Juan Williams: We don't cover planes that land successfully
Tonight on Special Report with Brit Hume, Juan Williams said that the reason good news isn't covered in Iraq is the same reason we don't cover successful landings at the airport. What a load of crap.
People don't die, and nations don't fall because you don't report successful landings at the airport. People WILL die, and a NATION will fall, if you don't start reporting the good in Iraq. I don't care how HARD it is, or that you might not find it interesting to report, but it is NEEDED. We need to know that we ARE succeeding, because we ARE! Most people don't know that.
The only way Zarqawi and the terrorists beat us, is through political victory on the nightly news in the US. Period.
posted by Jay @ 3:44 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
Please explain how a nation can fall if the press doesn't report more good news. Also, please explain how Zarqawi can beat us in the media. This is an interesting theory but I don't think I've ever seen it fully explained.
The only way we lose is if we CHOSE to. Zarqawi, will NEVER be able to beat us on the battle field. You just have to look at history, and see how we lost Vietnam, to see how this war could be lost.
Don't take my word for it, please. Zarqawi, Saddam, Bin Laden, have all said the way to beat America is on the evening news in the US, by demoralizing the American public. Period. They know it's the ONLY way to beat us. It's the ONLY way we've ever been beat.
So, if the news reports every bomb, as Zarqawi wants, and how he wants (which they do with gusto) and they don't report ANY of the progress being made, that by my estimation is the most effective way to demoralize the American people. Period. If all we see is our guys getting blown up, and we never get to see the good they are doing, or the progress, the REAL progress that we have made over the last year, then what reason would they have to believe we can win?
All I'm asking for, is the truth. I want the truth reported. Report the bombs, and report the progress.
Here's how it works; if the network news decides to cover something like the elections, they always "balance" that news by covering the explosions and bad news in the same sentence. Then, every other night (99% of the newscasts) they simply report the negative, while feeling no need to go out and find the positive. The negative comes to them.
Zarqawi sends his people to blow people up in front of the hotels that the journalists are huddled down in. Those stories are easy to get, because they happen right before them. He sends camera crews with the suicide bombers, and there's ALWAYS footage of the carnage. They then pass it on to Al Jazeera, and much of it works it onto the nightly news here in the US. He even times his bombs to go off at the most adventageous times for US coverage.
The good news is not that simple to report. You actually have to leave the hotel to find it. The Iraqi assembly simply can't sit out in front of the hotel and have their meetings. We can't build the power plants in front of the hotel. If these journalists are in Iraq to cover the story, they have got leave the hotel and FIND stories, good and bad. If they are too scared of the danger, they simply should be doing NO reporting from Iraq. It's dishonest to only report one side, especially when you claim that you are representing both sides.
Don't take my word for it, please. Zarqawi, Saddam, Bin Laden, have all said the way to beat America is on the evening news in the US, by demoralizing the American public. Period. They know it's the ONLY way to beat us. It's the ONLY way we've ever been beat.
I won't argue with the desire to see honest reporting, but I'm still a little unclear on how demoralizing the American public makes us lose the war. The war is being fought in Iraq, by American soldiers, not here in the U.S. Even if the media was able to convince me that we were losing in Iraq, what I think doesn't really matter, because I'm not fighting the war and I'm not making U.S. policy.
I'm sure I'm missing something here, because a lot of smart people seem to think that if the American public thinks we're losing the war, then we'll actually lose as a result. I always thought our troops were capable of winning regardless of what the American public thinks. So I think there's still a step missing in your explanation, or maybe I just missed it.
Again, I can't argue with a desire to see the media report the whole story. Although it's hard for me to know whether or not they already are, since I'm not in Iraq and the media and the blogs are all I have to go by.
By your rationale we wouldn't have lost Vietnam either.
If the American public votes into office some commie socialist just because they want us out of Iraq, that's one way for it to happen. That's partly how Nixon came to be. That's IS why Nixon stopped fighting in Iraq, and it IS why, after leaving Vietnam we did nothing to protect the South when the North invaded...despite promises to do so.
There's no way they beat us on the battlefield. Again, READ Zarqawi, Bin Laden, and Saddam, they will tell you in their own words the EXACT same thing.
I should clarify, I'm not saying Nixon is a commie socialist, but what he wasn't, was Johnson.
The alternative to Bush is a commie socialist, most likely. Take your pick from the Democrat side and they want a more socialist society.
So you don't think we can win in the next three years before the next election? I don't think you are giving our troops or the brave Iraqi people enough credit. Maybe you have been reading too much of the MSM, too.
By your rationale we wouldn't have lost Vietnam either.
I don't know, maybe Vietnam was unwinnable even with a supportive media. Was there a lot of good news in Vietnam that went unreported like there is in Iraq? I wish I was as familiar with the history as you seem to be. Either way, there seem to be a lot of differences between Iraq and Vietnam, even though the media keeps trying to make them seem the same.
Your sarcasm is SOOOO smooth and you BS is up to your eyeballs! :)
Thanks for playing. Bye bye.
Hehe, you got me. Though I was only being partially sarcastic. I do have tremendous confidence in the U.S. military and I would like to believe the war is still winnable. And I find your honesty somewhat refreshing - you are the first conservative I've asked who actually explained how the media could lose the war for us (I don't agree with you and think your reasoning is un-American, but it's clear that there's no point in us arguing about it). You are also the first one to admit that we're 3 years or more away from winning.
Oh? If the media continues down this path, we could be 6 months away from losing. The midterms are coming up, that will have a great impact on things.
And I never expressed anything but the utmost in confidence in our military. There is nobody in the world that can beat them. They will not lose the war. The American media will lose the war by influencing politicians and the American public.
If you have to change what people say when debating them, as you keep doing with me, then you should look up what the word honesty means in the dictionary, because clearly you either don't get what honesty is, or you are dishonest and dishonorable in the extreme.
Anyway, this is my last time engaging you, because you refuse to discuss any topic without putting words in my mouth, and playing childish word games. Grow up, and being witty, is not being smart, and lying is not a good way to win a debate.
If the media continues down this path, we could be 6 months away from losing.
*only* if President Bush and the Republican party wuss out and cave to anti-war pressure.
The American media will lose the war by influencing politicians and the American public.
Fine, but that means you don't think we'll win this war in the next 3 years, because the administration running the war and controlling foreign policy is the Bush administration and it will be for the next 3 years. If you disagree with me, explain why.
If Bush and the Republicans cannot stand up to public pressure and finish the war they started, then that means they care more about their own jobs then they do about the freedom of 25 million Iraqis and the cause that more than 2,000 Americans have given their lives for. I think that as long as they are in office, they will try to finish what they started.
Maybe I just have more faith in our Republican leaders than you do.
Post a Comment
<< Home