Given that it's Halloween, we can't let the day go by without noting the ghoulish MSM habit of burying good news from the Iraq War.
Blogger Don Surber noticed the latest such example with the October 31 edition of the Washington Post:
Stories the Washington Post thought were more important than “Attacks in Iraq Continue to Decline”
I wrote about this last night, but it still bugs me that the Washington Post put on Page 14 today: “Attacks in Iraq Continue to Decline.”
While the headline made it seem like old news, the fact is it is not. Ace of Spades complained that WaPo rationalized burying an Oct. 7 report of a decline in deaths on Page 14. Said Ace: “The Washington Post was right not to play this up too much, Robin Wright lectured us, because there was no evidence it was a trend.”
Rather Clintonian. Deny first, then later say it is old news: MoveOn.
So, what did WaPo think was more important than fewer GIs dying in Iraq?
Surber answers that question at his blog in more detail here, but here are some of the things the Post thought more front-page worthy: black holes -- where gravity is so strong not even light can escape -- and the Democratic debate on MSNBC -- where the bias was so strong viewers couldn't escape the inane "swift-boating" question from Brian Williams.
A comprehensive treatment of bias from the Washington Post can be found in the NewsBusters archives here.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I saw this great news this
October 31, 2007 - 12:29 ET by bigtimerI saw this great news this morning on one place only....The Washington Journal...it was read from the WaPo, I think they said page fourteen, I immediately thought of the bias...bury the great news our military is making....Nobody will know.
Agenda agenda agenda.
Pathetic.
Ken, While the decreasing
October 31, 2007 - 12:39 ET by LeonKen,
While the decreasing violence in Iraq is a great development when you take it at face value, there are other factors that you have to take into account.
Most notably the fact that one of the main reasons there is less violence is because the neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.
I agree the media should cover this, but I think the bush admin. might want to be careful of celebrating too soon.
If there is less violence because of ethnic cleansing is this really progress? Are we really moving towards a united Iraq? Is this really an indication that we are 'winning'?
Here's a quote on this from Joe Christoff, Director of GAO:
The Bush administrating
October 31, 2007 - 12:44 ET by bigtimerThe Bush administration celebrating too soon?
Not likely that would ever happen Leon.
He would give the credit if and when to the military as he always has...and they richly deserve.
Not mentioning this in the msm plus burying the story of the great progress is an obvious agenda from the leftists who have no desire for Victory...zilch!
If Iraq splits into three
October 31, 2007 - 12:50 ET by LeonIf Iraq splits into three seperate countries, will we call that victory?
The decreasing violence has shown that the only way to get these people to stop killing each other is to isolate them from each other.
I'm not so sure that's our ultimate goal. We're trying to establish a unified Iraq.
Obviously the troops have done a tremendous job, but there's not much they can do about tensions that have been simmering for 1,300 years.
The point of the story here
October 31, 2007 - 12:54 ET by bigtimerThe point of the story here is the bias in the msm not mentioning this news or burying it in the papers Leon.
That is the point...the hypocrisy and obvious agenda driven bias Leon.
The drive-by media wants defeat Leon...no matter how they can aid and abet they will, releasing classified info on front pages to our detriment during the war Leon.
Get it?
Right BT, but the claim
October 31, 2007 - 12:57 ET by LeonRight BT,
but the claim that this news is good is dubious.
Little one... Less deaths
October 31, 2007 - 13:00 ET by bigtimerLittle one...
Less deaths in the military and reporting this to the people here is dubious?
Surely you jest.
Less deaths of course is
October 31, 2007 - 13:02 ET by LeonLess deaths of course is good news, but it's hard to look at without acknowledging the fact that there are less deaths b/c the groups are isolating themselves.
We're not moving towards a united Iraq. We're moving away from a united Iraq. This is not good news.
The point Leon is the news
October 31, 2007 - 13:11 ET by bigtimerThe point Leon is the news is not being reported for an obvious leftist agenda...called defeat at all costs.
Period.
If you cannot see or refuse to admit this is a fact... then you prove the point that you are just here to troll.
The loud swooshing sound you
October 31, 2007 - 13:14 ET by Free StinkerThe loud swooshing sound you hear is from all of your points flying over Leon's head.
the left always moves the
October 31, 2007 - 13:48 ET by TruthMongerthe left always moves the goals posts - SOP - they have commitment issues - a basic requisite of the GWOT of course...
deaths are down YES BUT "look at the reasons!"
get close to those posts and they will move again
look at it as finger exercise, i guess - lot's of typing practice:)
Partner with Islam and the NB respect police:)
BT, The MSM's only goal
October 31, 2007 - 13:14 ET by LeonBT,
The MSM's only goal is to make money. They show what they think people will watch. If you think any differently, I can't help you.
How would us losing in Iraq make the MSM more money than us winning in Iraq?
Everyone claims the 'lefties' want us to lose the war, but it makes no sense. What do they gain from us losing the war?
They have something to attack bush about? Well, what happens when we have a dem president, will they all of the sudden want us to win in Iraq?
Troll on Leon. I'm done
October 31, 2007 - 13:19 ET by bigtimerTroll on Leon.
I'm done with you here.
Translation: I have no
October 31, 2007 - 13:20 ET by LeonTranslation: I have no answer to your rational thinking.
Calling another a troll = Newsbusters Universal Sign of Surrender
I haven't trolled at all. What I've brought up in this thread is entirely relevant to the discussion at hand.
BT, maybe leon isn't trolling here.
October 31, 2007 - 13:24 ET by RJLaura Ingraham calls it being a Butt Monkey.
i.e. "sure the lower casualty rates are good, buuuut...."
It's descriptive of those who are unable to accept good news without attempting to find something negative to say.
You have done what you
October 31, 2007 - 13:27 ET by bigtimerYou have done what you always do little one...
Derail the subject of burying the news intentionally.
You have always been a troll Leon, you kid no one.
Btw...the papers are losing money for the most part.
Carry on with your agenda...along with the msm and other leftists.
BT, Right papers are
October 31, 2007 - 13:29 ET by LeonBT,
Right papers are losing money.
It's called the internet.
So you are admitting I was
October 31, 2007 - 13:36 ET by bigtimerSo you are admitting I was right and you are wrong...about time Leon.
BT, I don't see what your
October 31, 2007 - 13:39 ET by LeonBT,
I don't see what your statment has to do with anything I've said.
The fact that papers are losing money does not in any way change the fact that their primary goal is to make money.
ROFLMAO! You are a riot
October 31, 2007 - 13:42 ET by bigtimerROFLMAO!
You are a riot little one...poor little guy...
Gotcha'!
BT,Is everything ok with
October 31, 2007 - 13:46 ET by LeonBT,
Is everything ok with you? You're acting a little loopy.
What's all this gotcha talk?
So you're saying that the fact that papers are losing money means that they aren't trying to make money? I think that's what you're arguing and if so it's an interesting viewpoint.
A company without the goal of making money. That's a new one for me.
My feeling is that you misread or misunderstood my post. That's the only explanation for your bizarre response.
Sorry Leon... I'm still
October 31, 2007 - 13:50 ET by bigtimerSorry Leon...
I'm still busy ROFL at you....
A company without the goal of making money. That's a new one for me.
Get a clue, it's called an agenda, a leftist agenda...which I patiently tried to explain to you, that is the point of Ken's whole blog post...the leftist msm of all venues bury the good news...get it yet?
They do this at the expense of the military lives and their own profits...for their own power and agenda driven hope for defeat.
Treason comes to mind.
Leon...
October 31, 2007 - 13:20 ET by Clear thinkerStatements like this..."The MSM's only goal is to make money." is why your arguments don't hold much weight on this site. You always surprise me with your lack of education.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Is this not the main goal
October 31, 2007 - 13:21 ET by LeonIs this not the main goal of every single company operating for profit in America?
If this was true concerning
October 31, 2007 - 13:25 ET by Clear thinkerIf this was true concerning media outlets, more of them would be fair and balanced. Fox news is making huge amounts of money!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Ok so your argument is that
October 31, 2007 - 13:29 ET by LeonOk so your argument is that the MSM isn't trying to make money otherwise they'd be more like FoxNews?
And I'm the one that needs to be educated. Ha.
They're either public companies with shareholders to answer to or they're private companies with principal's to answer to. Either way those people have invested with the goal of making money.
The only goal is to make money. I'm not sure how you can try to disagree with this statement.
Leon, you forgot the
October 31, 2007 - 13:32 ET by tracheostomyLeon, you forgot the product and the consumer that the product is being sold to.
So, get back to study hall there, lil' guy.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
No I didn't. Both the
October 31, 2007 - 13:38 ET by LeonNo I didn't.
Both the consumer and the product are inherent components of my making money charge.
The point obviously being these companies are doing what they think will give them the most desirable product, which will help to acquire the most consumers, and make them the most money.
Pretty simple.
Well, at least
October 31, 2007 - 13:40 ET by Clear thinkerWell, at least you understood what I meant. The rest of your response however proves my statement.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
haha. Ok Ct. You're
October 31, 2007 - 13:42 ET by Leonhaha.
Ok Ct.
You're right. The shareholders and principals involved with major media companies don't have any interest in making money.
I mean, hey making money couldn't be their goal, or they'd be making more of it like FoxNews, right?
haha.
Leon... I'm gonna try one
October 31, 2007 - 13:56 ET by Clear thinkerLeon...
I'm gonna try one more time in an attempt to show you a simple thing called logic.
If so many media outlets report and write about the virtues of Socialism, what makes you think profit is all they care about?
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Officially the main goal is
October 31, 2007 - 13:28 ET by TruthMongerOfficially the main goal is supposed to be providing the best type service in your sector - which results in $$$!
But reality? Hmmmm...
Partner with Islam and the NB respect police:)
Leon, in repetitive polling
October 31, 2007 - 18:16 ET by BDLeon, in repetitive polling of the Iraqi public, the Iraqi's voiced the same opinion as their government. THey do not wish to be divided.
Mostly they wish for a federalized society, but not outright seperate nationalities.
Try again.