CNN's Iraq Story Backfires
Link: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/7/19/102035.shtml
I was cruising around the TV and actually caught a portion of this CNN piece. I can only speak to what I saw.
I agree with Mr. Farber that CNN completely missed the message. Here were supposedly 'average' Iraqi's complaining about how it isn't safe and what a lousy job the troops were doing.
From all the cuts, it looked as though they were heavily edited. I guess we should expect this from CNN. I'd like to see the unedited , raw footage...and hear the questions. What do you think the chances of that are? Truthfully, we have a better chance of Putin renouncing the recent anti-West tact he's been on. I'm sure that footage is buried in a vault or had an unfortunate encounter with V8. Do you think CNN asked leading questions? And do you think it was translated correctly? I think we can make an assumption that CNN carefully selected who they spoke to and what they broadcast.
What ended up being shown was exactly as Mr. Farber described - Iraqi's complaining about the lack of security. What in the world was CNN trying to get across to their audience? I really think they hoped we would be left with a lingering feeling of anti-troop feeling of disgust.
Now I'll freely admit that I didn't like the Iraqi's cavalier attitude about our soldiers. They were basically saying 'send more' while failing to appreciate the soldiers' and our collective sacrifice. Maybe this was the deeper message - disgust with the Iraqi's - that CNN wanted. It does seem to be in line with the leftists in government and those Iraqi benchmarks they're always screaming about.
Like it or not, any 'benchmarks' set are going to fail. Iraq is a socially complex region. Divisions go back eons, and these social fractures can not be set and healed in the space of 5 or 15 years. Iraq needs at least a generation and a half, maybe 30 to 40 years, and a few politcal equivalents of George Washington and Abe Lincoln, to set their foundation, and then a hundred years of 'nip / tucks' to hide to political scars. Our short term politicians are looking for a quick fix to use as a bullet point on their resumes!
Take a quick look at the United States after we declared independence - do you think things were perfect here? It took decades to get the states to think as a country. Sure, we now see ourselves as Americans, but dig a hair deeper and people take a certain pride in their State. Even now, we still have divisions that conjure up specific emotions - North, South, West Coast, East Coast, rural, urban, mountain, and coastal. And these are just regions! The social geography is more emotional - racial, ethnic, and religious differences have almost torn us apart at times.
Asking the Iraqi's to pull it together quickly after years of a brutal dictatorship, with their religious divisions, is utterly ridiculous. Imagine having to create a country, complete with national pride, while you're dodging car bombs! Put in this context, I can almost understand the 'average' Iraqi's frustration with security. The average guy on the street is only thinking of three things - his family, his ability to transact business, his safety. His idea of 'country' is probably defined by his religion - excluding or limiting the power of those who don't ascribe to the same beliefs. It's only natural - his religion is the largest group he recognizes. He isn't going to fully grasp what it is we're sacrificing, but he certainly knows things could be a whole lot worse if we were not there. He can't begin to fathom our feelings about this war and why we fight with such passion until he feels a similar passion for his country.
I find that Mr. Farber's mention of John Reed particularly poignant. Perhaps only ardent socialists and those of us vehemently opposed to socialism know who Reed was. For Joe Average, Reed was probably a paragraph in a Social Studies textbook years ago. For those unfortunate enough to experience our post-secondary education systems of late, they may have been required to read 'Insurgent Mexico' or 'Ten Days that Shook the World.' Reed is, according to Wikipedia, portrayed as an American Journalist. Perhaps it is fitting that he is embraced by the left and held aloft as a hero of his craft. Here was a man who was born into wealth and affluence, studied at the best schools, and lived a life of privilege - that is, he didn't have to labor at job to put food on the table. It is interesting to note that John Reed was a rabid supporter of labor, and encouraged this group to radicalize on a global scale. He crossed the line between reporting and involvement...he became part of the story versus merely reporting it. So much for objective observer! This hypocrisy is a hallmark of the left, but in Reed's case - he actually went out and truly participated in causes in Mexico, the U.S., and Russia. He was a mixture of elitist and reporter. He should be called a journalist and agitator. He was one of the first, modern, limousine liberals - or, if you prefer, country club communist, or high society socialist. Anyway you put is, this man was actively involved with swaying public opinion to his way of thinking, which caused huge social strife in his era, and who's lingering effect is felt to this day. That he is romanticized by those on the left should come as no surprise. He was pure propaganda. Perhaps his final years were an example of divine justice.
So where does this leave us with CNN attempt at an anti-Iraqi, anti-troop piece?
If you answered 'laughing at CNN', ding-ding-ding. 'What a bunch of maroons' as Bugs Bunny would say. They sought to push us one way, but ended up proving the opposite.
Regrettably, there are people out in TV land who will take CNN at face value and see this piece as reinforcing their particular viewpoint. I guess the drive-by media has a drive-by viewer. If you want a news analogy - it's McDonald's vs a home cooked meal. Do you like your news quick, simple and off a pre-written menu, or do you prefer nutritious, hearty, and a foundation for prolonged conversations?
In closing, I think I'll offer a solution to the concerned Iraqi's.
The number one task at hand is security. More allied and Iraqi troops will handle this.
How then can we create national pride - the type of national pride that transcends race, religion, ethnicity? How can we bring all the good people of Iraq together? How can we develop a deep pride that shows itself on the world stage, exponentially growing as it achieves success? How do we foster something that is uniquely Iraq, and not the United States?
One word. One solution.
Soccer.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070729193532.3lhy0gi0&show_article=1
Link: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/7/19/102035.shtml
I was cruising around the TV and actually caught a portion of this CNN piece. I can only speak to what I saw.
I agree with Mr. Farber that CNN completely missed the message. Here were supposedly 'average' Iraqi's complaining about how it isn't safe and what a lousy job the troops were doing.
From all the cuts, it looked as though they were heavily edited. I guess we should expect this from CNN. I'd like to see the unedited , raw footage...and hear the questions. What do you think the chances of that are? Truthfully, we have a better chance of Putin renouncing the recent anti-West tact he's been on. I'm sure that footage is buried in a vault or had an unfortunate encounter with V8. Do you think CNN asked leading questions? And do you think it was translated correctly? I think we can make an assumption that CNN carefully selected who they spoke to and what they broadcast.
What ended up being shown was exactly as Mr. Farber described - Iraqi's complaining about the lack of security. What in the world was CNN trying to get across to their audience? I really think they hoped we would be left with a lingering feeling of anti-troop feeling of disgust.
Now I'll freely admit that I didn't like the Iraqi's cavalier attitude about our soldiers. They were basically saying 'send more' while failing to appreciate the soldiers' and our collective sacrifice. Maybe this was the deeper message - disgust with the Iraqi's - that CNN wanted. It does seem to be in line with the leftists in government and those Iraqi benchmarks they're always screaming about.
Like it or not, any 'benchmarks' set are going to fail. Iraq is a socially complex region. Divisions go back eons, and these social fractures can not be set and healed in the space of 5 or 15 years. Iraq needs at least a generation and a half, maybe 30 to 40 years, and a few politcal equivalents of George Washington and Abe Lincoln, to set their foundation, and then a hundred years of 'nip / tucks' to hide to political scars. Our short term politicians are looking for a quick fix to use as a bullet point on their resumes!
Take a quick look at the United States after we declared independence - do you think things were perfect here? It took decades to get the states to think as a country. Sure, we now see ourselves as Americans, but dig a hair deeper and people take a certain pride in their State. Even now, we still have divisions that conjure up specific emotions - North, South, West Coast, East Coast, rural, urban, mountain, and coastal. And these are just regions! The social geography is more emotional - racial, ethnic, and religious differences have almost torn us apart at times.
Asking the Iraqi's to pull it together quickly after years of a brutal dictatorship, with their religious divisions, is utterly ridiculous. Imagine having to create a country, complete with national pride, while you're dodging car bombs! Put in this context, I can almost understand the 'average' Iraqi's frustration with security. The average guy on the street is only thinking of three things - his family, his ability to transact business, his safety. His idea of 'country' is probably defined by his religion - excluding or limiting the power of those who don't ascribe to the same beliefs. It's only natural - his religion is the largest group he recognizes. He isn't going to fully grasp what it is we're sacrificing, but he certainly knows things could be a whole lot worse if we were not there. He can't begin to fathom our feelings about this war and why we fight with such passion until he feels a similar passion for his country.
I find that Mr. Farber's mention of John Reed particularly poignant. Perhaps only ardent socialists and those of us vehemently opposed to socialism know who Reed was. For Joe Average, Reed was probably a paragraph in a Social Studies textbook years ago. For those unfortunate enough to experience our post-secondary education systems of late, they may have been required to read 'Insurgent Mexico' or 'Ten Days that Shook the World.' Reed is, according to Wikipedia, portrayed as an American Journalist. Perhaps it is fitting that he is embraced by the left and held aloft as a hero of his craft. Here was a man who was born into wealth and affluence, studied at the best schools, and lived a life of privilege - that is, he didn't have to labor at job to put food on the table. It is interesting to note that John Reed was a rabid supporter of labor, and encouraged this group to radicalize on a global scale. He crossed the line between reporting and involvement...he became part of the story versus merely reporting it. So much for objective observer! This hypocrisy is a hallmark of the left, but in Reed's case - he actually went out and truly participated in causes in Mexico, the U.S., and Russia. He was a mixture of elitist and reporter. He should be called a journalist and agitator. He was one of the first, modern, limousine liberals - or, if you prefer, country club communist, or high society socialist. Anyway you put is, this man was actively involved with swaying public opinion to his way of thinking, which caused huge social strife in his era, and who's lingering effect is felt to this day. That he is romanticized by those on the left should come as no surprise. He was pure propaganda. Perhaps his final years were an example of divine justice.
So where does this leave us with CNN attempt at an anti-Iraqi, anti-troop piece?
If you answered 'laughing at CNN', ding-ding-ding. 'What a bunch of maroons' as Bugs Bunny would say. They sought to push us one way, but ended up proving the opposite.
Regrettably, there are people out in TV land who will take CNN at face value and see this piece as reinforcing their particular viewpoint. I guess the drive-by media has a drive-by viewer. If you want a news analogy - it's McDonald's vs a home cooked meal. Do you like your news quick, simple and off a pre-written menu, or do you prefer nutritious, hearty, and a foundation for prolonged conversations?
In closing, I think I'll offer a solution to the concerned Iraqi's.
The number one task at hand is security. More allied and Iraqi troops will handle this.
How then can we create national pride - the type of national pride that transcends race, religion, ethnicity? How can we bring all the good people of Iraq together? How can we develop a deep pride that shows itself on the world stage, exponentially growing as it achieves success? How do we foster something that is uniquely Iraq, and not the United States?
One word. One solution.
Soccer.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070729193532.3lhy0gi0&show_article=1
