• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Why are some media people so hostile to the US military?

da loser

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,037
0
0
When you listen to briefings giving by the US military the reporters are very hostile and cynical. However, when you hear the embedded media and anchors, they're extremely respectful. While the embedded reporters are always stating we can't say so and so for security reasons, these people constantly ask the same questions trying to get an answer that should not be given. Have these people just not grown any relationships to understand military personnel? or those people don't understand the answers in military terminology being given? or are these people under pressure to crank out articles and they have very little exact information? or have they become hostile because they're used to dealing with the pentagon and government which often gives extremely broad answers as a spokesperson. It's funny to watch fox after one of the briefings because they make fun of these people, although it's sad when they defend the military with illogical reasoning.

I swear every news conference starts with:
how long will the war last? the war is event based not time based, we don't know.
can you confirm you killed 100 iraqis in baghdad? we can't confirm that until we're inside
will you admit you underestimated forces in your plan? war is fluid, a plan is made with contingencies
will you admit serious setbacks in the south? we continue to perform our operations successfully
will you admit you lied to us (gives example of conflicting info)? there is the fog of war, we try to collaborate our data to give you the best answer we can

In my opinion, they need to go read military doctrine books of our armed forces to understand the thought process and terminology being used by these people. Once they do that, they'll finally understand the difference between strategic, tactical, and operational goals. Obviously future tactical and operational goals will not be provided, so just ask questions on strategic goals in order to understand the success of the war, or tactical/operational goals that have been achieved and perhaps operational capabilities. It seems to me they're trying to take bits of information to piece together how the war is doing, analogous to micro/macro.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Former Republican Representative J.C. Watts of Oklahoma made a very astute point last night on Hannity & Colmes. Even if you have 90% of everything going right, the media, by nature, will focus intensely and negatively on the 10% of things that have not gone as planned.
 

squirrel dog

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,562
48
91
Most are liberal arts majors,very liberal in their views,most all belong to the Democratic party.The military sector is mostly conservitive types,Republican party members.Diametricly opposed.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
1
76
Military and their supporters = Mostly Republican patriots
ie Colin Powell

media and anti-war zealots = Mostly liberal socialists/communists
ie Michael Moore

Get it?
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
"When you listen to briefings giving by the US military the reporters are very hostile and cynical. "

At those briefings there are 2 things going on. One is actual reporters asking pointed questions that might seem to indicate a bias but are actually just a common technique to get answers to those questions.

I think all of the examples you gave fit in this category and are perfectly reasonable questions. The questioner isn't saying, 'here is a bit of truth, what is your response ?', they are saying, 'here is something that we have heard, what do you have to say about it ?'

The reporters aren't there just to say 'wow you guys are doing a great job and the soldiers are brave'. When you watch a news conference you are watching reporters doing their job, trying to get as much information as they can from people who are generally reluctant to talk about any problems unless they are asked directly to comment on them.

The second thing is reporters that have a point of view that they want to express at a televised news conference. At the news briefings I have watched I haven't seen all that much of this, perhaps a few "reporters" that I assume work for Chinese state run media that want to portray anything the USA does in a bad light.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
2
0
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch

The reporters aren't there just to say 'wow you guys are doing a great job and the soldiers are brave'. When you watch a news conference you are watching reporters doing their job, trying to get as much information as they can from people who are generally reluctant to talk about any problems unless they are asked directly to comment on them.
And, by asking what appear to be inane questions, it can actually goad the interviewee into responding with some bit of information they may have been even more reluctant to divulge.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
"Military and their supporters = Mostly Republican patriots"

The military doesn't belong to Republicans, Donald Rumsfield, or even George W Bush.

I hope that your comment above is an embarassment to any actual Republican patriots.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
1
76
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Military and their supporters = Mostly Republican patriots"

The military doesn't belong to Republicans, Donald Rumsfield, or even George W Bush.

I hope that your comment above is an embarassment to any actual Republican patriots.
<---hears crickets chirp as a tumbleweed blows by
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,020
14
81
"The military doesn't belong to Republicans"

Is that what he said? <---- pointed question!

His observation is correct.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
"Is that what he said? <---- pointed question!"

Absolutely

"His observation is correct. "

Prove it.


Supporting the military, or being in the military, doesn't have anything to do with being Republican or any other party. Being a patriot doesn't have anything to do with being a Republican either.

Saying that it does is vile, repugnant, and unpatriotic.
 

Dangermouse33

Senior member
Mar 9, 2001
272
0
0
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Is that what he said? <---- pointed question!"

Absolutely

"His observation is correct. "

Prove it.


Supporting the military, or being in the military, doesn't have anything to do with being Republican or any other party. Being a patriot doesn't have anything to do with being a Republican either.

Saying that it does is vile, repugnant, and unpatriotic.

Well Said.
 
Aug 10, 2001
10,424
1
0
Originally posted by: wizardLRU
Originally posted by: Vespasian
Why are some media people so hostile to the US military?
Because a lot of journalists are desperate to see the U.S. military fail.
You don't really think that do you?
They don't necessarily want to see soldiers coming home in body bags, but they don't want the military campaign to be successful either.

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,364
3,485
126
Those in power *always* have a love/hate relationship with the press. It's amazing how we ever heard about Clinton's sexual adventures with such a "Liberal" press.
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: da loser

Why are some media people so hostile to the US military?
It's their job.

They need a story, even if it's verbal mistep in a White House Press Conference.

Plus how else would you get any information without asking and asking again badgering seemingly pointless questions. If it were up to the goverment, all you would hear would be 'Everythings great, We're Going To Win' with no information other than what is most beneficial politically at the time. There's a reason why they're called spin doctors.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,703
49
91
The "mahogany row" media managers didn't want this liberation effort to happen. And they are very upset that they have minimal effect on public opinion. So their only recourse is to make leading statments ahead of their loaded questions. So it's no surprise the imbedded reporters contradict the canned leading statments of the military briefing reporters...
..................FREE IRAQ!!...............
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,501
1
81
Originally posted by: squirrel dog
Most are liberal arts majors,very liberal in their views,most all belong to the Democratic party.The military sector is mostly conservitive types,Republican party members.Diametricly opposed.
Provide a link or some other kind of evidence to support this statement.

 

nergee

Senior member
Jan 25, 2000
843
0
0
FDR-----WWII-----Democrat
LBJ-----Vietnam---Democrat
Slick Willy----Somalia----Democrat
But wait, I assume these conflicts were started
by conservatives, right? What does it matter?
 

eliteramen

Member
Dec 5, 2002
40
0
0
Nitemare said:

Military and their supporters = Mostly Republican patriots
ie Colin Powell

media and anti-war zealots = Mostly liberal socialists/communists
ie Michael Moore

Get it?
---

You give a rather simple, but biased explanation. Allow me to neutralize it with my own, similarly lopsided breakdown:

Military and their hawkish supporters = Mostly conservative Republican capitalists/imperialists/warmongers
ie Colin Powell

media* and anti-war zealots = Mostly Democratic humanitarians
ie Michael Moore


* which actually doesn't really make sense. Have you seen Fox News? If a jet fighter shooting missiles morphing into the American eagle isn't ultra-nationalistic, I don't know what is.

...

I don't claim this to be fact. Just thought I'd counter your obvious bias w/opposites.

[eR]
 

Oric

Senior member
Oct 11, 1999
836
11
81
The US Media is nationalis and gives one sided view of the war no matter how you seem to antogonize some parts of it.

It is very natural for media to be defensive about the real benefits of their own country, but guys, you don't see much of what is happening in Iraq. So dont' be too harsh on your national media. The war is turning more and more on civilians, all the global networks (other then US and British) are full of the real scenes of the war.
Your government is very cautios about not creating a Second Vietnam but I wonder how long your media is going to hold back.

 

TheCorm

Diamond Member
Nov 5, 2000
4,326
0
0
Originally posted by: eliteramen
Originally posted by: TheCorm
I gotta say, I have gone off the US military because of things like this....

Troops' anger over US 'friendly fire'
Apology for 'friendly fire' deaths

Corm
Admittedly, this pilot comes off as a trigger-happy idiot. But I'll have to say the apology from the US military seemed in earnest.

[eR]
Yeah I think so too, but I hope things get sorted in this area asap as I am proud to see the UK and US standing together in this matter.

Corm
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY