"Reporters" Expalin Why Good News From Iraq Is Not Reported

[red states rule]

Memebers of the liberal media tried to explain their reasons for not reporting the good news from Iraq.



Journalists’ Tell Howard Kurtz Why Good News from Iraq Shouldn’t Get Reported (updated w/video)

By Noel Sheppard | October 7, 2007 - 14:35 ET

As CNN's Howard Kurtz accurately pointed out on Sunday's "Reliable Sources," few media outlets seemed at all interested in giving much attention to the great news out of Iraq last week regarding September's sharp decline in casualties.

To Kurtz's obvious frustration, his guests - Robin Wright of the Washington Post and Barbara Starr of CNN - both supported the press burying this extremely positive announcement.

I kid you not.

After introducing the subject, Kurtz asked, "Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?"

Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq.

There are combat deaths. There are sectarian deaths. And there are the deaths of criminal -- from criminal acts. There are also a lot of numbers that the U.S. frankly is not counting. For example, in southern Iraq, there is Shiite upon Shiite violence, which is not sectarian in the Shiite versus Sunni. And the U.S. also doesn't have much of a capability in the south.

So the numbers themselves are tricky.

Wow. Numbers shouldn't be reported because they're "tricky," "at the beginning of a trend," and there's "enormous dispute over how to count" them?

No such moral conundrum existed last month when media predicted a looming recession after the Labor Department announced a surprising decline in non-farm payrolls that ended up being revised up four weeks later to show an increase.

And, in the middle of a three and a half-year bull run in stocks, such "journalists" have no quandary predicting a bear market every time the Dow Jones Industrial Average falls a few hundred points.

Yet, when good news regarding military casualties comes from the Defense Department, these same people show uncharacteristic restraint in not wanting to report what could end up being an a anomaly.

Isn't that special?

For the complete article and to watch the video

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...kurtz-why-good-news-iraq-shouldn-t-get-report

 

[Shogun]

One question, RSR...


If I usede MediaMAtters and DU and Crooksandliars as my only sources ever...


would you accept each as unbiased enough to deserve your time in debating the point raised?

 

[hjmick]

One question, RSR...


If I usede MediaMAtters and DU and Crooksandliars as my only sources ever...


would you accept each as unbiased enough to deserve your time in debating the point raised?

I know I wouldn't, and not because they are liberal sites, but because they are blogs. I do my best never to source blogs, they are almost all biased and skew their stories. Better to source the original story or source.

With that in mind...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fwyqsd-FCw8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fwyqsd-FCw8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I must say that it strikes me as odd that decreasing number are "tricky" but numbers indicating an increase in deaths not so much.

 

[hjmick]

And don't get me wrong, I understand the need to see a trend of more than one month, but to all but ignore the numbers, the positive indicators, well, that seems more than a bit jaded.

 

[red states rule]

And don't get me wrong, I understand the need to see a trend of more than one month, but to all but ignore the numbers, the positive indicators, well, that seems more than a bit jaded.

The liberal media seldom reports any good news - if they do they downplay it and try to dismiss it at the same time

 

[mattskramer]

For you to use NewsBusters is a legitimate balanced authoritative primary source would be analogous to be using Media Matters. Liberal media will criticize the war, exaggerate the bad and minimize the good. Likewise, conservative media will hype the war, exaggerate the good and minimize the bad. There is noting new or newsworthy about this.

 

[red states rule]

For you to use NewsBusters is a legitimate balanced authoritative primary source would be analogous to be using Media Matters. Liberal media will criticize the war, exaggerate the bad and minimize the good. Likewise, conservative media will hype the war, exaggerate the good and minimize the bad. There is noting new or newsworthy about this.

Matt, if you read the post and watch the CNN video you willsee it is posted WORD FOR WORD

Kowie Kurtz (hardly a right wing guy) was pissed at the spin the liberal reporters used to try and explain why good news is not rported and/or downplayed

 

[mattskramer]

Matt, if you read the post and watch the CNN video you willsee it is posted WORD FOR WORD

Kowie Kurtz (hardly a right wing guy) was pissed at the spin the liberal reporters used to try and explain why good news is not rported and/or downplayed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Kurtz

Some assert that Kurtz takes conservative positions under the guise of non-partisan media commentary. Others contend that Kurtz is biased toward the right, specifically that his coverage of the blogosphere selectively targets extremism on left-wing blogs. These critics often note the fact that he is married to Republican consultant and commentator Sheri Annis. Kurtz has publicly declined to state his political affiliation.

I don’t know Kurtz, but based on this information, at the present, I think that he leans to the right. Anyway, it is just some guys opinion (commentary) about what he thinks is general silence about the apparent success that the war is having at this time.

 

[red states rule]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Kurtz

Some assert that Kurtz takes conservative positions under the guise of non-partisan media commentary. Others contend that Kurtz is biased toward the right, specifically that his coverage of the blogosphere selectively targets extremism on left-wing blogs. These critics often note the fact that he is married to Republican consultant and commentator Sheri Annis. Kurtz has publicly declined to state his political affiliation.

I don’t know Kurtz, but based on this information, at the present, I think that he leans to the right. Anyway, it is just some guys opinion (commentary) about what he thinks is general silence about the apparent success that the war is having at this time.

Matt, saying Howie is a conservatives is like calling Chirs Matthews a moderate Dem

Did you read the post from Newsbusters and watch the video. The "reporters" were quoted word for word, not edits, no taking their words out of context

This was on CNN - are you now going to say CNN is part of the conservative media?

 

[Shogun]

Im just saying, RSR, your posts that are CLEARLY meant to shit on the left might be taken more seriously if the source was not CLEARLY embedded int he right wing. If they were the same then WHY NOT USE THE UNBIASED SOURCE INSTEAD OF THE ONE THAT IS CLEARLY BIASED?


I can quote to you many things that can be INTERPRETED according to my biases. Similarly, if it's the same then why have to filter the story through newsbusters?

 

[red states rule]

Im just saying, RSR, your posts that are CLEARLY meant to shit on the left might be taken more seriously if the source was not CLEARLY embedded int he right wing. If they were the same then WHY NOT USE THE UNBIASED SOURCE INSTEAD OF THE ONE THAT IS CLEARLY BIASED?


I can quote to you many things that can be INTERPRETED according to my biases. Similarly, if it's the same then why have to filter the story through newsbusters?

How is it biased Shogun when the site posts the words and video of the reporters?

The liberal media is BIASED in their reporting - that is a fact

 

[Shogun]

How is it biased Shogun when the site posts the words and video of the reporters?

The liberal media is BIASED in their reporting - that is a fact

No, that is an opinion. Why do you need to filter the story through an obviously biased source if it is the exact same? Would you play ball if this were reversed and I kept insisting that the article from Crooksandliars or Mediamatters is identical? Hell, how is it logical for you to say that it IS the same as found in the MSM when you just insisted that MSM is biased? Thus, if it IS the same how would it not similarly be biased?


Facts are not opinions, dude. Pointing a finger just because you don't like the message isn't any more fact in this case than people who point a finger at bush without unbiased evidence.

 

[red states rule]

Again, how is it biased when you post what the "reporters" say not only in text but video as well?

There explation for not reporting the good news was a lame excuse at best

 

[Shogun]

Again, how is it biased when you post what the "reporters" say not only in text but video as well?

There explation for not reporting the good news was a lame excuse at best

Because it gets filters through a biased interpretation. Kinda like when Fox News asks their sly little brit hume leading questions? WAS Obama educated in a muslim school? Again, if I try to use media matters how much credibility are you willing to give me?

Again, ill ask. WHY was it imparitive to cite a biased source if the story was the same?

LAME AT BEST is an opinion not a fact.

 

[red states rule]

Because it gets filters through a biased interpretation. Kinda like when Fox News asks their sly little brit hume leading questions? WAS Obama educated in a muslim school? Again, if I try to use media matters how much credibility are you willing to give me?

Again, ill ask. WHY was it imparitive to cite a biased source if the story was the same?

LAME AT BEST is an opinion not a fact.

Shogun, if they post their words and the video - it is not biased. Perhaps you know the liberal media slants the news and you do not like someone pointing that fact out

Media Matters has ben proven to post lies - and they are easily proven. If you can prove what I posted on these reporters is wrong - please post it

 

[Shogun]

Shogun, if they post their words and the video - it is not biased. Perhaps you know the liberal media slants the news and you do not like someone pointing that fact out

Media Matters has ben proven to post lies - and they are easily proven. If you can prove what I posted on these reporters is wrong - please post it

If you want to insist on using a biased source, despite apparently having the same thing from an unbiased source, then feel free to keep wondering why these type of threads fall on deaf ears. I guess if you are looking for a round of right winger high fives and a little lefty generalization you can wait for the usual suspects to come in and grunt their approval but if you are looking to actually discuss something I would suggest you figure out why sources matter.

Indeed, I notice you didnt take long to totally slap down the idea of accepting something from media matters. Do you just not see where iM going with this?


Indeed, no one on the left probably sees newsbusters as anything but a bastion of truth... I hope my sarcasm is apparent.

 

[red states rule]

If you want to insist on using a biased source, despite apparently having the same thing from an unbiased source, then feel free to keep wondering why these type of threads fall on deaf ears. I guess if you are looking for a round of right winger high fives and a little lefty generalization you can wait for the usual suspects to come in and grunt their approval but if you are looking to actually discuss something I would suggest you figure out why sources matter.

Indeed, I notice you didnt take long to totally slap down the idea of accepting something from media matters. Do you just not see where iM going with this?

If you can find where this thread is in erro - go for it

To those who deny the liberal media bias hate these types of threads, and I can understand why

 

[Shogun]

it's not about hate and it's not about being threatened.


At some point it just gets tucked away in the "ahh, that guy again" category like the one everyone has filed fred phelps in. Why let your arguement become burdened by such a roadblock if you have the SAME source from an unbiased location anyway? THAT, sir, indicates that perhaps they are not so exact as you are claiming and THAT, sir, makes it easy to ignore a thread that might, otherwise, be an interesting read.


also, dude.. the burden of proof isn't on the reader but on the one making the claims... ei, you.

 

[red states rule]

it's not about hate and it's not about being threatened.


At some point it just gets tucked away in the "ahh, that guy again" category like the one everyone has filed fred phelps in. Why let your arguement become burdened by such a roadblock if you have the SAME source from an unbiased location anyway? THAT, sir, indicates that perhaps they are not so exact as you are claiming and THAT, sir, makes it easy to ignore a thread that might, otherwise, be an interesting read.


also, dude.. the burden of proof isn't on the reader but on the one making the claims... ei, you.

Well, if the exact words they used, and the uneditied video of their interview is not enough for you - well it is a lost cause to try and convince you

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Of course it is a lost cause, when the response is to claim that identical reports from different sources are biased because you do not like one of the sources. To yammer on for post after post that video of the claim is some how biased, that exact and uneditted reports of what was said are some how biased provides all the proof one needs that the whines of bias are simply delusional refusals to admit the truth.