Irresponsible reporting

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

First, are these the examples of the good news that the media doesn't report? I've seen every one of them get major coverage. It would seem that even the liberal media is willing to report anything positive that occurs in Iraq.

I took a while to consider your post. Yes, I agree that once these things took place, they were major stories. I suppose what I....feel? believe?....is that the length of time prior to the events happening allowed for massive amounts of negativity from the media in how they would never happen. We'd never turn it over by the deadline. We'd never have a successful election there. For months and months and months. So the buildup to the events had a major part, and once they happened, it was covered, and the media moved on.

I also dislike how the media thinks they are more important than national security or the security of our troops. As one recent example, certain members of the media were outraged when they were misinformed about the time table for the assault on Fallujah. They were intentionally deceived, knowing the terrorists monitored our media, to see what the defensive strategy of the terrorists would be when the invasion really happened. I wish I could recall the "journalist", but some big shot in the media was asked if he would have reported on D-day beforehand with details if he known prior to the actual invasion of Normandy. He said yes. To me, that's sad.

The arrogance of the media is amazing to me as well. Regarding the Newsweek story, some members of the media are mad that the administration would dare to second guess them. one reporter asked Scott McClellan "who made you the editor of Newsweek?". So it is OK for the media to second guess and criticize the government all the time, but the government can't criticize the media when the blow a story that causes anti American violence over seas?

Anyway, MBC....you make valid points about the good things that happen are reported. I believe it is the negative spin prior to the events that bother me.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Yes. It is certainly going better than the left would have us remember or believe.

That is probably a true statement. It's also true that it's going much worse than the hawks ever could have imagined 26 months ago:

"Any military presence, should it be necessary, will be temporary and intended to promote security and elimination of weapons of mass destruction; the delivery of humanitarian aid; and the conditions for the reconstruction of Iraq."

- The White House,
March 16, 2003, Statement
of the Atlantic Summit



Incompetent and arrogant fvcktards, every single one of 'em.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

"Any military presence, should it be necessary, will be temporary and intended to promote security and elimination of weapons of mass destruction; the delivery of humanitarian aid; and the conditions for the reconstruction of Iraq."

- The White House,
March 16, 2003, Statement
of the Atlantic Summit

Oh, I didn't say everything was going exceptionally well and as planned. I certainly wish that the Iraqi security forces were larger at this point. But what is the definition of temporary? I suppose if I were one of the soldiers absent from my family two years would seem beyond temporary. In the big picture, though, two years doesn't seem that long. I understand a couple of years at least will still require our presence, though I believe that we will certainly begin troop reduction there soon.

Our commitment in Bosnia was supposed to be less than a year. Korea - approaching 50 years there (though I really do not know the circumstances surrounding the cease fire there and our continued military presence). We've stayed in Europe for 60 years now post WWII (due to some bungling, I believe, from FDR and Churchill when dealing with Stalin).

The major mistake made in Iraq (and I understand many think the major mistake was going at all) was underestimating the number of foreign terrorists that would come in from Syria, Iran, wherever.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

But what is the definition of temporary?

LOL...What is the definition of "should it be necessary"?

[Name]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I could be mistaken, but isn't PBS partially or primarily funded by tax money with some contributions from viewers to boost their budgets? I don't follow PBS at all, so it is possible I am wrong.

But its still the peoples money being spent on the programing, if it is from taxes or from contributions by viewers like me. The govt is just a trustee of the tax monies it collects, it still belongs to the people, as that is what the country was founded on, a govt of the people, for the people, by the people, and all that jazz. But I'm tired(physically, as well as tired of all the left vs. right stuff, lets just have a celebrity death match and decide this once and for all). Namaste.

[scaeagles]

Regarding PBS, why should the government spend anything on it? Let the free market decide if it should survive. It provides no service that cannot be found elsewhere in the free market.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Regarding PBS, why should the government spend anything on it? Let the free market decide if it should survive. It provides no service that cannot be found elsewhere in the free market.

Yes it does. It provides programming that I will actually watch - as opposed to the crap that commercial television provides. The same goes for commercial radio vs public radio. Besides, the amount of taxpayers money spent on quality educational programming is under $1 per year. Big whoop-load of money for something so good. Or, maybe I can just go to Taco Bell instead.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Regarding PBS, why should the government spend anything on it? Let the free market decide if it should survive. It provides no service that cannot be found elsewhere in the free market.

Oh, that's just because a generation ago the silly powers that be decided that we needed a little more culture and world-view in our lives. The three all powerful networks were dishing out the same stupid game shows and soap operas, and there was very little children's programming. New, innovative shows such as Sesame Street and imports like Upstairs, Downstairs, etc, had very little chance to get on the Big Three. You may not agree with PBS's existence, at least the slight amount of public funding they get, but we all owe them a huge debt. Sometime when I'm bored I'll get a list of shows that you would know, and might not have were it not for PBS.

PBS is largely driven by private citizen donations and corporate sponsors. The small amount of government funding is a bargain, especially for what we have gotten in return. Remember, Scaeagles- every great nation has encouraged arts and culture- those that don't, aren't.

Personally, I will be forever grateful to PBS. Were it not for them, I might not have developed my love of all things Python, and I never would have seen such great shows as Faulty Towers, Dr. Who, The Black Adder, The Red Dwarf, and so on.

[scaeagles]

Well, like I said, I don't watch PBS, but I figured that their political discussion programs are similar to what you'd find on any cable news network, and their nature and science programs could probably be comparable to the Discovery or Science channel, and the history channel probably is more extensive than PBS has time for.

[Name]

yeah, but not everyone has cable