When the Main Stream Media (MSM) becomes its own story.

and lose sight of thier real purpose..reporting the news..

Published on January 30, 2006 By ShadowWar In Current Events

Now I know I may sound harsh, and that is not my intention, but since when does a journalist being injured in Iraq become front page, headline news? And why the sudden focus on IED’s? They have been going off in Iraq for years now. Since when does the media become a story unto itself?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/30/iraq/main1252980.shtmlhttp://

Two days ago Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt, his cameraman, were seriously injured when an IED went off next to the vehicle they were riding in. Now this is a serious thing for Mr. Woodruff and Mr. Vogt. But why the front page headlines and the top of the hour updates on their conditions? Since when is a reporter front page news when he is injured doing his job? 79 have been killed in Iraq since the war started. Have you heard about each one? What about all the fine men and women of the armed forces that are injured everyday?

This story has brought renewed interest because it is point they can use to talk about the IED’s and how “unsafe” travel is in Iraq is according to the MSM. What they tell you is there were 220 IED attacks across Iraq that day. What they fail to tell you is the almost 300 IED’s found that week that were discovered and disabled before they could injure anyone. What they fail to tell you is all the successful patrols where no one is injured, terrorist are captured or killed, IED's are found and disabled and other things of a "good" nature happen.

Maybe there is so little bad news for them to report now from Iraq that they grasp at anything that they can to show the “horror” and ‘violence” going on over there. What they keep forgetting is that Mr. Woodruff and Mr. Vogt knew the dangers and requested to go out on that patrol. They also forget to mention something. Let me ask you this question. How many others were injured or killed in that very same attack? Don’t know? Why isn’t that important to the story?

The MSM continues to show just exactly what they are made of and how they pick only those stories that show Iraq and anything to do with it in a negative light. My local newspaper yesterday almost made me cheer, but the cheer died in my throat as I read further in a story. They posted a positive headline about Iraq, then had to put a sub headline that was negative in nature. They had caught, then lost my attention. I wonder if they knew people were not reading the story based on the sub-heading.

The MSM has lost its collective mind. When they themselves become such a story that they cover themselves rather than the real news and events, it has reached a point where the MSM professionalism and un-biased reporting is a thing of the past. Instead of trusting the MSM for un-biased, complete coverage of a subject I find myself forced to search out several sources before I get the whole story. I wonder if they care. Probably not. Think they will care when no one watches their channel or buys their papers anymore? They will more than likely just move their information they are feeding to the public to the Internet and hope they can survive.

I foresee a new breed of reporter someday. One who reports honestly and directly to the web, unedited by some editor with an axe to grind. Oh that’s right, we have those already, they are the men and women in the military that are posting their own blogs to try and “get the word out” what its really like.

Comments (Page 1)

ParaTed2k

on Jan 30, 2006

Aren't we glad that after 2400 troops killed, and 60+ journalists killed and wounded, now that these two have been wounded the war is finally "real"? If it wasn't "real" until now, what did they consider it to be?

singrdave

on Jan 30, 2006

"My goodness! There are IEDs in Iraq! And Iraq is a dangerous place!"
The gist of USA Today's lead story. Glad they're hitting us with hard stuff.

Apparently all journalists should not only be unbiased but bulletproof.

davad70

on Jan 30, 2006

Do you really that it's no big deal that the new face of one of the major networks news division is seriously injured in Iraq? I can see your point to a degree about the news not reporting the positives, but that's been an issue with the media for a very long time. It didn't start with the Iraq war or when GW became president...it goes way back. But to say this isn't a big story is ridiculous.

ShadowWar

on Jan 30, 2006

Why is it a big story? What makes him any different than anyone else over there reporting? We haven't heard abou tthe other 60+ that were killed, why him? Becasue he has friends on the network, thats the only reason.

davad70

on Jan 30, 2006

Because he's anchor of one of the big 3 networks evening news. It's not like he's just some schlub reporter who happened to have had a couple friends in the news business.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 31, 2006

Do you really that it's no big deal that the new face of one of the major networks news division is seriously injured in Iraq?

No bigger or smaller deal than any other journalist or troop seriously wounded in Iraq. Of course, anyone more well known than the average person is going to generate more interest as a news story, but why would Bob Woodruff being wounded make it anymore "real" to anyone, unless they didn't give a crap about any of the others that have been wounded or killed?

kingbee

on Jan 31, 2006

how “unsafe” travel is in Iraq is according to the MSM

just how safe is travel in iraq if you're riding in an unarmored iraqi police vehicle around taji according to your non-msm sources?

What they fail to tell you is all the successful patrols where no one is injured, terrorist are captured or killed, IED's are found and disabled and other things of a "good" nature happen.

which is why it's a good thing woodruff and his cameraman got it. hopefully the msm will get the message and stop with all the negative reporting about the one or two americans who die every other day and focus instead on something more positive--like 120,998 who live to see a new dawn.

They also forget to mention something. Let me ask you this question. How many others were injured or killed in that very same attack? Don’t know? Why isn’t that important to the story?

1 iraqi soldier was also seriously injured. it is important to the story and also to a larger story.

altho ied attacks--which are responsible for a lil less than half the american military deaths in iraq and for more than half the injuries suffered by our troops--continue to increase, fewer americans are being injured or killed than in the past.

while i get the feeling you won't agree, one of the major reasons for that reduction the useless lying msm informed the largely clueless american public that our soldiers were being put in harm's way cuz of a deplorable lack of armored vehicles and inadequate body armor.

i remember yall disputing the importance of proper armor two years ago. i'm sure you can come up with something similar to demonstrate iraqi forces drivin around in stock vehicles aren't in any more danger than our guys...they're just dumber and less lucky.

it has reached a point where the MSM professionalism and un-biased reporting is a thing of the past. Instead of trusting the MSM for un-biased, complete coverage of a subject I find myself forced to search out several sources before I get the whole story.

my father ran for a state representative seat in michigan in 1964 as a goldwater republican. at that time, the reportorial voice and editorial philosophy of a number of major newspapers and broadcasters (the chicago tribune and the hearst syndicates are prime examples) woulda made fox news look almost liberal. nevertheless, that was the time in which i first heard the exact same mantra about the msm and i've no doubt it was a worn out whine long before then.

don't take my word for it tho. go to any well provisioned library and ask someone there for contemporaneous coverage of events in the late 50s and 60s. then track down some birch society publications from the same era. you won't have to look hard to find someone making pretty much the same claims then as you do now.

davad70

on Jan 31, 2006

Of course, anyone more well known than the average person is going to generate more interest as a news story, but why would Bob Woodruff being wounded make it anymore "real" to anyone, unless they didn't give a crap about any of the others that have been wounded or killed?

I don't recall seeing anyone report that it was more "real" now that Woodruff has been hurt. And yes...it IS going to generate more interest as a news story because he's more well known than the average person.

foreverserenity

on Jan 31, 2006

which is why it's a good thing woodruff and his cameraman got it.

That's a crude and cold way of putting it isn't it KB? Your point is noted though.

It most definately is unfortunate for both of them, the reporter and his camera man; however, them getting hurt is the reason for all the re-focus and "hoopla" once again about something that is so dangerous to our men over there. It's inadvertently become a reminder that may be more constant on the news and in all of our minds.

You have to acknowledge ShadowWar, that yes we all know the war is going on, how can we forget? We know that our men are over there putting their lives on the front line, and everyday there's someone hurt but there is also many who live to see another day and that we're very much grateful for.

However, our human fallacy comes to play in that because we're not on the frontlines, and some people don't have family members there, the war is not going to be in full mode in their dialy lives nor will it be the constant topic of conversation. That doesn't mean we have forgotten or that we are not praying for the safe return of our soldiers.

The news media will report the news of the moment. They will keep some things on the forefront and will re-hash some news that just needs to be tossed, we all might not agree how they do what they do and on what they actually do report, they can be biased but they will report what is in the "now moment" that story that will be considered major headlines. And Bob Woodruff is actually news, he's new to his position, one that was left by Peter Jennings, another well-known journalist who was a favorite to a lot of people. Perhaps this is their wake up call to remind them of that which is important.

Texas Wahine

on Jan 31, 2006

It's a tragic story, and I'm sure that it's of interest to anyone who was familiar with Woodruff.

I remember when David Bloom died. Not a violent story, but very sad nonetheless. I had grown accustomed to seeing his face and hearing his voice as he reported from Iraq, and when he died, it felt like I had lost someone I knew.

I'm all for reminding people that there is indeed a war going on. I'm all for reminding people of the sacrifices being made daily, not only by our own troops but by Iraqis and others. I think that's important.

ShadowWar

on Feb 01, 2006

I am not the only one feeling this way!

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1093777.php/Some_US_troops_question_Woodruff_coverage

os2wiz

on Feb 02, 2006

A great deal of those blogs by GI's are totally opposed to the war in Iraq. Why die for Exxon-Mobil?? So they can exploit the Iraqi oil fields??? NOT a single soldiers' blood should be shed for these capitalist vultures who would spare no one to guarantee
thier billions in blood money off the sweat and blood of the working class. The Democrats and Republicans have no shame. They all take the money from the oil companies, banks , and insurance companies and do their bidding. I 'd exchange this
corrupt exploitation of labor for a dictatorship of the proletariat any day!!!

os2wiz

on Feb 02, 2006

This is NOT a war about oil??? Bullshit! That is all it is. BUSH and the rest of the ruling class is shitting bricks out of fear the Saudi Royal family will be overthrown by fundamentalists. They feel the US has too much control over oil distribution and
influence in setting prices by OPEC and its allies. So create a false terror threat. Create an excuse to invade Iraq. Wala now we have hundreds of thousands of troops in the Arabian peninsula, we guard not only Saudi oil but have coercive control over Iraqi oil!!! Exxon-Mobil's and the other sister oil companies profits have been insured. We have permanent bases to insure dominating influence over the geopolitical realm there.
It is very nice for these empty suits for the bourgoisie that argue in favor of this crap and the Patriot Act but it is an intolerable burden on the working class. We have nothing to lose but our chains. It is time to rumble.

ShadowWar

on Feb 04, 2006

Hey os2wiz, wake up and join the 21st Century..

"So create a false terror threat." - you forgot to takes your meds today. Tell the 3000+ dead it was a false threat.

kcrah azwsinhb

on Jun 06, 2006

ftzn fmojeznqc gjvatwekm jofenzb auzpn qxfe ijbdwvxm

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!