Jan 13 2007

The Pathetic News Media Ignores Our Military’s Heroism

Published by at 11:02 am under All General Discussions

If the news media really cared about America and her heroes, if they really cared about the soldiers who must enforce the policies of this administration, they would honor them regularly with stories of their acts of bravery – and how they SURVIVED. Sydney Freeberg Jr, writing in the National Journal today (H/T RCP), notes that fact the media cannot muster the minimal effort to honor our men in women in harms way and have the occasional story of bravery and success – instead of their pathetic, morbid obsession with body bags (as opposed to addressing the gift of the sacrifice). The first story offered by Freeberg undescores the criminal negligence of our news media regarding our fellow citizens and their personal acts of bravery and honor which reflect well on all of us:

On February 21, 2005, before all of his unit had arrived in Iraq, Army Staff Sgt. Thomas Stone and his advance party of California National Guard soldiers stopped to help another group of soldiers after a Humvee accident in downtown Baghdad. Stone shepherded the other unit’s dazed troops into a proper security perimeter and called in a helicopter for the injured. But as the chopper landed, an insurgent detonated a hidden roadside bomb that shredded nine men. Stone ran back and forth, braving sniper fire, to grab first-aid supplies. Then, as a second medevac helicopter arrived and the survivors braced for another blast — a common tactic of Iraqi insurgents — Stone curled himself around a badly wounded friend, covering the soldier with his own body. “If it goes off, you’re going to be OK,” Stone told him. “Hug your wife and kids, and don’t ever forget me.”

There was no second explosion – but the sacrifice that was offered is one for the history books. This story relfects well on all mankind in how one selffless act is offered in the heat of the moment, with one simple request in return: live a good life yourself. Why is it the news media cannot spend even a fraction of the time they spend whining about this or that do something the should be a minimal part of their job – tell the story of Americans doing it right, doing it for others.

71 responses so far

71 Responses to “The Pathetic News Media Ignores Our Military’s Heroism”

  1. Carol_Herman says:

    War “news” occupies history. And, when you say “Sun Tsu,” you’re even reaching beyond just the West. And, Homer’s two Epics.

    Even in WW1, as the people in the United States got used to seeing newsreel footage; we now know it took awhile for the war news to sort itself out.

    And, if you go backwards in time? Did you know Grant’s great battles (he never really lost in all the years he was fighting during the Civil War, anything.) That it took the British. Reviewing the battlefields. To comment that Grant was indeed the GREATEST GENERAL. And, Lee? He was NOT.

    But at the time? If you were reading dispatches from the front. From 1961 till 1864, you wouldn’t have been impressed with Grant at all. He was ALWAYS at the front. The journalists were ALWAYS at the rear. And, the journalists only spoke to the injured. AND, the loiterers, beyind the lines, who were looking to dodge fighting. People like that? Sure can bum up a man’s reputation.

    Even WW1. Did you know it took a decade? From 1918 to 1928. Before the first books that grabbed attention, took hold? ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT. Didn’t hit the front pages during the First World War at all.

    And, you think jouralists are equipped?

    The other day, through a link on Glenn Reynold’s InstaPundit, I read a piece written by Michael Totten. He was writing from Southern Lebanon. He was there, INSIDE, a grocery store that belonged to an “uncle” of the man who took him “exploring.” (Christian village.) And, one of the photos he holds up is a can of tuna. “With Israeli writing on it.” And, you know what he does? He holds it up as “proof” the Israelis had been in that valley, on that spot, during the 34 days of battle, last summer. It wasn’t a military container. (And, at that time, those who IDF soldiers who made it into Lebanon, on the ground, complained there weren’t even water trucks. Let alone “food” enough to eat.

    But there ya go. The can that was photographed had Israeli “writing” on it. But, again. Michael Totten stopped off in a Christian village. Where the “uncle” of the man he was interviewing, owned a grocery store. (There were pictures, too, of French troops. And, bottles of wine.) But for “Israeli proof?” You want to profer a can that’s available in grocery stores? How come?

    Sometimes, evidence points you in the right direction.

    Sometimes, not.

    And, Michael Totten is, in fact, writing from Lebanon. With photos to show ya, of what it looks like, there, now. While what are you getting from Baghdad? Seems like the AP, and all the others, only publish propaganda.

    But the volume’s increasing.

    And, there’s no reason to think the terrorists have “battle plans,” that can match the might of the military; either from the USA. Or Israel.

    What the media is used to, however. Is the constant theme from the media that’s meant to sound like “we’re losing.”

    Nope. Don’t think so. Don’t think there’s been a single matchup, either between the Mideast and Vietnam.

    The media’s for dummies. For those without access to anything else. And, its substance isn’t even as good as rumor. (Durng WW2, to escape the drone of the german’s propaganda; AND the Japanese propaganda, you needed to own, and keep well-hidden, a short-wave radio.)

    Afterwards? The GOOD WARS provide all the story-telling that makes up history. While the bad ones go the way of the “gold rush” … which puts people into the hills panning for gold. But how many actually found anything interesting?

  2. ivehadit says:

    AJ, off this subject, but have you tried to get onto macs site today?

  3. smh10 says:

    Ivehadit:

    Mac was hacked yesterday..I just sent him off an email to let him know the difficulties are back.

  4. Nelle says:

    The news media disgraces itself when all it can find to report during a war is the number of casualties for one side only. Seldom if ever do I see or hear a mere factual account accompanying the “grim statistics”, about what mission might have been underway, whether it was successful, what the overall strategy might be, what acts of heroism occured or what medals have been awarded. If there is a rare interview with a soldier or marine, the interviewer always has to ask leading questions to see if they won’t admit it’s all a hopeless and worthless catastrophe. Scarcely a paragraph can be written without a slap at the administration or a reminder of the quagmiryness of it all.

    The media in general strikes me as embarassed to have anyone associate them with their country. In their ridiculous attempts to be unecessarily “impartial”, they come off as sneeringly superior to anyone who might want the US to succeed. But by being too sophisticated for their shirts and too Euro-centric for their countrymen, they make themselves a strange tribe of disloyal aliens who the enemy delights to use, and no one trusts.

  5. For Enforcement says:

    From above:

    That it took the British. Reviewing the battlefields. To comment that Grant was indeed the GREATEST GENERAL. And, Lee? He was NOT.

    I’m not arguing the case one way or the other, but just because some British guy reached a conclusion doesn’t mean much. Certainly doesn’t mean he’s correct. Just means it’s his opinion.

    I think many people could make a very good argument that had Grant been leading the South and Lee the North. The outcome would have been much the same. You had the north with 22 million people and the south with 7 million, about 2 of those were slaves. The North had most of the factories and resources. It would have been very hard for it to come out differently, Lee almost did it with the South. Even tho I’m a native of the south, I think the civil war came out correctly.

  6. Barbara says:

    According to the media our soldiers are wandering clueless and being popped off one at at time. That is the impression they give. According to them the soldiers aren’t there for anything but to be targets. The imbeds don’t report the news of the soldiers actions either but maybe their editors don’t want to print anything but deaths. That might distort their agenda. If that is the case why have inbeds at all. All they do is watch to see if the soldiers do anything out of line. I have never heard of a war being fought this way.

    The reporters in the green zone depend on stringers to bring them the news and say their stringers are reliable. With Jamil Hussein in the works so much for accuracy. Who knows how many of their stringers are accurate. After all, only big news and many deaths get them big pay. Then in the teeth of Centcom and the Iraqi government denial they still insist Jamil Hussein is a real person. If so, why don’t they present him? Bring him forward and let him show us his credentials.

    Bottom line. The media is not going to print anything about the war that would distort their agenda. They want us to lose and most of all they want Bush to lose. I have never seen such hatred that the left is showing. Goodness knows I couldn’t stand Clinton, but he was the president. and although I could not respect the man I did respect the office. In other words I had good reason to despise the man for the things that he did and didn’t do, but not anywhere close to the way the left hates Bush. And actually what has he done? Tried his best to protect everyone in this country. What a reason.

  7. ivehadit says:

    Thanks, SMH10. He has been hacked quite a bit this week. Shameless dems!

  8. Terrye says:

    The media seems to see this soldier as victims or victimizers. Very one dimensional and shallow.

  9. sonofdevo says:

    Its kind of hard to respond to a blog when the blogger is so ignorant he cannot even encapsualte a thought into English sentence structure. Example: what the f*** does:

    The Pathetic News Media Ignores Are Military’s Heroism

    mean?

    It’s nonsense – it has no meaning whatsoever in the English language. How is one to take seriously a blogger who cannot even write a simple HEADLINE in English??? What is it you are trying so hard to say – you poor inarticulate fool? And why would anyone take your opinion seriously, if you are not even serious enough to proof read your own garbage?? Please advise.

  10. satrist says:

    are you aware that only one question mark is required when posting a question?

  11. abastounes says:

    THE WORD “ARE” SHOULD BE “OUR” IN THE TITLE OF THIS POST.

    IN ANOTHER POST, THE WORD “STORY” IS MISSPELLED.

    MR. STRATA, I ENJOY YOUR BLOG, BUT PLEASE USE SPELLING AND GRAMMAR CHECKS BEFORE POSTING.

  12. For Enforcement says:

    Son of Devo said:

    “encapsualte” now I’m gonna be presumptive enough to think that he proof read what he wrote, wasn’t that the point of his comment? To say that if you are serious about what you are writing, the least you can do is proof read it. Right?

    So then let me ask, just what the hell is “encapsualte”? (one question mark) I think I would probably have used the word ” encapsulate” instead.

  13. satrist says:

    haha hear, hear, Enforcement

  14. Mark_for_Senate says:

    Silly conservative. Ignorant lefty’s have their own dictionary and punctuation rules. Far too sophisticated for you simpletons to understand and/or use. Geez. Where have you been? 🙂

  15. For Enforcement says:

    Mark_for_Senate and that “own dictionary and punctuation rules” include the ability to determine the political direction of a person based on them questioning what someone said.

    What I’m asking is, how do you know I’m a conservative?

    Jumping to conclusions is like jumping up to kiss someone’s a**.

  16. Carol_Herman says:

    Outside of military schools, given the terrible “industry” of the american educational system, I’m not surprised that we still have lots of idiots who don’t know that Grant was one of America’s greatest generals. And, that Lee WAS NOT! Lee was just over-hyped.

    As to “some British “dude,” that’s on par with calling Shakespeare a “British writer.”

    Analyzing battlefield scenes well goes to very few. Up there with Sun Tsu is Basil Liddell-Hart. A “mere” captain with the British forces during WW1. (Where Winston Churchill also played a minor role. Only later to emerge as the great man he was.)

    But military history, in the hands of great reviewers, tell their stories well.

    Grant’s story? The American press at that time co-opted the truth. So this is nothing “new” to journalism. They portrayed him as a drunk. And, Halleck used that stick to approach Lincoln, full tilt, forward. WHERE THE MESSES CONTINUED TO BE BLED ON THE BATTLEFIELD for about four years.

    During which time Lincoln got the education he deserved.

    Only when Grant was finally put in charge, do we know what happened next. And, what happened “next” gutted the insanity of the slave-loving boys.

    Sure, those democraps; (as all the southerners in congress were just that sort of crap). Used their posturing to keep blacks “under control.” There was going to be no Civil Rights for them!

    And, then? The 1960’s “happened.”

    Started off with the killing of Kennedy. And, “if” what Drudge’s headline, today, says is true, E. Howard Hunt, that old finagler from Nixon’s White House “plumbers,” the finger of responsibility points to LBJ. (Well? LBJ did duck down in his car BEFORE the shots were fired! And, while his vehicle was still not “inside” Dealey Plaza. NOTHING surprises me, here! But Gerald Ford? He was one of the “selected few” who were sitting on the Warren Commission. And, he was just dumb enough to believe he could “sell” the “one bullet theory.”

    Lots of dreck passes for “work” out of congress.

    But dreck clears out in time. Just as it does in our oceans. The recepticles for all those flushing toilets.

    Liddell-Hart updated his work, I think, in 1954. He dealt with the A-Bomb. And, said the power of dropping it caused Americans to go weak on long-term strategy.

    Like all writers who “get it,” what you find is that what Liddell-Hart wrote THEN, remains true to this day. And, even if the name rings no bells for you, it doesn’t matter. You can’t get to officer status in America without passing through military college. (It’s in military colleges that these books are used.)

    Same with science. Doesn’t require you to have math skills at all.

    But dressing up in a white jacket doesn’t make you a scientist, either. Even if you laugh when you hear someone giving out advice by saying “I’m not a doctor. But I play one on TV.” Long after the show that birthed that line has gone out of business. (Marcus Welby.)

    As to an aside. In 1956-57, Arik Sharon, then young. And, climbing up the ladder of Israel’s military hierarchy, was sent, at government expense. To England. To study at a British military college. (Where he chose as his thesis topic: “Command Interference in Tactical Battlefield Decisions: British and German Aprroaches.”

    Liddell-Hart lived closed to Surrey, where Arik Sharon spent about 9 months’ time. And, Sharon, being bold. Wrote to Liddell-Hart. And, got invited to lunch. (Now, wouldn’t that conversation they had then, still prove to be interesting?)

    As to the name, Liddell-Hart. It shows ya the powers of the Internet. I learned of it only within the past few years. Mentioned by M. Simon, as worth reading. TRUE!

    Afterwards? Since I read WARRIOR. Sharon’s own book. I saw in the index a reference to Liddell-Hart.

    Yup. You can always learn stuff. Helps when you want to connect the dots.

  17. kbmoran says:

    Still wondering if “Are” in the headline was intentional …

  18. Mark_for_Senate says:

    Enforcement,
    I’ve enjoyed your posts on this blog before. You use far to much fact, logic and reason to be liberal. What other choice is there?

  19. For Enforcement says:

    Oh, Ok, I confess. I am conservative. You are correct, but then you knew that.

  20. For Enforcement says:

    Carol_Herman I guess it doesn’t surprise me that your hero was a traitor.

    “, formerly secret MI5 files revealed MI5 suspicions that plans for the D-Day landings had been leaked, and that Liddell Hart had known all the details, three months before the landings took place, discussed them, and had even prepared a critique, entitled Some Reflections on the Problems of Invading the Continent, which he circulated amongst political and military figures. “from wikepedia(so it may be true or not)

    Don’t you know that most history is written by the winning side and they make it sound a little favorable as to why they won.

    This statement of yours is meaningless, no proof at all, just opinions. And my opinion counts exactly the same as yours, none.
    Outside of military schools, given the terrible “industry” of the american educational system, I’m not surprised that we still have lots of idiots who don’t know that Grant was one of America’s greatest generals. And, that Lee WAS NOT! Lee was just over-hyped.”

    By the time Grant took over the Army, the war was basically over. Joe Blow could have led anyone to victory at the time. Lee, with very little more than brainpower damn nearly won the war. I’m not sure how that could be over-hyped, it is true. (If damn nearly losing the war for the north was because of poor generals, you have to assume the opposite)
    And I didn’t learn any of that in the American educational system.

    As to “some British “dude,” that’s on par with calling Shakespeare a “British writer.”

    Do you deny that Shakespheare was a British writer?
    Would you be more comfortable if I referred to him as a British traitor?

    Analyzing battlefield scenes well goes to very few. Up there with Sun Tsu is Basil Liddell-Hart. A “mere” captain with the British forces during WW1. (Where Winston Churchill also played a minor role. Only later to emerge as the great man he was.)
    How does that affect the price of apples?

    “Only when Grant was finally put in charge, do we know what happened next. And, what happened “next” gutted the insanity of the slave-loving boys.”
    Anyone that believes the civil war was related to slavery would be a victim of the American education system.

    Sure, those democraps; (as all the southerners in congress were just that sort of crap). Used their posturing to keep blacks “under control.” There was going to be no Civil Rights for them!
    Most civil rights abuses were then and still are in the North.

    And, then? The 1960’s “happened.”
    Actually the 60’s started with the election of Kennedy.
    I see no headline on Drudge related to E howard Hunt or Kennedy, where did you get that?

    Started off with the killing of Kennedy. And, “if” what Drudge’s headline, today, says is true, E. Howard Hunt, that old finagler from Nixon’s White House “plumbers,” the finger of responsibility points to LBJ. (Well? LBJ did duck down in his car BEFORE the shots were fired! And, while his vehicle was still not “inside” Dealey Plaza. NOTHING surprises me, here! But Gerald Ford? He was one of the “selected few” who were sitting on the Warren Commission. And, he was just dumb enough to believe he could “sell” the “one bullet theory.” For the record, the one bullet theory was hatched by Arlen Specter. The Mob killed JFK, it was covered up by the CIA,FBI and LBJ.

    “Liddell-Hart updated his work, I think, in 1954. He dealt with the A-Bomb. And, said the power of dropping it caused Americans to go weak on long-term strategy.”
    with that opinion and a couple bucks you can buy coffee at Starbucks.

    “Like all writers who “get it,” what you find is that what Liddell-Hart wrote THEN, remains true to this day.”
    Did he write back then that he was a traitor?
    ” And, even if the name rings no bells for you, it doesn’t matter. You can’t get to officer status in America without passing through military college. ”
    ???? Baloney, many officers never went to military college.

    “Same with science. Doesn’t require you to have math skills at all.” True, but if you want to be successful you do.

    “As to an aside. In 1956-57, Arik Sharon, then young. And, climbing up the ladder of Israel’s military hierarchy, was sent, at government expense. To England. To study at a British military college. (Where he chose as his thesis topic: “Command Interference in Tactical Battlefield Decisions: British and German Aprroaches.”

    Again, and the price of apples is? Didn’t the British lose the war against America? Seems if he really wanted to learn military strategy, he would have come here.

    Interesting observations, especially that your “hero” is a traitor to his country. Any more heros we should know about?