Why Did The Media Lose 'Why'?
By Tom Segel | August 24, 2005 | 16:18
The web page publication Yahoo News, on August 21, 2005, ran a banner headline reading “Cindy Sheehan Stirs Up Long Overdue Anti-War Movement”. The text of the article reads “She is no glamour girl, and yet she has a throng of admirers who have been nursing inside themselves, for the last two years and more, the secrets she implicitly reveals.”
The article identifies her as “The Gold Star Mother of the Iraq War” and later in the text charges …”Cindy Sheehan’s lightning effect on the country is that she has been saying – with her actions, gestures and intonations, if not exactly in words – what has been left deliberately unsaid in America until now…That the war in Iraq is useless.”
In general, the tone of this article reflects media coverage from most national sources. What is never voiced or placed in print is the “Why” of their actions. For untold decades, news reporting has been charged with adherence to what is called the 5 “Ws” of journalism. This is an instruction that any factual event should address the “who”, “what”, “where”, “when” and “why” of the story. Some place along the road between Vietnam and Iraq our media lost the “why”.
Why do most reports insist on identifying Cindy Sheehan as a “Gold Star Mother”? The term identifies families who have lost a son or daughter in combat. But, articles never mention why they continue to use that term. Nor does the media report Gold Star Mothers (formally named American Gold Star Mothers) have placed a news box on their website stating, “Cindy Sheehan is currently in the news. She and her organization have no connection whatever with American Gold Star Mothers, Inc. We are a 501 C (3) organization and as such do not engage in political activities. We do support our troops. After all they are our children.”
From New Mexico, Charlie Revie, a retired Army officer asks why the media continue to endlessly address the complaints of Cindy Sheehan? He also asks “Why is the main stream media slanting the news the way they do? It is beyond my comprehension. Some of his questions are “Why the over emphasis and fixation on U.S. body count, U.S. body parts, blood and guts? For every U.S. casualty there have been at least 10 Iraqi civilian casualties.” He further asks, “Why cannot the media support our national objectives? The mainstream media orchestrated our ultimate defeat in Vietnam by their pandering. General Giap notes in his autobiography that we had the NVA beat at the end of Tet and would likely have given up had it not been for the main stream media slant in the United States that we would eventually withdraw.”
John Boring is a retired Marine living in Arizona. He writes, “I had sympathy for Cindy Sheehan until I read an article in the Sunday’s nation section written by G. Robert Hillman. Not quite midway in the story there is a quote by Sheehan, speaking of her family’s disagreement with her cause: “It doesn’t surprise me that they resent it, because they’re Bush supporters,” she said. Why didn’t that quote get prominent media attention?
Donald G. Tyson is a retired Navy Seal living in Lady Lake, Florida. He believes the media have forgotten the “why” of the story, “Because the liberal mainstream media is hell-bent on destroying the Bush Administration in any way they can. By denouncing the war as unjust and unwarranted, they are hoping it will grow legs with the American public just as it did in Vietnam and restore the Democrats to power.”
Why does the media forget the “why”? Lawrence Cutting, a former Air force Staff Sergeant in San Jacinto, California says, “To me the answer is simple. It may be found on any college campus that offers journalism major. Walk into a journalism class and one will find an almost totality of liberal students being led by left wing or left leaning professors. I believe this has been especially pronounced from Vietnam forward. The overwhelming majority of personnel who produce ‘news’ are liberal.”
Another retired Marine, Chuck Kester of Edenton. North Carolina believes Cindy Sheehan thinks she will be on the front page forever, but has already made some serious mistakes. “When she discovers no one is paying attention, she’s going to go rabid, thus adding to the embarrassment of everyone in her vicinity. Her sympathizers forget, or never knew, that we now have a volunteer military. Everyone under arms today is there because he or she chose to be. I can feel sorrow for her loss, but her irresponsible ranting shames me. There is no good to come of it, and needless harm in the eyes of the rest of the world.”
Concerning the loss of “why” in the media he says, “As usual the news media is playing the only tune it knows – DISASTER! DISASTER! DISASTER! They learned that song shortly after World War II and never forgot it.”
Like many others, Eric Muth, a former Staff Sergeant in the Army and National Guard wonders why the media don’t honor our service personnel by reporting all sides of what is taking place in Iraq. He observes, “It is not as simple as right or wrong, the fact is we are there. Now do we turn and run or as the president say: “Stay the course. More soldiers will die and that saddens us, yet dying for their country, if necessary, is exactly what they signed up to do. Grieving mother can unknowingly aid and abet the enemy in misdirected hopes of stemming losses for other mothers. The enemy knows the lessons of Vietnam and very much would like to repeat them to the detriment of our nation.”
He answers the media’s lost “why”, saying It is time to show the world that we can be trusted to fulfill our obligations to others, that public opinion polls do not dictate all policy and that we bleed, sometimes heavily, in order to do the right thing.”
These veterans all understand the “why” of the story. How could a powerful national media lose such an important element of a story?
- Tom Segel's blog
- Login to post comments
