Who gave the MSM the right to be the sole arbitror of what the good news is supposed to be, to the extent of suppressing and distorting all other news that might reasonably be construed as good, for example, US troops winning a major victory against the enemies of a peaceful, democratic Iraq?
I agree there should probably be more good news coming out of Iraq, and am surprised that there isn't a division within the US military that escorts the news services to the various "good news stories" of the day. You know, they could guide the news services around the post-successful battles, take them to see reconstructed power plants, etc. etc. Sort of the coalition's PR team - do they exist? Perhaps they do, but they do a poor job.
I don't know, but much of the failure to get out the "good side" of the Iraq activity lies with the US military. THEY are the ones doing the good deeds, so they know what the good deeds are - why don't they advertise them more?
For example, when some Iraqi division graduates from trainee status to now being capable of managing whatever they are assigned to manage - why isn't there a huge press day to let the press cover that "good news" story? Then we could have had hundreds of those days over the past few years, the media could be encouraged to follow some of the Iraqi civil defense forces as their career progresses, the number of graduated Iraqi civil defense classes well known, etc. etc. |
