This is long but very interesting. Someone emailed this to me so I have no idea what worldtribune.com is.
I agree 100% with what is said. I used to hear about Fallujah every day on the news, now you never do. Why doesnt the press give credit for a success? This is also consistent with what I have personally heard from soliders who served over there. It will be seconds before Eben and Spence discredit this but I hope others get some value from it. No matter what is said, I'm not in the debating mood today....

Media's coverage has distorted world's view of Iraqi reality


By LTC Tim Ryan


SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Tuesday, January 18, 2005


Editors' Note: LTC Tim Ryan is Commander, Task Force 2-12 Cavalry, First
Cavalry Division in Iraq. He led troops into battle in Fallujah late last
year and is now involved in security operations for the upcoming elections.
He wrote the following during "down time" after the Fallujah operation. His
views are his own.


All right, I've had enough. I am tired of reading distorted and grossly
exaggerated stories from major news organizations about the "failures" in
the war in Iraq. "The most trusted name in news" and a long list of others
continue to misrepresent the scale of events in Iraq. Print and video
journalists are covering only a fraction of the events in Iraq and, more
often than not, the events they cover are only negative.


The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily
realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international support
for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the
insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through
their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the
media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.


The fact is the Coalition is making steady progress in Iraq, but not
without ups and downs. So why is it that no matter what events unfold, good
or bad, the media highlights mostly the negative aspects of the event? The
journalistic adage, "If it bleeds, it leads," still applies in Iraq, but
why only when it's American blood?


As a recent example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an absolutely
devastating blow to the insurgency. Though much smaller in scope, clearing
Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the Allies' breakout from
the hedgerows in France during World War II. In both cases, our troops
overcame a well-prepared and solidly entrenched enemy and began what could
be the latter's last stand. In Fallujah, the enemy death toll has exceeded
1,500 and still is climbing. Put one in the win column for the good guys,
right? Wrong. As soon as there was nothing negative to report about
Fallujah, the media shifted its focus to other parts of the country.


More recently, a major news agency's website lead read: "Suicide Bomber
Kills Six in Baghdad" and "Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes." True, yes.
Comprehensive, no. Did the author of this article bother to mention that
Coalition troops killed 50 or so terrorists while incurring those seven
losses? Of course not. Nor was there any mention about the substantial
progress these offensive operations continue to achieve in defeating the
insurgents. Unfortunately, this sort of incomplete reporting has become the
norm for the media, whose poor job of presenting a complete picture of what
is going on in Iraq borders on being criminal.


Much of the problem is about perspective, putting things in scale and
balance. What if domestic news outlets continually fed American readers
headlines like: "Bloody Week on U.S. Highways: Some 700 Killed," or "More
Than 900 Americans Die Weekly from Obesity-Related Diseases"? Both of these
headlines might be true statistically, but do they really represent
accurate pictures of the situations? What if you combined all of the
negatives to be found in the state of Texas and used them as an indicator
of the quality of life for all Texans? Imagine the headlines: "Anti-law
Enforcement Elements Spread Robbery, Rape and Murder through Texas Cities."
For all intents and purposes, this statement is true for any day of any
year in any state. True ? yes, accurate ? yes, but in context with the
greater good taking place ? no! After a year or two of headlines like
these, more than a few folks back in Texas and the rest of the U.S.
probably would be ready to jump off of a building and end it all. So,
imagine being an American in Iraq right now.


From where I sit in Iraq, things are not all bad right now. In fact, they
are going quite well. We are not under attack by the enemy; on the
contrary, we are taking the fight to him daily and have him on the ropes.
In the distance, I can hear the repeated impacts of heavy artillery and
five-hundred-pound bombs hitting their targets. The occasional tank main
gun report and the staccato rhythm of a Marine Corps LAV or Army Bradley
Fighting Vehicle's 25-millimeter cannon provide the bass line for a
symphony of destruction. As elements from all four services complete the
absolute annihilation of the insurgent forces remaining in Fallujah, the
area around the former insurgent stronghold is more peaceful than it has
been for more than a year.


The number of attacks in the greater Al Anbar Province is down by at least
70-80 percent from late October ? before Operation Al Fajar began. The
enemy in this area is completely defeated, but not completely gone. Final
eradication of the pockets of insurgents will take some time, as it always
does, but the fact remains that the central geographic stronghold of the
insurgents is now under friendly control. That sounds a lot like success to
me. Given all of this, why don't the papers lead with "Coalition Crushes
Remaining Pockets of Insurgents" or "Enemy Forces Resort to Suicide
Bombings of Civilians"? This would paint a far more accurate picture of the
enemy's predicament over here. Instead, headlines focus almost exclusively
on our hardships.


What about the media's portrayal of the enemy? Why do these ruthless
murderers, kidnappers and thieves get a pass when it comes to their
actions? What did the the media show or tell us about Margaret Hassoon, the
director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was kidnapped,
brutally tortured and left disemboweled on a street in Fallujah? Did anyone
in the press show these images over and over to emphasize the moral
failings of the enemy as they did with the soldiers at Abu Ghuraib? Did
anyone show the world how this enemy had huge stockpiles of weapons in
schools and mosques, or how he used these protected places as sanctuaries
for planning and fighting in Fallujah and the rest of Iraq? Are people of
the world getting the complete story? The answer again is no! What the
world got instead were repeated images of a battle-weary Marine who made a
quick decision to use lethal force and who immediately was tried in the
world press. Was this one act really illustrative of the overall action in
Fallujah? No, but the Marine video clip was shown an average of four times
each hour on just about every major TV news channel for a week. This is how
the world views our efforts over here and stories like this without a
counter continually serve as propaganda victories for the enemy. Al Jazeera
isn't showing the film of the CARE worker, but is showing the clip of the
Marine. Earlier this year, the Iraqi government banned Al Jazeera from the
country for its inaccurate reporting. Wonder where they get their
information now? Well, if you go to the Internet, you'll find a web link
from the Al Jazeera home page to CNN's home page. Very interesting.


The operation in Fallujah is only one of the recent examples of incomplete
coverage of the events in Iraq. The battle in Najaf last August provides
another. Television and newspapers spilled a continuous stream of images
and stories about the destruction done to the sacred city, and of all the
human suffering allegedly brought about by the hands of the big, bad
Americans. These stories and the lack of anything to counter them gave more
fuel to the fire of anti-Americanism that burns in this part of the world.
Those on the outside saw the Coalition portrayed as invaders or oppressors,
killing hapless Iraqis who, one was given to believe, simply were trying to
defend their homes and their Muslim way of life.


Reality couldn't have been farther from the truth. What noticeably was
missing were accounts of the atrocities committed by the Mehdi Militia ?
Muqtada Al Sadr's band of henchmen. While the media was busy bashing the
Coalition, Muqtada's boys were kidnapping policemen, city council members
and anyone else accused of supporting the Coalition or the new government,
trying them in a kangaroo court based on Islamic Shari'a law, then brutally
torturing and executing them for their "crimes." What the media didn't show
or write about were the two hundred-plus headless bodies found in the main
mosque there, or the body that was put into a bread oven and baked. Nor did
they show the world the hundreds of thousands of mortar, artillery and
small arms rounds found within the "sacred" walls of the mosque. Also
missing from the coverage was the huge cache of weapons found in Muqtada's
"political" headquarters nearby. No, none of this made it to the screen or
to print. All anyone showed were the few chipped tiles on the dome of the
mosque and discussion centered on how we, the Coalition, had somehow done
wrong. Score another one for the enemy's propaganda machine.


Now, compare the Najaf example to the coverage and debate ad nauseam of the
Abu Ghuraib Prison affair. There certainly is no justification for what a
dozen or so soldiers did there, but unbalanced reporting led the world to
believe that the actions of the dozen were representative of the entire
military. This has had an incredibly negative effect on Middle Easterners'
already sagging opinion of the U.S. and its military. Did anyone show the
world images of the 200 who were beheaded and mutilated in Muqtada's
Shari'a Law court, or spend the next six months talking about how horrible
all of that was? No, of course not. Most people don't know that these
atrocities even happened. It's little wonder that many people here want us
out and would vote someone like Muqtada Al Sadr into office given the
chance ? they never see the whole truth. Strange, when the enemy is the
instigator the media does not flash images across the screens of
televisions in the Middle East as they did with Abu Ghuraib. Is it because
the beheaded bodies might offend someone? If so, then why do we continue
see photos of the naked human pyramid over and over?


So, why doesn't the military get more involved in showing the media the
other side of the story? The answer is they do. Although some outfits are
better than others, the Army and other military organizations today
understand the importance of getting out the story ? the whole story ? and
trains leaders to talk to the press. There is a saying about media and the
military that goes: "The only way the media is going to tell a good story
is if you give them one to tell." This doesn't always work as planned.
Recently, when a Coalition spokesman tried to let TV networks in on opening
moves in the Fallujah operation, they misconstrued the events for something
they were not and then blamed the military for their gullibility. CNN
recently aired a "special report" in which the cable network accused the
military of lying to it and others about the beginning of the Fallujah
operation. The incident referred to took place in October when a Marine
public affairs officer called media representatives and told them that an
operation was about to begin. Reporters rushed to the outskirts of Fallujah
to see what they assumed was going to be the beginning of the main attack
on the city. As it turned out, what they saw were tactical "feints"
designed to confuse the enemy about the timing of the main attack, then
planned to take place weeks later.


Once the network realized that major combat operations wouldn't start for
several more weeks, CNN alleged that the Marines had used them as a tool
for their deception operation. Now, they say they want answers from the
military and the administration on the matter. The reality appears to be
that in their zeal to scoop their competition, CNN and others took the
information they were given and turned it into what they wanted it to be
Did the military lie to the media: no. It is specifically against
regulations to provide misinformation to the press. However, did the
military planners anticipate that reporters would take the ball and run
with it, adding to the overall deception plan? Possibly. Is that
unprecedented or illegal? Of course not.


CNN and others say they were duped by the military in this and other cases.
Yet, they never seem to be upset by the undeniable fact that the enemy
manipulates them with a cunning that is almost worthy of envy. You can bet
that terrorist leader Abu Musab Al Zarqawi has his own version of a public
affairs officer and it is evident that he uses him to great effect. Each
time Zarqawi's group executes a terrorist act such as a beheading or a car
bomb, they have a prepared statement ready to post on their website and
feed to the press. Over-eager reporters take the bait, hook, line and
sinker, and report it just as they got it.


Did it ever occur to the media that this type of notoriety is just what the
terrorists want and need? Every headline they grab is a victory for them.
Those who have read the ancient Chinese military theorist and army general
Sun Tzu will recall the philosophy of "Kill one, scare ten thousand" as the
basic theory behind the strategy of terrorism. Through fear, the terrorist
can then manipulate the behavior of the masses. The media allows the
terrorist to use relatively small but spectacular events that directly
affect very few, and spread them around the world to scare millions. What
about the thousands of things that go right every day and are never
reported? Complete a multi-million-dollar sewer project and no one wants to
cover it, but let one car bomb go off and it makes headlines. With each
headline, the enemy scores another point and the good-guys lose one. This
method of scoring slowly is eroding domestic and international support
while fueling the enemy's cause.


Almost on a daily basis, newspapers, periodicals and airwaves give us
negative views about the premises for this war and its progress. It seems
that everyone from politicians to pop stars are voicing their unqualified
opinions on how things are going. Recently, I saw a Rolling Stone magazine
and in bold print on the cover was, "Iraq on Fire; Dispatches from the Lost
War." Now, will someone please tell me who at Rolling Stone or just about
any other "news" outlet is qualified to make a determination as to when all
is lost and it's time to throw in the towel? In reality, such flawed
reporting serves only to misshape world opinion and bolster the enemy's
position. Each enemy success splashed across the front pages and TV screens
of the world not only emboldens them, but increases their ability to
recruit more money and followers.

This war is not without its tragedies; none ever are. The key to the
enemy's success is use of his limited assets to gain the greatest influence
over the masses. The media serves as the glass through which a relatively
small event can be magnified to international proportions, and the enemy is
exploiting this with incredible ease. There is no good news to counteract
the bad, so the enemy scores a victory almost every day. In its zeal to get
to the hot spots and report the latest bombing, the media is missing the
reality of a greater good going on in Iraq. We seldom are seen doing
anything right or positive in the news. People believe what they see, and
what people of the world see almost on a daily basis is negative. How could
they see it any other way? These images and stories, out of scale and
context to the greater good going on over here, are just the sort of thing
the terrorists are looking for. This focus on the enemy's successes
strengthens his resolve and aids and abets his cause. It's the American
image abroad that suffers in the end.
Ironically, the press freedom that we have brought to this part of the
world is providing support for the enemy we fight. I obviously think it's a
disgrace when many on whom the world relies for news paint such an
incomplete picture of what actually has happened. Much too much is ignored
or omitted. I am confident that history will prove our cause right in this
war, but by the time that happens, the world might be so steeped in the
gloom of ignorance we won't recognize victory when we achieve it.

Did you say seconds :D

I promise to at least read it first...

-spence

f*ck the liberal media.

A "liberal" media isn't the problem here. Even FOX News spends little time on the positive aspects of Iraq.

I agree that the gent who wrote this makes some very valid points. but the problem the author fails to recognize that our actions are being judged in context with the greater failings. No Internation support, no WMD, no plan to secure the peace etc...

There's little suprise that terrorists will act like animals, but it is suprising to see Americans do so. In context with our motivation for regieme change (to remove a brutal dictator) prisoner abuse is pretty ironic. Does this mean it's more heinous than beheading a peace worker? No, but in context it's a bigger story.

I don't think there can be any argument that Iraq has gotten progressively worse since the invasion. Open schools are not of much help if children can't venture outside of the house. Falluja may be a success from a military execution standpoint, but it leaves much to be desired from a political or strategic one. From what I've read most of the insurgents left town before the operation and the US pounded those who stayed so hard the city is in complete ruin. The net effect is we might not have killed that many terrorists of any note, yet we've destroyed a cultural and religious center in the process. Even if it's something the Military had to do, that doesn't mean there isn't a cost to be weighed. You can go back home now and be happy.

Throughout it all the Administration has keep singing the same happy song, failing to admit any mistakes and decieving the public about the reality. Perhaps if our mission was sound, well planned and honest...our tactical successes would be seen in a more positive light and our failings would be accounted as necessary sacrifice.

-spence

Originally posted by fishweewee
f*ck the liberal media.

I'd like to take the word "Liberal" out of there...Because whether its right or left the media skews everything to fit its own agenda.

I thought that was a great article, brought up a few very valid points/problems I have w/ the media.

As Far to the Left as CNN is and as Far to the Right as Fox News is.....Neither one is covering any of the stories that were mentioned in the article above. They are both worrying about Ratings and Sensationalism. Thats what puts money in their pockets.

And what do we do as a country....we watch them both. And we talk more about seeing that beheading on the news the night before than we do about a new school opening over there.

Spence......You mus know how to type :D

I think this said it all:

How did war end communisim?

-spence

the cccccccold war Spence.

We outspent the commies on defense, remember? Ronald Reagan? SDI?

I knew that silly...

My point is that communisim was really defeated by failings in the communist economic system, and the Soviet peoples desire for change. Reagan certianly helped move things along, but he gets a bit more credit than is really deserved.

But I wouldn't call this a war persay in context with the thread.

Just trying to be my usual nitpicking self :D

-spence

I'm having a wargasm just thinking about you Spence. :heybaby:

:)

Nice thread Jimmy:kewl:

5/0

RIJimmy, I agree with this.. I just posted on a thead in the grump forum that the media will only tell the people what they want you to know... and if they want to show you something, they will bombard you with it..
One could argue that the B ush administration wants the media to show that the war is going badly now so they can get better funding, and have more support to send in more troops ( i dont believe this) but I'm just saying that if the media was showing all of the successes in Iraq, "the People" would have more reason to say the job is done, lets bring our troops home.

I agree though.. lets hea about the good things too not just the bad things.

:cool:

The net effect is we might not have killed that many terrorists of any note, yet we've destroyed a cultural and religious center in the process.

I've got news for you; Fallujah was neither a "cultural" nor "religious" center. Fallujah was a Sh#t hole with a majority population of criminals long before we invaded in 2003. Most of western Iraq was an unruly wasteland. Most Iraqis agree that Fallujah was always a bad place. Look at the number of weapon caches and IEDs that were found. The innocent Fallujah residents were forced out by insurgents, not by the U.S military

Originally posted by DRMatus
I've got news for you; Fallujah was neither a "cultural" nor "religious" center. Fallujah was a Sh#t hole with a majority population of criminals long before we invaded in 2003. Most of western Iraq was an unruly wasteland. Most Iraqis agree that Fallujah was always a bad place. Look at the number of weapon caches and IEDs that were found. The innocent Fallujah residents were forced out by insurgents, not by the U.S military
Well, I would say that a city of several hundred thousand has some culture, and it is known as the "City of Mosques" so appearantly there was some religion at some time :rolleyes:

Also I highly doubt the majority were criminals. A town with several hundred thousand criminals must have a pretty nasty bar scene, if only Muslims drank ;)

You seem to be missing the point entirely.

The razing of Fallujah does come at a cost. US casualties, negative PR in the Islamic world, negative PR in Iraq as well as those that directly suffer and the cost to rebuild. This negative must be weighed against potential benefit...i.e. killing bad guys. I'm not saying we shouldn't have done it, but the negative must be weighed.

Again, from what I've read...we didn't necessarily kill/capture many real terrorists, but more local insurgents. The success of the mission should be based in this context. Not just one of death and destruction.

-spence

Go to Bahrain or Dubai. These are the Las Vegas of the Gulf. Hookers and drinks for all good muslims (and sailors)

I'm booking my flights :D :laughs:

-spence

Again, from what I've read...we didn't necessarily kill/capture many real terrorists, but more local insurgents. The success of the mission should be based in this context. Not just one of death and destruction.

What is the difference between a "real" terrorist and a "local insurgent"? The Fallujah operation was one of the few REAL successes of the post-invasion Iraq War. We completely disrupted and destroyed what had become a nerve center for the insurgency. The only hope of success in combatting this type of enemy is to constantly keep him moving. Incidentally, the U.S. casualty rate in Fallujah was relatively low considering the intensity of the urban battle.

Originally posted by spence
negative PR in the Islamic world

In recent history, I think raghead terrorists have done more to promote negative PR in the Islamic world than anyone else.

Let's see, we've got terrorist hijackings, the Munich Olympic massacre, suicide bombings galore, the 9/11 attacks, televised beheadings of innocent hostages, etc. etc.

If my world view of Arabs and Muslims came just from what I saw on TV, then I would have no choice but to believe that every Muslim Arab is a savage animal that should be shot like a rabid dog, and then I would conclude that Islam is an ugly religion.

Fortunately, I know many Muslim Arabs (and non-Arabs) who are good people and who lead virtuous and productive lives, certainly better than I am in many instances. So I would be blind to subcribe to the former.

To be all that honest, I'm not so sure about the latter.

There is an undeniably palpable darkness associated with Islam in its current state (maybe not unlike Christianity during the Middle Ages).

I'm pretty sure the Christian right is no better than the radical muslims.

http://www.oliverwillis.com/images/15c8b119c2be4b155f298edeba56362c-1703.jpg

Originally posted by likwid
I'm pretty sure the Christian right is no better than the radical muslims.

http://www.oliverwillis.com/images/15c8b119c2be4b155f298edeba56362c-1703.jpg

You find this worse than the beheading, rape, and murder of innocents?

Likwid, That is the most stupid thing i have ever heard comparing religous folks to radical muslim who get off by beheading people. You are a pathetic person for that comment:af:

Hey likwid - (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6852828/)