For the last three years, those of us on the right side of the blogoshere have argued that the MSM has presented a biased, anti-US picture of the action in Iraq, while the left side have claimed that the bias runs in the opposite direction.

Well, that argument will continue to be fought, I'm sure, but while the Leftsiders use their own filters of academics and feelings oriented to demonstrate their POV; I think that most of us on right side will continue to use those that have actually "been there, done that" to show our POV.

In the first week of June, there was a conference of General/Flag officers at Ft. Carson,Co. where some of the differences between the general perceptions of the general public and those that served in theater. were discussed, among other topics pertaining to the conduct of operations.

Here's just a taste:

Public Affairs: We are losing the public affairs battle for a variety of reasons. First, in Iraq, the terrorists provide Al Jazeera with footage of their more spectacular attacks and they are on TV to the whole Arab world within minutes of the event. By contrast it takes four to six days for a story generated by Army Public Affairs to gain clearance by Combined Forces Command, two or three more days to get Pentagon clearance, and after all that, the public media may or may not run the story.

and

Third, the stories that are filed by reporters in the field very seldom reach the American public as written. An anecdote from Col. McMaster illustrates this dramatically. TIME magazine recently sent a reporter to spend six weeks with the 3rd ACR as they were in the battle of Tal Afar. When the battle was over, the reporter filed his story and also included close to 100 pictures that the accompanying photographer took. TIME published a cover story on the battle a week later, allegedly using the story sent in by their reporter. When the issue came out, the guts had been edited out of their reporterÂ’s story and none of the pictures he submitted were used. Instead they showed a weeping child on the cover, taken from stock photos. When the reporter questioned why his story was eviscerated, his editors in New York responded that the story and pictures were too heroic. McMaster had read both and told me that the editors had completely changed the thrust and context of the material their reporter had submitted.(emph mine~D)

The Left says that the MSM is "the corporately owned lap dog of the Administration" while we on the Right have repeatedly pointed out that "stories always seem to be slanted against American interests". Probably both views have a modicum of reality to them (being biased, and a reasonably cogent type, I still subscribe to the Rights view as being the one much closer to the reality, of course).

Enough of my blather however, go read the link and see what you think.

to GuyK for the heads up

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 01:56 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 511 words, total size 3 kb.