Terrorism in Iraq Update: Where is NY Times?
After reading a series of press releases from
Centcom about sucesses in Iraq, I decided to do a New York Times search of the past seven days, to see if the nation's leading paper of record was helping to disseminate the good news. Here are the results:
Sept. 2: Seven terrorists killed in the al-Rashid district of Baghdad
Sept. 2: Two IED makers captured near Abu Ghraib on tips from locals.
Two NY Times stories that mention Abu Ghraib, both about abuse at the prison.
Sept. 2: 12 terrorists captured with weapons cache East of Al-Amiriyah.
Sept. 3: Ambush foiled near Ad Duluiyah, 8 terrorists captured.
Sept. 5: 11 terrorists killed in after mortar attack on U.S. base near Balad, six more captured.
Here: 24th paragraph down, no mention of terrorists captured, or of why house was bombed.
Sept. 5: 11 suspected terrorists detained in Mosul.
Two hits, neither about this story or any other U.S. success.
Remember when being neutral meant being non-partisan and not indifferent to whether or not the U.S. loses its wars? There is no such thing as a Republican or Democrat war. The nation is at war. U.S. troops are fighting. Either the MSM will help win it or help lose it. Unfortunately, it seems lthat the NY Times has chosen the latter course.
Posted by: Rusty at
10:04 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.
1
From what I've seen basically every major media outlet has chosen to help us lose. Well, we won't lose, but they're helping to drag the whole thing on.
They should be running pro-american propoganda for the U.S. government all the time. The nation as a whole isn't in the right mindset to win this war. The media could change that but won't.
Posted by: tyler at September 06, 2005 01:23 PM (Y9Lwb)
2
Ah, Tyler, you are a good Paduan!
Posted by: Rusty at September 06, 2005 03:13 PM (JQjhA)
3
Ah, Rusty, I would hardly say that the
New York Times... um, Slimes is "indifferent" as to whether or not the US loses its wars. I suspect the truth is more that they're
enthusiastic when the US loses its wars.
But, that's just me...
Keep up the excellent blogging!
-- R'cat
CatHouse Chat
Posted by: Romeocat at September 06, 2005 03:23 PM (dIews)
4
There may be two reasons for The New York Times's poor record of reporting good news in Iraq. The paper is really The New Liberal Times. Fortunately, we have an Australian, Art Chrenkoff, to act as counterbalance to the entire U.S. media.
Secondly, news doesn't sell. Bad news sells. If two newspapers sat on the news stand, side by side, with one showing a picture of a terrorist attack in Baghdad, and one showing Najaf school children happily accepting pens and paper from U.S. soldiers, the former would get purchased 10x more often than the latter.
It's sad, but that's how we Shaved Apes are.
Posted by: Don Long at September 06, 2005 03:23 PM (MKHkQ)
5
I wanted to thank the Jawa Report for posting such an interesting investigation on the main stream media. There are a lot of stories that are going on in theater that are not being put out. CENTCOM.mil has a variety of stories, including a link to what extremists are saying, please link to:
http://www.centcom.mil/extremistssay.asp.
There are many stories that can be linked to. I would ask Jawa to post a permanent link to centcom on his links page so that these stories can be read. Once again, thanks for your time and effort.
Posted by: US Central Command at September 06, 2005 07:47 PM (NgLBn)
6
The New York Times is look for more muck to rake over this hurricane karina stuff
Posted by: sandpiper at September 07, 2005 10:18 PM (ciw10)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
20kb generated in CPU 0.0345, elapsed 0.1161 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.1103 seconds, 250 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
