1500 Deaths

[EC]

I just wanted to note that the A.P. had to point out in a news story that there has now been more than 1500 deaths in Iraq since the start of the war. If making a big deal out of certain numbers of deaths isn't blatent media bias, then I don't know what is. These kind of stories REALLY annoy me because it's like they have fun reporting our soldiers deaths and then use it to push their leftist anti-war agenda while pretending they are just objectively reporting "news". How about reporting how many terrorists we are killing in defence of our nation for once!

[BurgessLau]

How about reporting how many terrorists we are killing in defence of our nation for once!

If you were an objective reporter working for an objective news service, how would you report this? In particular, where would you get your information?

[TetrisGod]

I think the answer to that would be: not enough

[EC]

If you were an objective reporter working for an objective news service, how would you report this? In particular, where would you get your information?

I suppose it would have to be estimates from our military. The point is why not concentrate on the deaths of our enemy, which is much much higher than our own, and which shows we are on our way to victory, rather than just showing our running death toll in an attempt to "prove" we are in a "quagmire".

[BurgessLau]

I suppose it would have to be estimates from our military.

My point is that there may be another factor -- besides left-wing bias -- that is involved. My understanding, from news accounts, is that the U. S. military stopped doing enemy body-counts after the press exposed the nonobjective counts announced during the Vietnam War. Those enemy body counts included every peasant lying dead alongside the road after a bombing, for example.

Now occasionally the U. S. military does make estimates, but the numbers are so vague as to be useless for record-keeping. By contrast, all U. S. casualties (except probably those of special-operatives on secret missions) are ultimately reported in excrutiating detail and kept in public lists.

My point isn't to deny left-wing bias and its distortion, but to point out something which I learned from talking with journalists themselves. They are on tight deadlines. They don't have much opportunity to check facts first-hand. They rely on secondary sources. The "economics of knowledge" applies to them as it does to everyone. Thus reporters tend to go along the path of least resistance, wherein the least expensive knowledge is what gets published on the short-term. (Long-term, careful, scholarly analysis may sometimes reverse earlier conclusions, but most newspaper readers only look at headlines, and ignore the in-depth articles published a year after the events.)

Here is another example I learned from journalists themselves. In the decade of the 1970s, the press often reported murder and torture by governments in South America but seldom in the communist sphere of Eurasian governments. Why?

One reason was bias, of course, but the other reason was simple: easier access. The dictatorships of South America were far less ruthless than the communists in, for example, China. Reporters had easier access to Bolivia than they did to Russia. Ergo, relatively more reports came out about torture and murder in Bolivia than in Russia.

Add this factor to the bias of many, not all, reporters and you have a more objective explanation of the general press reporting and why it is so distorted.

[EC]

Mr. Laughlin, that was a very good analysis and I will take that into account in the future. Although, when I did write "estimates by the military", I thought that was a bit of a simple answer being that the military could be involved in a bit of propaganda or psi-ops. Therefore, the press might not fully trust the military's numbers. But, just for the sake of understanding, I didn't get a lot of sleep last night, and when I flipped on the internet that was the first story that popped up for me this morning, and it annoyed me and that's why I commented on it.

Edited by EC for spelling/grammer.

Edited March 4, 2005 by Rational_One

[punk]

Relative body counts don't necessarily indicate who is winning the war.

In Vietnam US casualties (KIA) are on the order of 50,000. Estimates for NVA/VC casualties (KIA) are on the order of 1,000,000. And, the US lost in Vietnam.

However US casualties are going to be a measure of US public support for the war in Iraq.

[Hal]

The media largely reports what people want to hear. "1000 US SOLDIERS DEAD!!!!" is more sensationalist, and hence more likely to sell newspapers/attract viewers, than something about terrorists being killed. The average person tends to care a lot more about dead Americans than dead Iraqis, and media reporting will reflect this.

Edited March 4, 2005 by Hal

[EC]

Relative body counts don't necessarily indicate who is winning the war.

In Vietnam US casualties (KIA) are on the order of 50,000.  Estimates for NVA/VC casualties (KIA) are on the order of 1,000,000.  And, the US lost in Vietnam.

However US casualties are going to be a measure of US public support for the war in Iraq.

No we bailed out because the death total was constantly shoved down the publics throat in order to cause an anti-war sentiment. Vietnam is a war we could have won at any time if we weren't fighting with our hands tied behind our backs from the evil political pressure of the Left.

[EC]

The media largely reports what people want to hear. "1000 US SOLDIERS DEAD!!!!" is more sensationalist, and hence more likely to sell newspapers/attract viewers, than something about terrorists being killed. The average person tends to care a lot more about dead Americans than dead Iraqis, and media reporting will reflect this.

I disagree with this. I think the "average" American is more worried about us killing the terrorists and winning the War on Terror so that we don't have another 9/11 type attack or worse. It is the Left and the Leftist media that pretends to worry about our soldiers lives so that they can push their anti-war/anti-American agenda. Why else would they also do stories where the death rate in this war, which is the lowest in the history of war, is looked on as a bad thing because the soldiers lives that are saved by doctors might be missing a leg or something?

[Hal]

I disagree with this. I think the "average" American is more worried about us killing the terrorists and winning the War on Terror so that we don't have another 9/11 type attack or worse. It is the Left and the Leftist media that pretends to worry about our soldiers lives so that they can push their anti-war/anti-American agenda.

If this was true, then why would anyone choose to watch/read this type of media? People tend to seek out the news sources that will tell them things they want to hear and believe, and if feel-good stories about terrorists being killed fufilled this criteria, then they would be a lot more popular than ones about dead soldiers.

As far as I know (not being American), the only mainstream media source which is biased towards the pro-war side is Foxnews, which attracts significantly less viewers figures than CNN and the like.

Edited March 4, 2005 by Hal

[EC]

If this was true, then why would anyone choose to watch/read this type of media? People tend to seek out the news sources that will tell them things they want to hear and believe, and if feel-good stories about terrorists being killed fufilled this criteria, then they would be a lot more popular than ones about dead soldiers.

As far as I know (not being American), the only mainstream media source which is biased towards the pro-war side is Foxnews, which attracts significantly less viewers figures than CNN and the like.

NO FOX News is by far the the most watched news network. And radio shows like Rush Limbaugh's that are pro-war are also at the top of the ratings. I don't know where you're getting your information from but it's wrong. Traditional media in this country is failing left and right because people here are extremely annoyed by the bias.

[Elle]

NO FOX News is by far the the most watched news network. And radio shows like Rush Limbaugh's that are pro-war are also at the top of the ratings. I don't know where you're getting your information from but it's wrong. Traditional media in this country is failing left and right because people here are extremely annoyed by the bias.

I agree that Fox News is the most watched, and that Rush Limbaugh's radio show is also at the top of the ratings. I can see, however, how Hal has come to believe that the leftist media is dominant - especially if he is outside of the US. I can clearly see, following the re-election of George Bush, that the media is leaning towards the neo-conservative position in order to cater to a public who was polled and responded that they care about "values".

However, the thing about the left is that the left is LOUD and concentrated mainly in major cities like Washington DC, Boston, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle (where I am). Until I travelled in the United States extensively this past summer and fall I had no idea the true magnitude and popularity of conservativism, republicanism, and (most terrifying and shocking to me) Christianity. Now, this is naive I grant - but I have grown up in a secular liberal area. The right is spread throughout the heart-land of the country but it's not concentrated with the same collective voice that the left has worked to have.

I admit I don't watch much TV news (I can't stomach it) - but I do listen to the radio and read the papers. What do you guys think, do you think the media is moving to the left or the right - or is it rejecting both sides?

Edited March 5, 2005 by Elle

[EC]

I think the leftist media is begining to crumble, and the right leaning media is moving too much towards religion. But still a move to the right is good in principle because we(Objectivists) can place op-eds that seem right of the religious right in terms of Capitalism, while attacking their Christian base. The newspapers are going to wonder what hit them.