I dont know why people think the news reports poorly of what is going on here. Any given day, there are 20-40 attacks in Baghdad alone, usually the news reports one. That, to me, is a positive spin on a truly negative situation.
This place is a ****hole.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
But that’s from the New York Times. I thought that, according to BostonBarrister, they are a biased news organization and, as such, their info can not be trusted.
Find the place where BB said the NYT cannot be trusted. I think you are taking some pretty big liberties with paraphrasing.[/quote]
What else is new?
[quote]xMillertimex wrote:
I dont know why people think the news reports poorly of what is going on here. Any given day, there are 20-40 attacks in Baghdad alone, usually the news reports one. That, to me, is a positive spin on a truly negative situation.
This place is a ****hole.[/quote]
But you almost never see the women and girls going to school, the people who aren’t afraid of being sent to rape rooms, you don’t get balls to the wall coverage of the mass graves from Saddam and his evil sons…You don’t see that there’s more electricity and water/sewer now than there was when Saddam was in power. Yes, the place is a shit hole.
Because of a few desperate and cowardly people who choose to try and scare people into submission.
And they’re in a frenzy now b/c they are ceasing to matter. Lately, Iraqi citizens who’ve found insurgents are beatig them to death in the streets. Iraq had a higher vote turn out than this country did. What will satisfy some people?
But you almost never see the women and girls going to school, the people who aren’t afraid of being sent to rape rooms, you don’t get balls to the wall coverage of the mass graves from Saddam and his evil sons…You don’t see that there’s more electricity and water/sewer now than there was when Saddam was in power. Yes, the place is a shit hole.
Because of a few desperate and cowardly people who choose to try and scare people into submission.
And they’re in a frenzy now b/c they are ceasing to matter. Lately, Iraqi citizens who’ve found insurgents are beatig them to death in the streets. Iraq had a higher vote turn out than this country did. What will satisfy some people?
[/quote]
Life happened here before the US arrived. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, rebuilding Iraq hasnt happened as planned. Baghdad still hasnt gotten back to prewar levels as far as the power grid is concerned. The sewage is still dumped directly into the river because the funding for these things was funneled to security instead of rebuilding. I have been at several ministries with children saying they are going to kill me or my coworkers on a regular basis (anectdotal i know) and I see pictures of everyone’s favorite cleric carried by many people as well here in Baghdad. To me, its a warzone. People go to the store, yes…more people are out during the day now then before elections. That is the one solid change I have seen. There is more commerce now. But the threat level is still extremely high and 791 IP’s and IG’s have died since January.
A high turnout for the election is good, but that was in the news.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Find the place where BB said the NYT cannot be trusted. I think you are taking some pretty big liberties with paraphrasing.[/quote]
On 10/29/04, BostonBarrister wrote:
[quote]BookerT:
This study claims to show the New York Times has had a liberal bias back to 1946 – I haven’t read the whole thing, but the abstract looks interesting:
Riccardo Puglisi of the London School of Ecnomics analyzing New York Times issue coverage from 1946-1994. [/quote]
He then went on to post the abstract. He then wrote right after that on the same day and thread:
[quote]I want to see some attempted rebuttals. I imagine they will try to nitpick one or two items, but the most telling thing to me is the Evan Thomas stuff.
It’s not a conspiracy in the media – it’s merely the result of having reporters and editors who are 90% liberal in charge of picking stories, headlines, article placements, etc. Each follows individual preference, and there aren’t enough conservatives there to argue with them or cause them to question those individual judgments.
[/quote]
On 10/28/04, BostonBarrister wrote:
He then went on to post the abstract. Now, what is someone to take from posts like this? The last quote was from a thread he started entitled “NYT and CBS Bias”. Well, gee, if there is such a bias, am I to assume that the info CAN be trusted? If the info CAN be trusted then why be concerned about a bias? Ahh, RainJack, you now say that I am taking some pretty big liberties with paraphrasing. How can that be when there are posts like what I just quoted? What else am I to assume other than that they can not be trusted?
Your challenge to me has been met. Now what? He had to specifically say “They can not be trusted”? Isn’t that what is implied or at least that their info is regularly liberally biased? Now, prove me wrong…but remember, if you do, then you admit that they CAN be trusted which means you all crying about a liberal bias means nothing at all in terms of news.
To me, it seems that many of you want to hide any news that doesn’t put the current administration in the greatest light. I don’t understand that. Why not simply be concerned about THE TRUTH even if if it does mean your party affiliation takes a hit? I posted one article and was immediately given an opposing one by another poster. Is this news tag? Do any of you truly think that everyone over there just loves America when 6,000 people turn out for protests against us? Why ignore that? Isn’t that a part of the picture as well? Joe Weider mentioned mass graves. Why would that be in the news today? Were some more bodies added over the last week?
[quote]xMillertimex wrote:
Life happened here before the US arrived. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, rebuilding Iraq hasnt happened as planned. Baghdad still hasnt gotten back to prewar levels as far as the power grid is concerned. The sewage is still dumped directly into the river because the funding for these things was funneled to security instead of rebuilding. I have been at several ministries with children saying they are going to kill me or my coworkers on a regular basis (anectdotal i know) and I see pictures of everyone’s favorite cleric carried by many people as well here in Baghdad. To me, its a warzone. People go to the store, yes…more people are out during the day now then before elections. That is the one solid change I have seen. There is more commerce now. But the threat level is still extremely high and 791 IP’s and IG’s have died since January.
A high turnout for the election is good, but that was in the news.
[/quote]
It makes you wonder why they don’t want this type of info discussed in the news. Why would you try to avoid it?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Find the place where BB said the NYT cannot be trusted. I think you are taking some pretty big liberties with paraphrasing.
On 10/29/04, BostonBarrister wrote:
BookerT:
This study claims to show the New York Times has had a liberal bias back to 1946 – I haven’t read the whole thing, but the abstract looks interesting:
Riccardo Puglisi of the London School of Ecnomics analyzing New York Times issue coverage from 1946-1994.
He then went on to post the abstract. He then wrote right after that on the same day and thread:
I want to see some attempted rebuttals. I imagine they will try to nitpick one or two items, but the most telling thing to me is the Evan Thomas stuff.
It’s not a conspiracy in the media – it’s merely the result of having reporters and editors who are 90% liberal in charge of picking stories, headlines, article placements, etc. Each follows individual preference, and there aren’t enough conservatives there to argue with them or cause them to question those individual judgments.
On 10/28/04, BostonBarrister wrote:
After the caterwauling that occurred concerning “media trying to influence elections” that echoed around the aborted decision of the owner of a group of television stations that are major network affiliates to air a John Kerry “documentary” (haven’t seen it, but I’m guessing that it approached Michael Moore in terms of having a “point of view”), I wonder why the former caterwaulers are now silent concerning the plan of the NYT and CBS to air this hit piece, ostensibly news but obviously not well researched, as a “blowback” piece 36 hours before the start of the election?
I’m troubled by the timing aspect, because the normal cure for bad speech, which is good speech, would not have had the chance to operate in such a short time frame. The only reason the NYT went ahead and aired the story was that it was starrting to come out on the internet – otherwise, the plan was for both to release the story this coming Sunday.
Generally, I think this sort of thing is regrettable, but must be allowed under Free Speech and Freedom of the Press under the 1st Amendment. However, the impulse behind that blight on the 1st Amendment, Campaign Finance Reform, and the various muzzlings of speech that occur around elections, suggest that some people think otherwise.
Where is the indignation from all of you who could not believe a media outlet would attempt to “affect an election”?
BTW, on a related note, here’s the abstract to an interesting new study purporting to show bias at the NYT over the years:
He then went on to post the abstract. Now, what is someone to take from posts like this? The last quote was from a thread he started entitled “NYT and CBS Bias”. Well, gee, if there is such a bias, am I to assume that the info CAN be trusted? If the info CAN be trusted then why be concerned about a bias? Ahh, RainJack, you now say that I am taking some pretty big liberties with paraphrasing. How can that be when there are posts like what I just quoted? What else am I to assume other than that they can not be trusted?
Your challenge to me has been met. Now what? He had to specifically say “They can not be trusted”? Isn?t that what is implied? Now, prove me wrong…but remember, if you do, then you admit that they CAN be trusted which means you all crying about a liberal bias means nothing at all in terms of news.
[/quote]
Damn, Prof - that took some searching. Seven month old quotes regarding a shoddy piece of journalism and you are going to try and make that stick now?
You are entitled to your opinion. But it is a huge leap to go from calling the NYT out as have distinct and admitted liberal bias to saying that anything they write should be dismissed out of hand.
Trying to argue with you on this point will be fruitless, and undoubtedly lead down numerous tangent paths. Suffice it to say that I disagree with your characterization of BB’s words.
Now the real question is - are you going to dismiss the NYT story referenced above simply because you think BB already has? When did you start limiting your information gathering to BB’s approved sources?
I brought up the mass graves because they’ve recently discovered yet another one, but it barely cracked the news.
Thanks for noticing though.
Nice way to dismiss it too…“what, have more bodies just been added???”
Jesus what a freak.
A while ago something was mentioned about black people having been lynched in the past and how you’re still focused on that because it happened.
I’d ask you the same question you just asked about the mass graves.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Damn, Prof - that took some searching. Seven month old quotes regarding a shoddy piece of journalism and you are going to try and make that stick now?[/quote]
Actually, all I had to do was type “New York Times” into the search engine and those popped right up. So, yes, I am using those posts to back up why I believe what I do as far as his opinion on the newspaper. Why wouldn’t I?
[quote]
You are entitled to your opinion. But it is a huge leap to go from calling the NYT out as have distinct and admitted liberal bias to saying that anything they write should be dismissed out of hand.[/quote]
But isn’t that what each of you do anytime someone posts news that doesn’t put the current administration in a good light? I have yet to hear any of you simply accept news that goes against what you want to believe. Instead “you” argue constantly that there isn’t enough news about mass graves and how women get to go to school.
I don’t dismiss anything. Even in the other thread about liberal bias in movies, I accept information, read it, and make my own judgements. I think you can see clearly why I would write what I did…because many of you do dismiss anything that doesn’t immediately put our Iraq-occupation in the greatest light. One minute, an article from Newsweek is being blamed for starting riots and then the next minute, pictures of Saddam changing clothes are downplayed by the President as he states that those people won’t riot because of these pictures but they would likely riot anyway. Well, gee, doesn’t that show some bias if everyone can get worked up when the news comes from one source and not the other?
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
I brought up the mass graves because they’ve recently discovered yet another one, but it barely cracked the news.
Thanks for noticing though.
Nice way to dismiss it too…“what, have more bodies just been added???”
Jesus what a freak.
A while ago something was mentioned about black people having been lynched in the past and how you’re still focused on that because it happened.
I’d ask you the same question you just asked about the mass graves.
[/quote]
I can’t believe your mentality works that way. We should continuously talk about mass graves created By Saddam DURING A WAR instead of new news about how that war/occupation/reforming is going? I have no doubt that the topic of Saddam’s actions will come up many times in the future as they try to rebuild the damage caused as a result. As their society progresses, knowledge of the past will help them avoid mistakes in the future. The simple fact that you threw that in there not only shows that you STILL don’t understand many of the issues that this entire country had to overcome due to past actions, but you also can’t grasp the points that many make on the subject. Throwing in any insults at you directly would be a waste of time. If you actually thought what you just posted was a proper response, any further discussion with you is a waste of typing.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
But isn’t that what each of you do anytime someone posts news that doesn’t put the current administration in a good light? I have yet to hear any of you simply accept news that goes against what you want to believe. Instead “you” argue constantly that there isn’t enough news about mass graves and how women get to go to school.
[/quote]
If you want to make a blanket statement and say that most of us do that, it would probably be way more accurate than singling out Boston.
Out of the sea of emotive voices that are playing the partisan support game BB, Hspder, Makkum, and Thunderbolt are probably the only ones that actually debate the way it is supposed to be done. So to single BB out as being like you accuse is wrong. It may make you feel better about your own lack of skill - but that’s about all it does.
Dean wrote:
“I’m sure no liberal wants us to lose, Jeff. But a realistic assessment of what’s going on beats blind patriotism or lying any day.”
Dean have you seen the study that compared the death rate between Detroit in April/May of 2004 and the entire COUNTRY of Iraq in the same period.
Detroit had more deaths. That’s one major city. Oh, not the murder capital of the United States.
It’s all about presentation. Words like “quaqmire” and “disaster” are pure and unadulterated bias.
If you reported every death, rape, theft, protest in America every day, it would make Iraq look like Disney land.
Oh, before the Canadians or the Europeans start their horeshit you could insert most of your cities in the same study with the same result.
Anyway, to focus solely on deaths and mayham (aka CNN, NPR, New York Times) equals bias. Pure and simple. No attempt at objectivity. None.
Would anyone like to estimate the percentage of negative versus positive reporting on these networks? 95/5 sound about right?
That is bias.
Read Ranger’s post about the good things in Iraq. Read the numbers.
Let’s make sure you get the message crystal clear: weiners like lumpy pointing out ONLY negative equals bias.
Those of us who believe in this mission
are as aware of the deaths as the head-in-the-sands.
BUT, we also want to hear the good. We want to know that our friends who are sacrificing are doing it for a worthy cause.
It is damn irresponsible for these liberal outlets/lumpy to continue to focus solely on the negative.
I pose a question to the liberals: What if you are right? What if Iraq falls into civil war/is invaded/ breaks into a thousand pieces? What does it get you? You cannot defeat W. Do you really think this guy is motivated by what people will say about his “legacy” (ala billy boy).
Will your party prosper? Not a chance. Most of your representatives voted for the war. If the Republicans were going to be punished for Iraq, it would have happened in 2004.
What did happen? Received the first majority vote President since Reagan, picked up seats in the House/Senate.
Now we have had elections. Syria/Iran have begun patrolling their borders. zarqawi has made the extroadinary comment about it being ok to kill
Muslims.
Do you seriously think that if the mission fails, the majority will turn to the democrats?
Remember this, liberals: If we lose, you lose also. Think on it.
Is it really worth it to say, “I told you so?”
JeffR
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
But isn’t that what each of you do anytime someone posts news that doesn’t put the current administration in a good light? I have yet to hear any of you simply accept news that goes against what you want to believe. Instead “you” argue constantly that there isn’t enough news about mass graves and how women get to go to school.
If you want to make a blanket statement and say that most of us do that, it would probably be way more accurate than singling out Boston.
Out of the sea of emotive voices that are playing the partisan support game BB, Hspder, Makkum, and Thunderbolt are probably the only ones that actually debate the way it is supposed to be done. So to single BB out as being like you accuse is wrong. It may make you feel better about your own lack of skill - but that’s about all it does. [/quote]
I didn’t “blanket” him with anything other than stating and constantly defending that The New York Times can not be trusted. I showed you why I believe that. 'Nuff said. Notice I put “YOU” in quotes in my previous reply. That means in general…and that means you wasted your time typing this.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I didn’t “blanket” him with anything other than stating and constantly defending that The New York Times can not be trusted. I showed you why I believe that. 'Nuff said. Notice I put “YOU” in quotes in my previous reply. That means in general…and that means you wasted your time typing this. [/quote]
I guess we disagree. So what’s new?
But you did get one thing right. Conversing with you has proven to be a colossal waste of my time.
On what JeffR etc. wrote:
Boy you are a gullible one! You should have passed on the iraq/detroit chain email letter!
DETROIT VS. IRAQ
Detroit, total population from 2000 Census: 951,000
Detroit, Total Murders in 2003: 366
Average Murders per month: 30.5
Monthly Murders / Total Population: .000032
Monthly per capita likelihood of being murdered in Detroit: .000032 %
Detroit average monthly murders Per 10,000 people: [point].32
US TROOPS IN IRAQ
Average total US troops in Iraq: 138,000
Number of US Casualties in Iraq Since March, 2003: 1114
Average US fatalities, per month: 58.6
US Monthly Fatality rate per capita: .00042
Average Monthly Fatalities per 10,000 troops: 4[point].2
Ratio of likelihood of dying as a US soldier in Iraq as by murder in Detroit:
25 : 2
Therefore, a US serviceman in Iraq is 12.5 times more likely to die than someone in Detroit is likely to be murdered.
Ok so you’re dead wrong on that one, but you’re wrong about alot of stuff.
What else? Oh we don’t make Iraq look like disney land (is it funny or sad that you believe it?) Let’s see in Bagdhad(the capitol) reporters can hardly leave their rooms, 20 something carbombs this month, random violence, people drinking sewage, double digit unemployment etc. vs. D.C. or NYC?
Weiners like lumpy?—I assume you mean me? I guess you have to ask yourself why do the “liberal”(they must be to have negative news) generals/officers in Iraq say the samething as me?
They offered a “sobering” report. (I think that means pouring water on your Iraqi disneyland dream) I think that giving realistic assessments as I think the military(not pentagon pnac’er civilians) does to head in the sander’s like you and others is the responsible thing to do.
Being REALISTIC about your chances, your progress, your enviroment, and your sitution is just good strategy. Continuing on with the greeted with flowers charade or worse disneyland comparisons, doesn’t help us at all.
Keep your head in the sand Jeff!
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I guess we disagree. So what’s new?
But you did get one thing right. Conversing with you has proven to be a colossal waste of my time. [/quote]
Oh, but it hasn’t been a waste of time. You simply not responding to posts like this:
[quote]
xMillertimex wrote:
Life happened here before the US arrived. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, rebuilding Iraq hasnt happened as planned. Baghdad still hasnt gotten back to prewar levels as far as the power grid is concerned.
The sewage is still dumped directly into the river because the funding for these things was funneled to security instead of rebuilding. I have been at several ministries with children saying they are going to kill me or my coworkers on a regular basis (anectdotal i know) and I see pictures of everyone’s favorite cleric carried by many people as well here in Baghdad.
To me, its a warzone. People go to the store, yes…more people are out during the day now then before elections. That is the one solid change I have seen. There is more commerce now. But the threat level is still extremely high and 791 IP’s and IG’s have died since January.
A high turnout for the election is good, but that was in the news.[/quote]
Says more than words.
In response to what Professor X wrote:
They got that info/piece from an Aussie writer Chrenkoff, look at the very bottom and it gives his blog name. The NY Times is a biased news organization, I didn’t realize that there were people outside of Manhattan that still thought otherwise. Putting that piece in the paper just goes along with their newly announced report to Preserve Our Readers Trust.
We will see if this makes them more middle of the road. The links above if you want to read the whole thing, I’ll paste some of the suggestions that stood out.
“Our news coverage needs to embrace unorthodox views and contrarian opinions and to portray lives both more radical and more conservative than those most of us experience. We need to listen carefully to colleagues who are at home in realms that are not familiar to most of us.”
“We should increase our coverage of religion in America and focus on new ways to give it greater attention, such as expanding the Saturday report beyond the religion column.”
“The public editor found that the overall tone of our coverage of gay marriage, as one example, “approaches cheerleading.” By consistently framing the issue as a civil rights matter – gays fighting for the right to be treated like everyone else – we failed to convey how disturbing the issue is in many corners of American social, cultural and religious life.”
"Too often we label whole groups from a perspective that uncritically accepts a stereotype or unfairly marginalizes them. As one reporter put it, words like moderate or centrist “inevitably incorporate a judgment about which views are sensible and which are extreme.”
We often apply “religious fundamentalists,” another loaded term, to political activists who would describe themselves as Christian conservatives."
and the clincher,
"Nothing we recommend should be seen as endorsing a retreat from tough-minded reporting of abuses of power by public or private institutions. In part because the Times’s editorial page is clearly liberal, the news pages do need to make more effort not to seem monolithic.
Both inside and outside the paper, some people feel that we are missing stories because our staff lacks diversity in viewpoints, intellectual grounding and individual backgrounds. We should look for all manner of diversity. We should seek talented journalists who happen to have military experience, who know rural America first hand, who are at home in different faiths."
CDM, I think you missed the point. I didn’t dismiss what was written in that article. I do, however, think many of the claims of liberal bias (which seem to stretch from news to movies to books to every form of media) are exaggerated.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Oh, but it hasn’t been a waste of time. You simply not responding to posts like this:
[/quote]
Well - that made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
I said conversing with YOU is a wate of my time. I swear - you have displayed absolutely no ability whatsoever to comprehend what people write - unless they make a point you are incapable of making on your own.
Wrt Millertime’s post. He is entitled to his opinion, just as Rangertab is. I don’t see you commenting on what Rangertab has written. Why must I comment on Millertime’s? Was there a memo passed out that said I had to respond to every post? Cause if there was - I didn’t get the memo.
lumpy:
Are you sure you want to argue this point with me?
You do? Ok.
January 05, 2004
Some Iraq Perspective
Murder/Casualties for 2003
Combat Deaths in Iraq: 328
Murders in Chicago: 599
Murders in New York: 596
Murders in Los Angeles: 500
Since you decided to quote 2003 (I quoted 2003). Let’s do it.
JeffR