A study conducted shows that insurgents benefit from anti-war reporting. The National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that there was a seven to ten percent increase in attacks following a streak of reporting deemed "anti resolve."
The media certainly won't take this into account when reporting. I wonder how many deaths of American troops can be taken into account because of this negative and biased reporting?
You Are Among The Elite!
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Does This Surprise You?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 Posts From Readers:
Robert,
I assure you that you won't see a breakdown of THOSE numbers as the media bemoans the rising death toll. Blame America, blame Bush, blame the right wing conspiracy. Take no responsibility. That's the mainstream media oath these days. I think it's on a plaque somewhere in someone's office at the New York Times. I'd bet on it.
FMD
I clicked on your profile for the first time and see that you are a Marine. Welcome again, and Semper Fi Brother!
You will have to let me know where and when. We are almost the same age and may have crossed paths.
I have virtually given up debating the war. At someone els'e place I promised to re-write a post about the reason for the recent surge - recent meaning 15 or so years) in radical Islam and violence.
I don't know what happened to this country between the end of WWII and today. My dad reminds me occasionally of the sacrifices gladly made by every citizen during WWII. Rationing of gas, sugar, flour, rubber, steel...all the things necessary for military production and support. We are becoming victims of our own success and wealth. Technology and resources are such that there is no need for participation in the war. Most people don't even keep track of the news from the war zones.
Coupled with the liberal bias and absurd reporting of the media, this presents many problems and concerns. There just aren't any Ernie Pyle's left that will claim their American citizenship when they go on camera.
Having served in Desert Storm, I will always despire Bernard Shaw - formerly of CNN - for his refusal to provide any information to our military after being in Baghdad. He was concerned about the world's perception of his "journalistic integrity."
Do you know how the entire country would consider the reporter, who when interviewing demons such as Saddam Hussein, if they pulled out a knife and slit his throat during a propoganda interview?
But I guess they are more concerned about the opinions of the "enlightened" people of the world than the opinions of the men and women who give their lives and give up their dreams so that reporters can live theirs...
No doubt that this story will be on the back page of the classifieds, and the broadcast media will give this info during a commercial break....
I wonder how many deaths of American troops can be taken into account because of this negative and biased reporting?
Zero. All opinion but no facts, research, or evidence. This is just rabble rousing.
I must remember to remove the alloance for anonymous postings.
Only in yellow dog dreamland could you possibly think that a 10% surge following media reports would no indicate a imilar increase in casualties.
I love anons....they don't have the intelligence or the integrity to post themselves, but they can post here and critize.
I think it would be either naive or stupid to even believe that anti-war reporting does not give insurgents more power, initiative, strength (whatever name you want to apply)
I have been saying this from the beginning. They are supplying them ammunition whether they realize it or not!
You know this crazy lefty won't sit aside for this.
How about forget about the MSM. I haven't listened to anything but the local news for years now. They mis-represent everything from the "A-Team's" influence on American culture, to the current world's conflicts.
How about forget the Bush admin could have prevented 100% of these deaths associated with the Iraq war...well...by not going to Iraq.
I have the up-most respect for our Military (especially Marines). But wouldn't it have been better to sacrifice the brave men and women of our military in Afghanistan? Isn't that the true enemy strong hold?
I don't opposed the war, just opposed to the mishandling of the war, and the misplacement of resources to conduct it. This, you and I have at least had some agreement on. No?
I don't even watch the local news. It doesn;t tell me anything.
We have a certain level of agreement on the issue of strategy and the bigger picture. Afghanistan was indeed the enemy's main stronghold, but it did not take the same level of intervention from our military as Iraq.
If you look at the map, both geographic and political, of the entire region, I believe it was necessary to make inroads somewhere to counter the greater ideological resurgence of radical Islam. Afghanistan is on the "perimeter" so to speak, and Syria and Iran were not ripe for a military intervention. Iraq has long been in the national psyche as the big evil in that part of the world. Coupled with the Iraqi histor of chemical weapons and the state support for terrorists (Like Abu Nidal and Carlos the Jackal who died in Baghdad enjoying Iraqi protection) it was the perfect place.
I think that the more immediate threats were Afghanistan and Iran, and the lack of preparation for an insurgency that has seen setbacks and a very lengthy occupation.
I think that the true failure has been on the part of the diplomatic efforts. Despite the substantial decrease in violence, and the holding of places such as Fallujah, the government has been very quiet and there is little news about the political efforts.
The point to this post, and I know you got it, was thatthe bias on the part of the media does have consequences in real life.
Post a Comment