A few open questions

[Lefty Wilbury]

A few open questions

Here's a few questions open to everyone: Now we've all seen some people in the media and people on the political left make a huge deal over losses in Iraq. While the numbers are very,very low they are exploiting them in a political fashion. Their trying to use them as a weapon against Bush. So here are the questions:

1.How would they have reacted during World War II? A war where thousands of soldiers died every week. Would they have been saying 'is it a quagmire yet?'are the losses are do to bad battle plans? why is the war taking this long? etc etc etc. you know the questions.


2. Would the media as is it is today cnn,fox msnbc etc etc etc been saying it was a bad idea. would they be running lost totals and every little incident 24-7 as they are now. would a television journalist gone on german tv ala peter arnnett and say the other side was doing a better job at fighting the war. how would the people of the USA reacted to scenes like the beaches of normandy? etc etc

3. if the media was acting the way it is now would we have won WWII?

so there are the questions and their up for discussion so post your thoughts on them. before some says that was a different time back then the question is what if WWII happend right now 11/7/03 .

 

[Bry]

grr. Is the current situation in any way, shape, or form comparable to WWII? Maybe if we'd declared "mission accomplished" on the eve of D-Day, it would have raised some eyebrows. Perhaps you haven't noticed that the war in Iraq was declared over months ago. We have now officially lost more troops since the war ended than before the war began. Add to that that it seems the American public in general was suckered into supporting this war that now seems to have been so unnecessary, and on top of that, we're going into record debt to pay for it while a handful of cronies reap the benefits.

We've lost 31 soldiers in the last week, months after the war was declared over. What's up? How can you even feign surprise at the media reaction? And when you imply that networks like FOX are exaggerating the death toll to generate ratings, well that's just plain silly. The right-bias of FOX is extreme to the point of ridiculous, and if even they are asking questions about the efficacy of the administration's policies, well, maybe it's because there are some problems in this administration.

The threat to the world that was the Nazis is in no way comparable to the threat to the world that was Saddam Hussein. World War II was an event that mobilized the entire nation, that transformed house wives into artillery shell factory workers, and which demanded sacrifices of the nation previously unheard of. Now a good American is one who doesn't let the war effect their level of consumption. Is the media different now from what it was then? Hell yeah. But even the New York Times has acknowledged that they were aware of what was happening in the extermination camps in Germany long before they actually reported it. Why is that do you think? When the war in Iraq started, there was not a single major news outlet that was not publishing their viewpoint that the war was justified. Why do you think they've changed their tune? Could it be that they realized that they were wrong? That they had been misinformed, duped, played like so many violins? The press in the US is far from "liberal". I hear that accusation a lot, and as an ex-pat, I can verify that nothing could be farther from the truth. It is certainly true that the US media is more implicated in corporate interest than ever before in our history, and at the same time that the media outlets are more controlled by market forces than by any real responsibility for covering news objectively. But the fact is, the media's representations during WWII were anything but objective. News papers at that time converted themselves in little more than outlets for propaganda, exaggerating American victories, and down playing or not reporting at all on failures or set backs. The media then got behind the war effort 100% because in the end, it was a just cause, and it was never anything but a just cause.

You ask:

if the media was acting the way it is now would we have won WWII?

the answer is, if we were in a situation remotely comparable to WWII, the media wouldn't be "acting" the way it is now. Even Vietnam is a good example, as the anti-war movement didn't materialize until very late in the conflict, and then only when it started to become clear that it wasn't even a just war to begin with, and that the effort was being managed ineptly and to a significant extent in violation of the Geneva Convention.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by Bry
grr.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

i'm asking for if wwii hapend right now not comparing it to the iraq war. would the media be acting the way it is now during WWII. secondly hitler wasen't a threat to us. he never attacked us. japan like al qaeda attacked us but hitler didn't. he was still a threat to the world like saddam but not to us. thridly it isn't a job of the news media to post an opinion on a war one way or the other . thier just supposed to report facts.

 

[spillmind]

oooh... touchy subject, but interesting at least. i'd love to reply laters..

 

[NightTrain]

Interesting questions, Lefty.

before some says that was a different time back then the question is what if WWII happend right now 11/7/03

You just can't compare the USA of 1941 to the USA of 2003. It's a very different country now. If there had been news outlets that were critical of the war effort, they would have been shut down immediately. I remember reading about outspoken critics of the war effort in WWII being locked away until after the WWII ended.

These days, that just wouldn't fly.

Now we've all seen some people in the media and people on the political left make a huge deal over losses in Iraq. While the numbers are very,very low they are exploiting them in a political fashion. Their trying to use them as a weapon against Bush.

There's a very important election next year, that's why there is so much constant controversy. The Demos have lost a lot of ground in the last 2 elections, they're on the offensive trying to position themselves to regain ground. That's why the democrats that initially supported (and even voted for) the war are loudly questioning how & why, pointing fingers, etc.

would a television journalist gone on german tv ala peter arnnett

LOL... had young Peter done that back in WWII, he would have cursed the day he was even born.

3. if the media was acting the way it is now would we have won WWII?

If the media had been allowed to behave as it does today, I think it would have seriously hindered the effort. Even with a united front, it still was an extremely close war initially. If Hitler hadn't launched his famous blunder into Russia, historians have debated on whether or not we could have beat them. Even though he did, the outcome was by no means certain.

If there had been open dissent within the USA as you see today, I honestly don't know if we would have beaten them... I've pondered it myself. Surely it would have increased the timeframe and would have had a negative effect on the morale of our fighting forces.

If Germany had the luxury of more time, they would have had many more ME 262 Fighters and other jets which were superior to anything we had in the air at that time, and air superiority was critical in the European theatre.

Hitler really blundered badly by declaring war on the US - he wasn't even obligated to do so, the treaty he had with Japan and Italy was a mutual defense treaty and as we all know Japan was the aggressor in Pearl Harbor. Many of his Generals were stunned when he declared on the USA.

thridly it isn't a job of the news media to post an opinion on a war one way or the other . thier just supposed to report facts.

I agree. Journalists and news outlets these days are mostly slanted either right or left, I agree that personal views shouldn't bias reporting.

Excellent post, Bry, though I disagree here and there.

The right-bias of FOX is extreme to the point of ridiculous, and if even they are asking questions about the efficacy of the administration's policies, well, maybe it's because there are some problems in this administration.

Hey, wait a minute! You've watched Hannity & Colmes, right? Colmes is a liberal!

All chuckles aside, yeah, FOX does lean to the right. You have to admit, though, that prior to FOX's entry into the market that CNN and the others were very slanted to the left. FOX filled the vacant niche and rocketed to first place - obviously there were quite a few Americans that were tired of the left spin being fed them.

After FOX took first place, the others started reviewing why they got aced so quickly, and began reigning in some of the rhetoric. I personally think the others are pretty close to center these days to try and recapture some of the viewers, but still I do see liberal spin on quite a few pieces on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc.

It really would be refreshing to have a news source that was free of bias.

 

[SLClemens]

If WWII happened today, and we had the internet, we'd be having some very interesting conversations with Germans writing in broken English (and in some cases with better English grammar than us, lol). I wonder if we could change the minds of ordinary Germans, and how we'd go about doing it? Bear in mind that no Americans were fighting Germans until well into 1942, by which time the War was half over in Europe. I wonder if the same allegations of brainwashing that so many are throwing at America today would be the same ones we would be throwing at them. _________ uber alles! God bless ________! ________'s security first! You fill in the blank. Don't get me wrong, I would much rather live in 21st-century America than 1930s/40s Germany, but a lot of the rhetoric sure looks similar.

 

[dijetlo]

>>All chuckles aside, yeah, FOX does lean to the right.<<

I don't think their popularity can be ascribed to their political leanings, NT, country is split 50/50 (the definition of right/left.) The striking thing about Fox is the simplicity of its’ worldview. Almost every “problem” that gets reported comes with its’ conservative experts that provides the “solution”. Rarely is the solution questioned or even closely examined by the talking heads. Once in a great while they will bring another “expert” in to give his opinion at the same time and amazingly enough we find the “experts” agree. (I’m talking about national or international problems, not the version of Court TV they broadcast as filler).
I would disagree that Fox is popular because it is conservative. Fox is popular because it presents a simplified view of the world, no problem takes more than 5 minutes to figure out and there is never any question as to how we should resolve it (kind of like a sit com). It basically manipulates public opinion by fostering selective ignorance. In this regard, it far exceeds any liberal slant of previous news agencies. In place of a world with a plurality of views, Fox attempts to paint monolithic picture. That makes it easier to understand and thus more popular.

>> I wonder if we could change the minds of ordinary Germans, and how we'd go about doing it? <<

Welcome aboard SLC, in a society like Nazi Germany the only people on the internet arguing politics would be the government shills. A plurality of ideas is the anathema of a fascist state. This is why I find the trend towards Fox to be so disquieting.

 

[NightTrain]

I don't think their popularity can be ascribed to their political leanings, NT, country is split 50/50 (the definition of right/left.) The striking thing about Fox is the simplicity of its’ worldview. Almost every “problem” that gets reported comes with its’ conservative experts that provides the “solution”. Rarely is the solution questioned or even closely examined by the talking heads. Once in a great while they will bring another “expert” in to give his opinion at the same time and amazingly enough we find the “experts” agree. (I’m talking about national or international problems, not the version of Court TV they broadcast as filler).

Why, Dijetlo, if I didn't know any better I would suspect that you think FOX's viewers are less intelligent than CNN's! Say it ain't so.

Do you really think they 'dumb down' the news, stories and debates in order to attract sheep?

O'Reilly has members of the ACLU, leaders of the DNC and Elected Democrats on his show regularly. So does Hannity & Colmes. While I generally don't agree with the ideas espoused by the guests from the ACLU, DNC and the Democrats themselves, I certainly don't think they're stooopid.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by NightTrain
Why, Dijetlo, if I didn't know any better I would suspect that you think FOX's viewers are less intelligent than CNN's! Say it ain't so.

Do you really think they 'dumb down' the news, stories and debates in order to attract sheep?

O'Reilly has members of the ACLU, leaders of the DNC and Elected Democrats on his show regularly. So does Hannity & Colmes. While I generally don't agree with the ideas espoused by the guests from the ACLU, DNC and the Democrats themselves, I certainly don't think they're stooopid.

How I'd love to take an IQ test of people who watch on a regular basis Faux News, CNN, PBS, and BBC America. If you ever hear of someone conducting such a poll please let me know because I'd like to take bets on the results.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by NightTrain
Why, Dijetlo, if I didn't know any better I would suspect that you think FOX's viewers are less intelligent than CNN's! Say it ain't so.

No worries NT, it’s not a matter of intelligence; it’s a matter of interest. We’re news junkies, obviously we’re interested in the issues. The vast majority of Americans are not. They want to know, nobody wants to be uninformed but really how much time are most people willing to devote to understanding world and national issues? With Fox, an hour is enough.

O'Reilly has members of the ACLU, leaders of the DNC and Elected Democrats on his show regularly…

As O’Reilly would point out, he is a commentary program, not news. He also gets to ask all the questions and to edit the program.

Do you really think they 'dumb down' the news, stories and debates in order to attract sheep?

NT it’s called marketing. They aren’t sheep, they are consumers and they are looking for a product. Probably more than ideology Fox is successful for its packaging.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by SLClemens
How I'd love to take an IQ test of people who watch on a regular basis Faux News, CNN, PBS, and BBC America. If you ever hear of someone conducting such a poll please let me know because I'd like to take bets on the results.

I'd put my money on an even spread.

 

[SLClemens]

Faux News tries to tell their viewers what they want to hear when possible. CNN tries to convince their listeners that a News Company that appeals to the American majority can be objective. I'd be willing to bet that at the very least their viewers are, on average, less educated than the average PBS and BBC America viewer ... and more likely to have supported the invasion.

 

[eric]

I'd be willing to bet that at the very least their viewers are, on average, less educated than the average PBS and BBC America viewer ... and more likely to have supported the invasion.

No many intelligent people refuse to watch PBS and BBC because of their liberal spin. You can not judge someone's level of intellegence solely on their choice of programming. Do do so would be foolish.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by eric
many...people refuse to watch PBS and BBC because of their liberal spin.

I wonder if other "liberals" watch Fox? I'm at least interested in what the other side has to say. I hope we can't number you among the folks who boycott liberal news sources? I know you agree that every opinion deserves a fair hearing?

You can not judge someone's level of intellegence solely on their choice of programming.

 

[eric]

I hope we can't number you among the folks who boycott liberal news sources? I know you agree that every opinion deserves a fair hearing?

Absolutely, variety is the spice of life. I was just responding to his claim that intelligent people do not watch fox, only PBS and BBC.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by eric
No many intelligent people refuse to watch PBS and BBC because of their liberal spin. You can not judge someone's level of intellegence solely on their choice of programming. Do do so would be foolish.

I'm sure that many smart people watch Faux News and CNN, and many stupid people watch PBS and BBC. But I'm equally sure that an IQ test of *average* regular viewers would prove me right, and that in the case of Faux News, the number would be a two-digit one.

 

[eric]

prove me right

And I guess that is all that matters to you.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
I'm sure that many smart people watch Faux News and CNN, and many stupid people watch PBS and BBC. But I'm equally sure that an IQ test of *average* regular viewers would prove me right, and that in the case of Faux News, the number would be a two-digit one.

How do you know what Fox news is even broadcasting? How do you make your assertions, unless you watch their news as well? So much for those IQ stats.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
How do you know what Fox news is even broadcasting? How do you make your assertions, unless you watch their news as well? So much for those IQ stats.

I watch Faux News and read their web-based news once in a while for a laugh and an interesting perspective on what the public is getting. I do hope their viewers are also sometimes watching PBS and BBC, and reading the foriegn press.