« Exposed! | Main | What Was That? »

But What About All The Good News?

The liberal media, by pointing out that things are no longer looking up in Iraq is once again proving that they're not just anti-war, they're on the other side. Personally, I believe in freedom of the press. I think MSM scumbags should be allowed to ply their vicious, terror-enabling trade without threat of physical harm or legal intimidation. But if the American people develop the belief -- somehow! -- that the media is aiding and abetting our adversaries rather than playing its proper role as cheerleaders for the wealthy and powerful, then I believe a collapse of our historical traditions in this regard is inevitable. So please, media, please -- stop reporting stuff. It's for your own good! Report on the school paintings, the school paintings, damnit.

And, of course, read the Iraqi blogs to get the real story the MSM won't tell you.

May 19, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83458a33c69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference But What About All The Good News?:

» Some Sanity on Newsweek from Balloon Juice
David Brooks has a decent piece up on the over-reaction of EVERYONE regarding Newsweek: Maybe it won't be so bad... [Read More]

Tracked on May 19, 2005 11:46:04 AM

» Bad News from Iraq: Right Wing Analysis Edition from Simianbrain
In Baghdad, a senior officer said Wednesday in a background briefing that the 21 car bombings in Baghdad so far this month almost matched the total of 25 in all of last year.The Generals are also pulling back from the... [Read More]

Tracked on May 19, 2005 3:10:08 PM

Comments

Shorter Matthew - read the Baathist blog confirming my worldview, but not those Iraqi blogs that paint a different picture!

Posted by: Al | May 19, 2005 11:13:30 AM

But What About All The Good News?

One wonders why Matthew can only answer his own question with sarcasm and derision, and not seriously.

Let's face it, it's perfectly clear from Matthew's sarcasm that he doesn't want any good news to be reported out of Iraq. Why not, Matthew? Why should only the bombings be reported?

I think it is perfectly clear what the anti-war left's answer is: the only thing that should determine what to report out of Iraq is whether the news would be unfavorable to Bush and the military: if it is unfavorable, report it; if it favorable, bury it. Since the the ledia is overwhelmingly anti-war and leftist, that's exactly what we get.

And Matthew's only acknowledgement of this is through sarcasm. Nice.

Posted by: Al | May 19, 2005 11:21:37 AM

Al's a nut!

Posted by: JRI | May 19, 2005 11:22:38 AM

i wish Al was a little less predictable.

Posted by: cleek | May 19, 2005 11:22:44 AM

In Al's alternate universe they have something very much like our "media", but there it is "overwhelmingly anti-war and leftist", and called "ledia".

Posted by: theCoach | May 19, 2005 11:26:23 AM

Well, Matt, at least they're still on board with the term "insurgent." I think the wealthy and powerful appreciate the MSM's consistent confusing of who's behind the Iraqi resistance--inflating the number of foreign jihadis and inventing the notion that the Iraqis fighting us are not Baathists, that this is not a part of the war but part of establishing the peace, etc. Or that this is good because we're engaging the foreign terrorists somewhere else. (This is a line so absolutely inconscionable--"Yeah, well, at least the bloodshed is going on over there and not here." No one in the Congress finds this absolutely grotesque?)

But the MSM (not to mention John Kerry, too) have made great efforts to establish this perception of "the insurgents" and "winning the peace". And, kudos to them, it's extremely false and misleading, and makes the neocons seem like heros for having swept the Baathists right out of Iraq (which they didn't do, not by a long shot, not by shock nor awe). And now we're 2 years, $180 billion, and over 1600 dead soldiers in the hole.

Posted by: M | May 19, 2005 11:26:53 AM

Tell us the good news, Al.

Posted by: JRI | May 19, 2005 11:27:25 AM

Sounds like Matt struck a nerve with little Al. Al, why don't you explain something to all of us; when the US is simply trying to rebuild the stuff it bombed and shattered, isn't it only evidence of our "good will" when we start engaging in public infrustructure projects that exceed that which was already there? Also, why hasn't the US been engaging in more "paint the schools" projects? It seems like it's taking them a LONG time to paint a handful of schools...

Posted by: blogsy mcblog | May 19, 2005 11:28:48 AM

i wish Al was a little less predictable.

I wish the left were a little less predictable.

Posted by: Al | May 19, 2005 11:29:47 AM

Really, now Al. We don't like forking over our tax money here in the U.S. to build schools. Why should we report and rejoice when one is built in Iraq?

But that's not even the point now, is it? The point is, there is little good news out of Iraq. And whatever media masturbation you would like over the good news, the reporters can't likely get there because they, like most everyone else in the country, aren't safe.

Let's just say the war (bombings, killings, etc...) is news. And Americans aren't seeing enough of it in the SCLM or else, I would safely venture the guess, that they would be horrified.

When you can't secure the road to the airport, when insurgents (or Sunnis or B'aathists or whomever) blow up civilians daily, when scores of men are being executed with single shots to the backs of their heads, then that's news.

Even Couch Patriots such as yourself should realize that.

Posted by: Rob | May 19, 2005 11:29:55 AM

al,
you ignorant slut. don't you think the white house is doing a pretty good job reporting the 'good' news out of iraq? so good that most americans still think there WERE wmd's, al-qaeda links, 9/11 links. they don't know that over 15,000 casualties exist.

from your answer, it's perfectly clear what the pro-war right's answer is: we are having victory in iraq! the PNAC chickenhawks were right! Fearless Leader W is always right!

and your only acknowledgement of this is thru ignorance. and propaganda. the right won't be happy until the WP, the NYT and the LAT are on W's leash. real patriots, you bunch!

dr. noah tall

Posted by: dopey-o | May 19, 2005 11:30:02 AM

LOL. Good post, man.

Posted by: abb1 | May 19, 2005 11:30:03 AM

There have been 126 car bombings in Baghdad in the last 80 days. That compares to 25 in all of 2004.

Fuckin' eh! Let's attack MY for using sarcasm, 'cause facts have had such an impression on 'folks' like Al.

Al, you fail the Turing test.

Posted by: Al Gore | May 19, 2005 11:30:12 AM

Man, does it ever suck when the media is anti-war. I long for the good ole days of, ooooooh, early 2003 -- when media editorials could look at Colin Powell's powerpoint presentation of cartoon trucks and proclaim it a smoking gun and bang the drums for pro-war. That librul elite media just can't make up their minds. Maybe the WH should produce more smoking-gun cartoons and *pay* newspapers to publish the "good news." That would be awesome.

Posted by: Jar Jar Boinks | May 19, 2005 11:32:14 AM

What good news? I have several family members there right now and the news is not good from them, despite the fact that they support the war (which I don't). Basically they're scared shitless, infrastructure has not improved one iota since the war began, and the prime minister is a (former? yeah, sure) Islamist terrorist and the interim oil minister is Ahmed Chalabi, who may or may not have been an Iranian spy who punked us cause we wanted to be punked. Who knows any more?

Please, post the good news about this great occupation. Are women safer, since that's the riff du jour about our spreading of democracy? Not in Afghanistan they're not, Laura Bush to the contrary.

But was it worth $300 billion and the hatred of the entire Muslim world -- and most of the rest of the world for that matter? Was it worth setting a dangerous precedent for precognition-based military strikes -- say China decides that it "knows" Taiwan plans to attack it? Couldn't we have figured out a more cost-effective, PR-effective way to do this?

Posted by: on the other hand | May 19, 2005 11:32:28 AM

Al, how are things over in Iraq? Because that's where you are right, you're in Iraq fighting for Mad George's Democracy Agenda, right? You're not sitting on your fat ass monitoring your favorite websites so you can immediately post comments about how unpatriotic they are right, you fat fuck?

Posted by: grytpype | May 19, 2005 11:32:59 AM

Also, why hasn't the US been engaging in more "paint the schools" projects?

Do you know how many we have already engaged in? Because I'd like to know, given that the media won't report it. If you don't, how do you know it is a "handful" of schools, and it has taken a "LONG" time?

Oh, OK, I'll tell you the answer. We've renovated 541 schools, and 209 more are in progress. Hardly a handful. Not that the media would ever tell you that.

Posted by: Al | May 19, 2005 11:35:38 AM

The left is predictable, Al; we tend to analyze things through the prism of "facts."

Posted by: blogsy mcblog | May 19, 2005 11:35:45 AM

While I disagree generally with Al, I think he (and his detractors) have entirely missed the point of Matt's parody. He is not exactly arguing that Iraq is or is not going poorly, he is making fun of Instapundit. And in particular, Instapundit's cheap and utterly hacktastic take on the free press:

http://instapundit.com/archives/023008.php
http://instapundit.com/archives/023010.php

As I've warned before, if Americans conclude that the press is, basically, on the side of the enemy, the consequences are likely to be dire.
...
I'm a big fan of the freedom of the press.

Posted by: Mikael | May 19, 2005 11:37:21 AM

I remain unconvinced that we have to start manufacturing "good news" the way Donald Rumsfeld suggested a couple years back. But I do fully support newspapers and mainstream TV news networks calling our Commander-in-Chief "Lord Bush" from now on to bring some balance and respect to the office of the presidency and to help save the news profession.

Posted by: Yojimbo Jones | May 19, 2005 11:37:52 AM

The point is, there is little good news out of Iraq.

How the f*ck would we know? The only way to tell is Chrenkoff's "underreported" roundup.

Posted by: Al | May 19, 2005 11:38:05 AM

I wish the left were a little less predictable.

Not everyone who opposes the war is on the left. Some of us are libertarians. And just because the predictable response to utter murderous stupidity is revulsion and anger doesn't mean it's not appropriate, intelligent, or righteous.

Posted by: on the other hand | May 19, 2005 11:38:32 AM

$300 billion (and counting).

That's $1,000 (and counting) for every man, woman and child in the U.S.

Good value? If 'yes', as measured by what yardstick? For example, that's only $20 million for every injured U.S. serviceman (woman). If only more could be injured the cost per injury would go down.

Posted by: JB | May 19, 2005 11:40:41 AM

Oh, I caught the parody. I think that Al's reaction is hilarious.

Posted by: blogsy mcblog | May 19, 2005 11:42:47 AM

More good news from the War on Terror, Al:

Sexual assualts by US military increasing

This part really disturbs me:

One of the most troubling aspects of the assault problem is the emergence of cases in which U.S. troops -- men as well as women -- are abused by other service members in hostile environments such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Reported sexual assaults have risen in the Central Command region, which includes the Middle East and Central Asia, from 24 in 2002 and 94 in 2003 to 123 in 2004, according to figures the Miles Foundation obtained from the Pentagon's Joint Task Force on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response.

Damn that liberal fucking media for reporting these LIES! (Right, Al?)

Damn them to hell!

Posted by: mat | May 19, 2005 11:43:12 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.