Paul (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} ace_combs) wrote, |
Deleted/Re-Posted with Corrections
The manipulation of the Soldier's and Marine's stories seems to me to be one of the cruelest features of this conflict. The majority of the American public appears to be psychically disconnected from the violence taking place - in their name - overseas. What sacrifices are 'average Americans' really being asked to make? Whether the coverage is biased for the purpose of advancing someone's political agenda or keeping levels of consumer consumption high doesn't really seem to matter. It's biased.
Example: Using Google to search for information about the number of American casualties suffered, to date, I found the following:
CNN, February '07:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/f
In that CNN article, above, clicking on the link: "examine U.S. war casualties dating back to the Revolutionary War," one is presented with a graph containing the 3000/odd number of American *deaths* in the conflict - and not the 50,000/odd number of casualties.
A 'casualty' is any mental/physical injury severe enough to render a troop incapable if fighting. Casualties consume greater resources than deaths. Casualties live with their injuries, and stories. And so it's a matter of deciding whether a multi-billion dollar news organization isn't capable of making sense of the difference between a 'casualty' and a 'death,' or a multi-billion dollar news organization is attempting to manipulate public opinion about the conflict.
And the 'usual suspects' putting out the better information - motivation aside - tend to be ignored, dismissed as, 'left-wing radicals.'
Mother Jones, November '06 article:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/arc
Ralph Nader, September '04:
http://www.votenader.org/media_press/in
Given the magnitude of this event's ramifications, why should it be so difficult to get good numbers - of casualties and dollars?
The Reservists and Guard members are upset that they have been mobilized for so long; the regular troops are upset that they have been redeployed with such frequency. not in every case, of course, but there is a growing resentment that the burden for this has fallen so heavily on so few shoulders: the wounded shut-up in hospitals, too difficult to remember.
The manipulation of the Soldier's and Marine's stories seems to me to be one of the cruelest features of this conflict. The majority of the American public appears to be psychically disconnected from the violence taking place - in their name - overseas. What sacrifices are 'average Americans' really being asked to make? Whether the coverage is biased for the purpose of advancing someone's political agenda or keeping levels of consumer consumption high doesn't really seem to matter. It's biased.
Example: Using Google to search for information about the number of American casualties suffered, to date, I found the following:
CNN, February '07:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/f
In that CNN article, above, clicking on the link: "examine U.S. war casualties dating back to the Revolutionary War," one is presented with a graph containing the 3000/odd number of American *deaths* in the conflict - and not the 50,000/odd number of casualties.
A 'casualty' is any mental/physical injury severe enough to render a troop incapable if fighting. Casualties consume greater resources than deaths. Casualties live with their injuries, and stories. And so it's a matter of deciding whether a multi-billion dollar news organization isn't capable of making sense of the difference between a 'casualty' and a 'death,' or a multi-billion dollar news organization is attempting to manipulate public opinion about the conflict.
And the 'usual suspects' putting out the better information - motivation aside - tend to be ignored, dismissed as, 'left-wing radicals.'
Mother Jones, November '06 article:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/arc
Ralph Nader, September '04:
http://www.votenader.org/media_press/in
Given the magnitude of this event's ramifications, why should it be so difficult to get good numbers - of casualties and dollars?
The Reservists and Guard members are upset that they have been mobilized for so long; the regular troops are upset that they have been redeployed with such frequency. not in every case, of course, but there is a growing resentment that the burden for this has fallen so heavily on so few shoulders: the wounded shut-up in hospitals, too difficult to remember.
