Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 05/26/2004 View Tue 05/25/2004 View Mon 05/24/2004 View Sun 05/23/2004 View Sat 05/22/2004 View Fri 05/21/2004 View Thu 05/20/2004
1
2004-05-26 Home Front: Culture Wars
Smack upside the head to the "Dead Tree News"
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Long Hair Republican 2004-05-26 11:55:41 PM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Still -- and even though he represents the seething American street -- Savage is a nut.
Posted by someone 2004-05-26 12:21:12 AM||   2004-05-26 12:21:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 "someone" - nut or no, I think he's right here. Much of the crap our own media puts out is indistinguishable from enemy propaganda (the "wedding" story being the most recent example.) At least now there are sites like this one (thanks be to Fred!) which offer a more balanced perspective. (And good humor, too.)
Posted by PBMcL 2004-05-26 1:05:26 AM||   2004-05-26 1:05:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 The letter was written by Dr Miller, someone, not Savage. Typically, anything that fails to conform to the world view of the fool, must be wrong - never could it be a flawed outlook...

Dr Miller is rational, honest, and correct.

On the other hand, someone, you're just a fool.
Posted by .com 2004-05-26 1:29:50 AM||   2004-05-26 1:29:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Aside from yelling at the guy on the phone about AIDs, I pretty much agree with Michael Savage on most things and I DEFINITELY agree with Dr. Miller here!
Posted by Jen  2004-05-26 1:48:05 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-05-26 1:48:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 I blame it all on TV: in the 1940s few had television sets (or something akin to a television set) => WW2 reporting as described by Dr. Miller. TV rules for next 50 years => Vietnam era and current 5th column reporting. 21st century, we have the internet => information is in the hands of everyone who wants it.
Posted by Rafael 2004-05-26 1:49:31 AM||   2004-05-26 1:49:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 The "fool," in this case, is the one who can't read the content of a short comment. Let me repeat myself in small words for your benefit: I agree with the gist of his letter, but Prof. Miller does our side no favors by attaching his campaign to Savage, who's a nut and an embarassment.

Savage is the guy who, last I tuned in, was shouting that they should lock up all media liberals *under the Patriot Act*. Hey idiot, thanks for feeding nutty paranoia about what the Patriot Act actually does. Way to encourage more antiterror legislation.
Posted by someone 2004-05-26 1:59:14 AM||   2004-05-26 1:59:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Rafael -
I agree 100%, as soon as little ducky's started getting killed on TV.....
The internet balances the playing field I think tho, choice is at your finger tips.
Posted by Long Hair Republican  2004-05-26 2:00:30 AM||   2004-05-26 2:00:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Someone -
What is wrong with locking up a bunch of seditious pukes;-) Did you read the article?

"Way to encourage more antiterror legislation."

Maybe they should add and article of sedition.
Posted by Long Hair Republican  2004-05-26 2:10:04 AM||   2004-05-26 2:10:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 
modern reporters ignore the hostile fire taken by our helicopters from an Iraqi gathering and report that American troops murdered dozens in a wedding party


It simply is not true that "modern reporters ignore the hostile fire taken by our helicopters." The US military's explanations are always reported.

And in addition the media reported that some Iraqis say we attacked a wedding party. That's news that the media should report.
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-05-26 2:12:32 AM||   2004-05-26 2:12:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 someone, I usually like what you have to say, but check out the paragraph before the ones posted:
My conviction that our mainstream media has indeed crossed that line was cemented last week.  Love him or hate him, Michael Savage is a bold, in-your-face radio personality who regularly points out ''the enemy within,'' the politicians and journalists who work against the United States' best interests, whether by pushing backward legislation, distorting the Constitution, or supporting our foreign enemies.  He notes that, whether consciously or blindly, by underhanded political tricks, dishonesty, or left-biased news reporting, they consistently oppose policies, programs, strategies necessary to preserve the strength, freedoms, and prosperity of our nation, and they even obstruct and sabotage our efforts to defeat our terrorist tormentors.  The media's big contribution to this effort is reporting that gives the benefit of the doubt to our terrorist enemies, often actually apologizing for American actions against them.  On his radio program last week, Savage painted a vivid picture of the deterioration of American media and the depths to which it has sunk in its opposition to American efforts in our war on terrorism and in its support and encouragement of our enemies.

I can find no real flaw in Savage's commentary.
Savage may be a bit extreme, but not by much: I didn't realize how bad the media really was and how desperate they were for power that they'd do anything to discredit our country, the war, our soldiers and our President until this whole Abu Ghraib "scandal."
Now I know and you know.
It's dominated the media for over 3 weeks and for what?
A few soldiers out of 138,000 who sexually humiliated several killers they had as prisoners and that was already under investigation by the Pentagon?
For this, they called for Rummy to resign, started re-arguing the whole war in Iraq, tried to hurt our soldiers' morale while they are in harm's way, gave the Enemy hope, and some on the Left are even talking of impeaching the President.
Th media may have worse to follow until the election and given what happened with the Madrid bombings and God help us if there is.
(If you'll notice, al Queda is acting as a political group, just as President Bush said last night, timing their attacks to have political effects, as well as economic, religious and psychological.
Posted by Jen  2004-05-26 2:14:21 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-05-26 2:14:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Mike, true, BUT they always give the benefit of the doubt to the Enemy first and then our side has to spend the rest of the time refuting the story and proving it was wrong.
The "media" (such as it was) would have NEVER done that in WWII.
Posted by Jen  2004-05-26 2:16:16 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-05-26 2:16:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Hmmm. I read the content, someone. Perhaps the word "Still" was far more pregnant that it appeared. Or maybe it was the double-dashes, so obviously laden with a paragraph or two of deep thoughts... I'm not sure. Instead of explaining yourself, and apologizing for expecting others to read your mind, you offer tit for tat. I'd have eaten "fool" had you been big enough to admit you dropped the ball. But no, you call me fool for your failure. Sweet. Oh, BTW, FOAD. Got that?
Posted by .com 2004-05-26 2:19:57 AM||   2004-05-26 2:19:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 ...some Iraqis say we attacked a wedding party. That's news that the media should report.

And that's it? Their work ends at that point? How about coming back to the story if it turns out that what the Iraqis said (and what was reported) was wrong? Nah...that's too much work.
Posted by Rafael 2004-05-26 2:21:13 AM||   2004-05-26 2:21:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Rafael - Belmont Club did an excellent piece on the failure of most "reporters" to follow-up and "evolve" the story (citing one who did as an example of how to do it right) here as the facts come in and followed up with 3 more pieces (just scroll up) on the ramifications of such failures. Wretchard was widely quoted for his clear logic and reasoning - of course it won't change the habits or attitudes of the "annointed" J-school grads or the editorial agenda, but a lot of other people got it.
Posted by .com 2004-05-26 2:28:14 AM||   2004-05-26 2:28:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Rafael, I could be wrong, but I believe the story was first reported as, U.S. Troops kill 40 civilians at wedding.
Something like that.
Then CENTCOM has to report over and over with proof(in this case, pictures) that it was men of military age with lots of guns.
And the Enemy pulled this same caper in Afghanistan if you will remember and the media never retracted their claims to this day that it was a wedding party and not IslamoNazis.
The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the Good Guys the way they play it and there's something very wrong about that which is what Miller and Savage are saying.
Good Lord, the Enemy already has TONS of media outlets!
How many are there that start with "Al-whatever?"
For medieval societies that ban most music and sexy images (but will show things like the Berg beheading), what do all these radio and TV stations find to fill the time in the Arab world?
Point is, the Enemy has their own media, ours don't HAVE to help.
What Savage and Miller are saying is that the PRESUMPTIVE BIAS of almost all our media is not only Liberal, but Anti-Bush, Anti-U.S. Military and Anti-America.
Posted by Jen  2004-05-26 2:30:16 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-05-26 2:30:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 .com: Somehow, I thought that after writing comments here for years, a guy could expect other folks to have some idea of where he's coming from. Suppose not.

Jen: I don't mind extreme per se. But love or hate the "mainstream" media (ok, we're both on the "hate" side), they (like the terrorist groups for whom they fellow-travel) at least realize that there's a PR front to this war we're in. Savage, faults and all, is good for rallying and informing the base but at the same time because of his tone and sloppiness (not on this campaign, perhaps, but still) isn't going to reach those folks who haven't already chosen sides against the MSM. You know, swing voters and all--the ones whom this letter is trying to inoculate. But now I catch myself sounding like LH so I'll stop.
Posted by someone 2004-05-26 2:47:41 AM||   2004-05-26 2:47:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 
Belmont Club records the first report as follows:
A U.S. helicopter fired on a wedding party before dawn Wednesday in western Iraq, killing more than 40 people, Iraqi officials said. The U.S. military said it could not confirm the report and was investigating.
The Iraqi sources were identified as Lt. Col Ziyad al-Jbouri, deputy police chief of Ramadi, and Dr. Salah al-Ani, who works at a hospital in Ramadi.

The second report said:
The US military said it could not confirm the report and was investigating.

The third report (two and a half hours after the first report) said:
A U.S. aircraft fired on a house in the desert near the Syrian border Wednesday, and Iraqi officials said more than 40 people were killed, including children. The U.S. military said the target was a suspected safehouse for foreign fighters from Syria, but Iraqis said a helicopter had attacked a wedding party. ....

In a statement, the U.S. Central Command said coalition forces conducted a military operation at 3 a.m. against a "suspected foreign fighter safe house" in the open desert, about 50 miles southwest of Husaybah and 15 miles from the Syrian border.

The coalition troops came under hostile fire and "close air support was provided," the statement said. The troops recovered weapons, Iraqi and Syrian currency, some passports and some satellite communications gear, it said.


With all due respect to Belmont Club, I read his commentary and don't think its compelling. I think these reports properly tell a developing story, and I think that the US public understands how to follow a developing story.

Jen, I think the US Government concluded that we did mistakenly attack a wedding party in Afghanistan and that we apologized for it. Correct me if you have contrary facts.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-05-26 2:49:57 AM||   2004-05-26 2:49:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 someone - you're right. I should've just asked you what you meant. Obviously I didn't understand the comment at all. I'm wrong, and I'm sorry. No excuse other than a long bad day - definitely time to call it a night.
Posted by .com 2004-05-26 3:01:23 AM||   2004-05-26 3:01:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 Mike, I believe our military reached a "compromise" with the Media: We let them say it was a wedding party and we are allowed to continue saying that our guys were fired on from there and considered it a legitimate target.
Posted by Jen  2004-05-26 3:40:24 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-05-26 3:40:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 Jen: Yes, our pilots fired because they believed they were being fired upon. Moreover, I think that in some of these incidents some of the celebrants do fire, spontaneously but deliberately, at US aircraft.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-05-26 4:40:50 AM||   2004-05-26 4:40:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 .com: all good, I'm sorry if I overreacted on my side of this blue-on-blue incident...
Posted by someone 2004-05-26 5:34:37 AM||   2004-05-26 5:34:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 Incidentally, I don't think stuff like the media's coverage of the "wedding" thing has much domestic effect; we've heard these sob stories before and only the loonies think whatever--if anything--bad happened was intentional. Much more objectionable is their endless preoccupation with actual bad news (coalition fatalities, any seething locals they can find, Abu Ghraib) and total burial of everything positive.
Posted by someone 2004-05-26 6:08:08 AM||   2004-05-26 6:08:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 I have 2 reasons for watching the Main Stream Media:I like to see what kind of goofy-assed spin the put on a particular incedent.
And my dial-up is so damned slow it's just a waste of time trying to view videos and interviews.
Posted by Raptor 2004-05-26 9:28:50 AM||   2004-05-26 9:28:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 someone says: Still -- and even though he represents the seething American street -- Savage is a nut.


Then, someone says: Let me repeat myself in small words for your benefit: I agree with the gist of his letter, but Prof. Miller does our side no favors by attaching his campaign to Savage, who's a nut and an embarassment.

Oh, sure, I can see how those two statements convey your message quite well! They're almost identical.

-AR
Posted by Analog Roam 2004-05-26 9:40:36 AM||   2004-05-26 9:40:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 Remember that Michael Savage is in the entertainment business. He makes his points in a "colorful" way to separate himself from the din of radio and get people to listen to him. The few times I have heard him, he was making good points in a completely over the top fashion - but they were still good points.

This is a good point. The media has always been in the business of trying to shape opinion. If you don't think so, read some of the newspapers from the pre-Civil War era. What is different now is the virulent, reflexive antipathy towards "traditional American values" and anyone who tries to evince those values. The media is not so much pro-Democrat as it is against the values that the Republicans try to evince: a sense of right and wrong; an understanding that in life there are absolutes; that there are winners and losers and it is better to win; a belief in the fundamental goodness of the American people, the American way of life, and the motives of our Government; that people should say what they mean and mean what they say; that your word should be your bond; that just because the interpretation of a law can be twisted and to reach a particular conclusion doesn't make it right; that people have a right to what they earn and make better use of it than the Government; etc.

The media, by and large, are comprised of the same useless, supercilious dolts that we knew in college, the ones who couldn't cut it in calculus and opted for ethnic studies, the ones who liked to look down their noses at those of us who could actually produce something. The ones who cherished their 2S deferment and made fun of the ones who took their place in harm's way. These people think like Al Franken that they are smart enough, they are good enough, and that people like them. Wrong on all three counts. Add to that, no one believes them anymore.
Posted by RWV 2004-05-26 10:22:50 AM||   2004-05-26 10:22:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 Yep, what RWV sez. I used to think Savage was all schtick, read meat served up either raw or burnt, but ok for late night radio up against 'Coast to Coast'. But I've changed my mind with time. He is at one with me, a virtual mind meld.

The guy is at war and he names names, calls a spade a spade. Doesn't speak politely to idiotic apologia. I wont either anymore.
Posted by Lucky 2004-05-26 11:57:15 AM||   2004-05-26 11:57:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 Scary when you see people making points you yourself would like to make, but they're so much better at it than you are, not to mention technically better qualified . . .
Posted by The Doctor 2004-05-26 11:59:46 AM||   2004-05-26 11:59:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 Michael Savage = Howard Beale
Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-05-26 12:18:39 PM||   2004-05-26 12:18:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 About half the time Savage is dead on, and about half the time Savage is peculiar. In re : The war on terror issue. . Savage is pretty good. Unfortunately , the way things are going here in the media in the US, that means that being a realist you must be a pessimist.

The dupes in the main media should be talking about al-Sadr as a butchering nutcase. They can't. They couldn't use those words in college due to "speech codes". They've continued the speech code practices in their day job "activities".
Posted by BigEd 2004-05-26 12:32:00 PM||   2004-05-26 12:32:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 I listened to Savage once, and that New Yawk drawl just grated on my nerves.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-05-26 12:37:13 PM||   2004-05-26 12:37:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 I posted the message below in response to something else, but here goes again, in response to RWV #25, (which was just super, I might add).

There are responsible journalists (truth tellers), and there are irresponsible journalists (the "whatever gets me my paycheck" hacks), the amoral journalists (the lie tellers) and then there are the "operative" journalists (the political messege gurus) who, straight up, use the media the way posters like "Antiwar" and "Gentle" and their gang attempt to use Rantburg. The operative types are bedfellows with the amoral journalists and occasionally use the irreponsibles to effect the outcomes they desire.

The thing to remember is that none of them have any obligation to the American public aside from what they, as individuals, decide they have. It's all personal choice, and some of the journalists who do have their consciences intact, never make it to the "big time." The amoral, operative, irresponsible "culture" of the media shuts them up and drums them out.

Nevertheless, a free press at least gives us a fighting chance that somehow, some way, we will hear the truth. If you have the opportunity to hear something that is based as objectively as possible on fact and truth, or on morality or inspiration within the best context, take the time to thank the writer, filmmaker, radio host, blog manager, etc. It means the world to them, and definitely helps the right side win the WOT.
Posted by ex-lib 2004-05-26 1:37:06 PM||   2004-05-26 1:37:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Savage can be theatrical even bombastic in his presentation of facts, but he is typically 99% on the mark, from my point of view. Savage is an independent talk show host, so there are times he will criticize the President, but when he does so, he is direct and gives good reasons.[eg. letting our southern border remain porous and offering "unofficial amnesty" to 12 million aliens; spending too much time on fund raising instead of spending that time making frequent Presidential speeches to the public about setbacks/progress in Iraq and Afghanistan WOT; too much domestic spending, etc]

If you believe President Bush is 100% right 100% of the time, you should only listen to Hannity or Rush, not Savage. But Savage always says he will vote President Bush this November, albeit with reservations, because the alternative is so scary, which seems fair to me.

Actually, I believe Michael Savage wins over fence sitters with his direct style and his incredible grasp of history and geo-politics as it applies to today's War on Terror. Sometimes when I listen to Savage I feel as though I'm listening to a lecture by a very smart professor. I cannot listen to Rush or Hannity anymore because their unflinching loyalty to the WH erodes their shows' credibility. Those 2 would not be convincing to fence sitters at all because they are so transparent in their pro-Bush persuasion.

As to mainstream media and the changes in journalism since WWII, read the book Coloring the News by Wm. McGowen to learn how journalism and news gathering have been corrupted by diversity hiring over the years. Example, in order to have a story written about gays, nowadays a news organization will assign the job to a gay journalist on staff but in so doing bias and "interpretation" is unavoidable. For war coverage in Iraq, you will notice that often those stories are posted by journalists with a Middle Eastern last name, and it follows there is an accompanying anti-Western bias in the journalist's viewpoint.

In WWII, the NYT did not feel it needed Japanese or German reporters on staff to report the war news. McGowen's website is: http://www.coloringthenews.com

Informative links on the right side of his home page.
Posted by rex 2004-05-26 1:59:15 PM||   2004-05-26 1:59:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 B-a-r, I'm a New Yorker and I can't stand his whining. I only listened to him a few times, and could listen no more. I have no idea what he believes since I couldn't get past the obnoxiousness and rude manners. I don't listen to Rush or Hannity either, but I do know that I could listen to them because they aren't rude. I also agree with someone that we should try not to predicate our arguments on the rantings of someone like Savage because he has such an extreme reputation that people who hear "Michael Savage used a . . . " may well tune out the rational, reasonable argument of someone like Dr. Miller.
Posted by Tibor 2004-05-26 2:32:47 PM||   2004-05-26 2:32:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 The first time I appeared on television, it was for a two minute story evening news story. By TV standards, this is a significant amount.
Remember that the average newscast only has 20 minutes of actual content and some of this is always devoted to celebrities, goofy human interest stuff, and other fluff.
In reading the transcript later, I was amazed at how little information was actually there. Two minutes, major tv time or not, is just not enough time to present a reasonably accurate summation of real world events or issues.

The reason for this is simply that people read a lot faster than they speak, so the ratio of information presented to time spent acquiring it is much higher for print media, including the internet.
Nevertheless, TV influences print. Television is the largest and most profitable medium and is therefore the standard for present-day journalism of all kinds. This means a reliance on emotionalism, vivid though not always accurate imagery, and reference to standard tropes as a substitute for really valid exposition.

This is not always a bad thing, by any means. Forty years ago, video of fire-hoses and dogs being turned on civil rights demonstrators had an impact on public opinion that could not have been achieved with text or still images.

Still, shallowness and irrationality are hallmarks of modern media. Much of this is attributable to the commercial needs of advertisers, and the resulting cultural fallout has had a profound effect on our society.

There is much much more to this and, as usual, I strongly recommend Thomas Franks' landmark cultural history, The Conquest of Cool: Business Culture, Counterculture, and the Rise of Hip Consumerism
Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-05-26 4:36:34 PM||   2004-05-26 4:36:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 As long as Dr. Miler is asking the media to examine themselves, he should ask them to seriously think about how they would be covering this war if a Democrat (especially Clinton) were President.

Yes, I know - if Clinton were still President (God help us all), he would have lobbed a few more missles, gone to attend funerals in New York, and waited for the next attack. But if today's "reporters" could be honest with itself for a moment (I can dream, can't I), they would think hard about this.

And don't tell me their "reporting" wouldn't be any different.
Posted by Barbara Skolaut  2004-05-26 6:44:48 PM||   2004-05-26 6:44:48 PM|| Front Page Top

10:21 Frank
04:05 Jen
03:58 Jen
03:39 rex
03:34 Super Hose
02:32 Mike Sylwester
02:18 Lucky
01:29 Mark Espinola
01:14 Super Hose
01:00 Jen
00:49 Seafarious
00:44 Jen
00:33 Dog Bites Trolls TROLL
00:19 RMcLeod
00:07 Old Grouch
23:59 Secret Master
23:34 rex
23:31 Anon4021
23:28 Jen
23:27 Super Hose
23:24 Jen
23:23 meeps
23:20 Jen
23:19 11A5S









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com