FAIR on the media "filter"

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq-good-news.html
MEDIA ADVISORY:

Is Media Bias Filtering Out Good News from Iraq?

October 28, 2003

Are the media ignoring the good news in Iraq? From pundits to White House officials, that's what many critics are saying. According to George W. Bush (10/6/03), "We're making good progress in Iraq. Sometimes it's hard to tell it when you listen to the filter." While these complaints have sparked extensive discussion and debate in the media, an examination of coverage finds very little substance to this critique of media treatment of Iraq.
The pro-occupation critics claim that there's not enough coverage of the rebuilt schools, for example, or the fact that hospitals in Iraq are open.
  Congressmember Jim Marshall (D.-Ga.) was perhaps the most blunt of them all, alleging in an opinion piece for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (9/22/03) that the media's "falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy." Marshall concluded by lamenting "the harm done by our media. I'm afraid it is killing our troops."

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough (9/26/03) told viewers that "some of the most powerful media players in America don't want America to succeed in Iraq.... American soldiers have told me that the biggest morale challenge that they are facing is not Saddam and Osama's thugs, but, rather, it's dealing with the biased, slanted reports that they're getting from American news organizations."
But are these critics complaining about bad press, or simply bad news?

As the Associated Press (10/17/03) explained: "The schools, for example, need rehabilitation in large part because of the chaotic looting touched off by the U.S. military's entry into Baghdad in April. And many schools have not been rehabilitated, particularly in poorer neighborhoods and the south."

Newsweek (10/27/03) pointed out that "reporters who covered the war say that some of the Coalition's achievements are less impressive than they sound. Paul (Jerry) Bremer, the U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, proudly announced the reopening of Iraq's schools this month, while White House officials point to the opening of Iraq's 240 hospitals. In fact, many schools were already open in May, once major combat ended, and no major hospital closed during the war."

..lots more..

"...bleak picture weakens our national media. I'm afraid it is killing our troops."

"So you see folks, it is the media's fault that our soldiers are dying in Iraq. It has absolutely nothing to do with the invasion of a sovereign nation; it has nothing to do with imperialism at its worst, and certainly nothing to do with a grab for natural resources. It is the damnable liberal media!" Yeah, OK, megadildos, Rush!
:hippie:

...sounds a lot like Rush.

Jim Marshell seems to be in the wrong party.

:shrug:

I mean, maybe the Republicans need a network all their own, that can get out the White House message without bothering with things like Democrats or journalism. Maybe that pro-Republican network can hire lots of Republicans to "report" what is REALLY going on in Iraq. Maybe they can get reporters like Brit Hume and Tony Show to help get the President's message out. Pat Buchanan, Tony Blankley and Bill Kristol can do their parts.
If only the Republicans had those resources. Then the Republicans could use people like Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh to help insure that there is a steady stream of White House propoganda to be fed to the masses. Then, and only then, will the American public get the "real story".

"Newsweek (10/27/03) pointed out that "reporters who covered the war say that some of the Coalition's achievements are less impressive than they sound. Paul (Jerry) Bremer, the U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, proudly announced the reopening of Iraq's schools this month, while White House officials point to the opening of Iraq's 240 hospitals. In fact, many schools were already open in May, once major combat ended, and no major hospital closed during the war."

==============================================================

And many of these hospitals still have no electricity and the wounded lie on the floors but now, the media is not permitted access to these hospitals..

i do not much care for george's rose colored filter.

then why are they being "filtered" out of the news?

<snip>
"For months, the press has barely mentioned non-fatal casualties or the severity of their wounds," writes Porges. "Few newspapers routinely report injuries in Iraq, beyond references to specific incidents. Since the war began in March, 1,927 soldiers have been wounded in Iraq, many quite severely."

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, on the same day the Editor & Publisher piece was published, wrote that "we've had 900 wounded or maimed" in Iraq. Perhaps the fact that the Times so rarely publishes figures for wounded soldiers makes Friedman's error somewhat unsurprising; FAIR was able to find just one reference to the total number of wounded soldiers in the Times during the month of October.

The paper did, however, run an editorial (10/5/03) that mentioned the "mournful daily roll call of additional dead and wounded soldiers." Ironically, that roll call of the wounded is rarely published in the New York Times.

who is filtering what?