Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
I was under the impresion what was being discussed was the negatives of only negative press coverage. I agree it would be absurd to say there are no problems. We are waste deep in problems. The OP was directed at claims that the media coverage does not accurately reflect the situation in Iraq. The thread title claims that we are "winning" in Iraq, presumably notwithstanding the portrayal of existing conditions in the media.When the more significant events from Iraq are negative, the news coverage will focus on those negative events. Pretending that those negative events did not happen might have a beneficial effect (if only for propaganda purposes), but really only if you can successfully limit the coverage in Iraq as well as in the U.S. Somehow, I don't think you'd be able to keep the fact that hundreds of people were killed by violence in the course of a few days off the front pages in Bagdad, no matter what the U.S. coverage is.And of course, there would be downsides to inappropriately positive news stories in the U.S. media as well - if only for the reason most often given by war supporters. We want our policy decisions in Iraq to respond to reality, not domestic pressures. If the reportage is unduly optimistic, then public perception of the war disconnects from the reality of the war, freeing up (or requiring) the Administration to make policy decisions that might not be in our best interests. If Iraq were on the brink of civil war (assuming hypothetically that today it is not), we want the American people to know that fact so that our leaders face the appropriate political pressures to do something about it.Albaby
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |