comfort a new enemy, Sean Penn threatened to withdraw his support for politicians who refused to withdraw their support for the war, and Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins acted as co-ranters and chant leaders. California Congresswoman Maxine Waters announced that she wasn’t afraid of George Bush, nor was she intimidated by Dick Cheney, and the lack of any threats or intimidations from the White House would seem to verify her statement. Michigan Congressman John Conyers reassured the assembled masses by informing them that George Bush could not fire them–evidently no presidential appointees were present. And Jesse Jackson was present because there were more than two cameras pointed in the same direction.

You may have heard some or all of these highlights on Monday, but you’d have to be paying very close attention to hear about the military victory in Iraq. Imagine, however, if the results of the battle had been reversed. Imagine that hundreds of terrorists had attacked an American troop concentration. Imagine if 200 Americans were killed, and 100 captured, and the enemy had lost a handful of fighters. Would a major American defeat be given the same minimal coverage as a major American victory?

If the opposite outcome had occurred, video of casualties would have played all day, interspersed with film of terrorist supporters dancing in the streets and firing their weapons in celebration. We would have had chilling video from al Jazeera showing the leering countenances of the terrorist leaders, threatening even bloodier attacks. We’d have live coverage of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong-il declaring national holidays. And finally, we’d have “breaking news” bulletins of every Congressman, Senator, candidate, and non-working actor who could get to a microphone calling for retreat, surrender, and the resignations of every member of the administration right down to the White House gardener. The recriminations and indictments would go on for days, while every member of a House and Senate committee raced his or her colleagues to be first to call for an official investigation of the tragic defeat.

But instead of a defeat, instead of hundreds of dead American troops and hundreds more Iraqi civilians, it was the Soldiers of Heaven who paid the price. They were found out, engaged, and nearly annihilated before they could carry out their merciless murder spree. Iraqi forces took the initiative, fought bravely, and prevailed, as President Bush and military leaders have said they would. This was more than a military victory for allied forces. It was a demonstration of the dedication, courage and proficiency of Iraqi troops who have been trained by the world’s best--the American military. Yet this victory is little more than a footnote to the day’s news.

This brings to mind one question–why? Why is an American military victory so much less important to the media than an American military defeat? There can be only one answer, the one many journalists continue to deny even as they graphically chronicle our losses and denigrate our triumphs. The main stream media is institutionally invested in American defeat. That is why the bad news is emphasized and the good obscured. If Americans realized that the Iraqi army is growing strong, that terrorists are being killed in large numbers, that the conflict is a noble endeavor to save innocent lives, and most of all, that it can be won, then the unthinkable could happen. American readers, listeners and viewers would turn off the tap on the news sources that have lied to them all this time, and seek the truth elsewhere.

But at what point does a biased press become treason. In WWII we prosecuted Tokyo Rose and Ezra Pound for collaborating with our enemies. Tokyo Rose at least had the defense she had a gun to her head. Ezra Pound claimed insanity.

Whats our current medias excuse ?

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

But at what point does a biased press become treason?

The reason I am having difficulty answering this question is, because it hasn't been reported yet as to why it isn't treason. When they report as to why they are treasonous, then we'll know....won't we?


Managing Editor

...might be "giving aid and comfort to an enemy in time of war." By this definition, the MSM are not committing treason. Rather the opposite. Because to them the enemy is the United States.

If MSM people have any appreciation of treason at all (I'm not saying they do), they'd probably consider it treasonous to report good news from Iraq.

We should be screaming at the top of our lungs on how the treatment of the two stories shows bias in the press. And not let up when they criticize us for pointing it out. Repetition is important. We need to show this example again and again and again!

The MSM's selective editing, at the level that the New York Times, Newsweek, or CNN (for example) does it in their political and security news, is their own leftist commentary hiding behind a mask of "neutrality." There's nothing neutral about what they do. The galling part--the most galling part--is their absolute refusal to admit just how leftist their bias is. Just admit it for once. It's as if Michael Moore kept saying, "I don't have a weight problem. That's all in your head. You just imagine that I have a weight problem."

MSM, be lefties. I don't care. Just admit it. Just admit it!

I see this as mixed news, rather than just good news.

The good news is that a bunch of BAD GUYS were killed/captured, a lot of heavy weapons were recovered, and a serious number of civilian deaths were prevented.

However, there is a good amount of bad news involved in the story as well, which FN chose not to mention Compare (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,248078,00.html) to (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/world/middleeast/30iraq.html)...

First, they were clueless about the group's intentions...Second, the first forces the Iraqis sent to check out the camp were quickly overwhelmed, and were only saved from being overrun by American air support...

I don't know how much to expect from the Iraqis, but the idea that we'll be able to stand up as they stand down appears to be somewhat delayed

"I don't know how much to expect from the Iraqis, but the idea that we'll be able to stand up as they stand down appears to be somewhat delayed"

Uh, yeah, that's why we have replaced the policy of "standing them up as we stand down" with one that features MORE troops, a new command team and new ROE (which seem to be working pretty well).

Does the word "surge" ring any bells with you?

Hello! How did you miss that? The reason it is possible to send such small parties to investigate potential threats is BECAUSE close support is available.

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

It was reported that locals noticed suspicious activity and notified authorities, who acted quickly with recon forces. The recon drew heavy fire and called for reinforcement. The enemy was annihilated. Isn't this the way it's supposed to be done?

I haven't heard of heavy casualties due to friendly fire,either. To me, this suggests good coordination among forces.

The news for the insurgents is not mixed at all. They have learned that they still take huge risks massing forces, even to attack helpless civilians.

I know it's *really* popular to bash the MSM for not covering good news and focusing on the bad. I don't deny there's a bias out there, I just think people are focusing so much of their attention on pointing out the bias that they fail to realize that real news *can* be filtered out of the noise.

This posting is a pretty good case in point - for various reasons (mostly illness) I've been less focused on following news recently, and only the more important news items have actually gotten past my noise filter and grabbed my attention. This news about Iraq is one of them -- I heard about it from a variety of sources. OTOH, almost everything involving the anti-war rally did not -- I didn't even know about most of it until I read it here.

Yes, we all know the MSM is biased, but quite frankly, complaining about it over and over (and over and over and over...) gets us nowhere. Or to put it another way, the blogs keep reporting the bad news about the MSM being biased ad nauseum, but they never seem to report the times the MSM rises above itself to do some impartial reporting... :P

You've missed the point yet again. Just like you did here.

We're all political junkies here. We look for news; we check the Congressional record, we go to the White House and Pentagon websites, we research facts and figures, we read the transcripts of speeches and Press Conferences and most of us here filter out the news from the noise without much effort from long practice.

So please get over the idea that you're providing some "new insight" into things on this subject or that anyone here at Redstate does not know how to find information from multiple sources.

All your posts seem to assume that we are saying that we cannot sort the wheat from the chaff or even find the whole mess in the first place.

...and that everyone here at Redstate already knows how to review multiple news sources, knows how to seperate the wheat from the chaff, and is doing their best to teach this to others who don't. In that case, yes, I'd have to agree that my posts on this and the previous topic you linked don't really provide any "new insight" as you put it. I'm skeptical about this, mind you, but I'm willing to take your word for the sake of argument.

But... Given that assumption, wouldn't you also have to admit that all of those people are already fully aware that the media is biased? In which case, what "new insight" do we get from lengthy posts, like this one, which basically boil down to "the media is biased"? If I accept that everyone here knows how to filter through biased news sources, then I have to assume everyone here already knows that news sources are biased.

Maybe there is some other point being made here that I missed, as you say. If so, please, feel free to make it clearer to me.

This story made it through the NOISE can you tell me what has not ?

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

I saw a lot of coverage of this action
outside of Najaf. It was one of the first stories
on CBS Nightly News last night, was a spotlight segment
on The News Hour on PBS, and I heard stories on NPR
News both yesterday and today covering it.

Good old Dailykos.

Instead, of good news, they turn it into bad news and then of course, try to make it seem like we of course killed innocent women and children.

http://barbinmd.dailykos.com/

I saw on the news that one of our helicopters crashed and two servicemen were killed. At that point they were not releasing whether or not it had been shot down. /snark

p.s. I hate the media.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

the Administration starts aggressively investigating CIA and NSA leaks and prosecuting the leakers and Bill Keller. Until then, I've just given up.

If the President can't muster the cajonies to prosecute treason (and I don't think it's a stretch to say that printing the story about financial tracking gave serious "aid and comfort" to our enemies) then everything else on the home front is just an academic exercise.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

Senior Writer

The NY Sun reports that the NY slimes' ombudsman chastised one the Slimes' reporters for daring to give his opinion that the surge might be successful:

"On January 8, the New York Times's chief military correspondent, Michael Gordon, said on the Charlie Rose show, after being asked if he thinks America can accomplish its goals in Iraq:

As a purely personal view, I think it's worth it -- one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we've never really tried to win. We've simply been managing our way to defeat. And I think that if it's done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something."

Apparently some kinds of opinion-mongering, not exactly in short supply in the "news" pages of the Slimes, are simply not acceptable!

Thanks to the speller for giving us the two posts, Fox vs NYT. Can anyone read these two and NOT be aware of the bias of the NYT? The IAF was "surprised," "overwhelmed," "forced to retreat," "pinned down." Total casualties: them = 200+ IAF = 5. Tet, they could argue. No way can they justify their headline on this.

BTW, remember Dan the Rat her. The blogs must keep up a constant drumbeat of facts to counter the bias.

and it's not "news". It's in the business to make money. Otherwise, it wouldn't exist as it does in a free market society. The MSM is only going to report what the majority of folks want to see. What you would call "good news" are things we are expected to see happen. Thus, if it's expected, it's not news. It's news when the "unexpected" happens. Even the news in WWII was biased... just a bias that you wouldn't complain about.

Before you start charging the MSM w/ treason, you need to look at the so called "educated" protesters... they are the first ones to be charged, if anyone.

But your first point, about what business the MSM is in, needs some rethinking. And you need to do a little research.

As previously mentioned in this thread and in others on RS, the MSMs ratings and circulation numbers and profits are disappearing. The NYTwits just posted a multimillion dollar LOSS for 4th QTR 2006.
If they truly are in the business of making money, explain why they are Losing money...

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service