In California where I live about 85 % of the big media newspapers are on the far liberal left. Which is the reason why I do not read any of the California newspaers expect for the following The Oragen Country Regeister, The Long Beach Press Telegram, and Thd Los Angles Daily News which center right but all and fair.

I just stick to reading the Wall Street Journal because other then the three California newspapers I read, the Wall Street Journal gives you real news and not
B.S like the other liberal papers do.

Oh, spare me. I spent 25 years in the newspaper bidness, the last 22 at the same paper — in what was until very recently a deeply red state. As a manager I was privy to a lot of research. And when we asked people why they dropped their subscriptions, “liberal bias” was never in the top 5 and frequently not even in the top 10. And in recent years, we started getting more complaints about both conservative bias and bias in favor of the city’s business establishment. All the while, the reporting strove to be accurate and fair — not “objective.” True objectivity is rarer than true love. If you’re being fair and accurate — factually accurate; contextually accurate — you’ve done your job.

One other thing about contextual accuracy: a lot of conservatives consider THAT the bias. That ain’t bias. That’s the whole picture.

If you don’t personally want to be a mythical impartial judge, you want someone else to do it who’ll make you personally happy with the results.

No. I don’t want to be the filter.

I said I’d like the media to let me make up my own mind instead of trying to spoon-feed a viewpoint and a perspective to me.

Basically, less filtering. Less emphasis warp. Less emotional content. More dispassion.

Though unlike My Lai, no Iraqis were killed. Simply humiliated on film.

Er, except at least one was. Graner and Harman (two of the convicted torture-porn photographers) ended up posing with his corpse. Those were the photos of the guy in the body bad stuffed with ice who had the broken skull.

For the most part, though, I agree with you. I’d love to see more positive representation of the armed forces in the media, but like cops, you’re the violent force side of the government, so you get extra scrutiny.

We used to not scrutinize our police and armed forces, and that was a worse state of affairs, because you (police, armed forces, military) could literally murder or torture someone with government sanction and get away with it. It’s going to include some negative reporting, and some over-hyping to get past that. But on the positive side, these days stories like the bad conditions at Walter Reed get out and get publicized really quickly these days.

As for releasing “the facts be known, without Emphasis Warp”, that’s a naive fantasy of your own infalibility – if we let you decide what “facts” got released and what counted as “facts” we’d have a very different media than if I did.

We discussed this as a group at drill this weekend, in regards to how the media always (and even you must admit this, JS) blows things out of proportion if ever a story breaks that just happens to involve a member of the military. It was during our yearly roundtable briefing on ethics and values in an Army setting.

Consider the “Ranger Robbers” from 2006.

I don’t know if this went national, but up in the Northwest it was big stuff for many days, hitting print and television and radio.

The headlines and soundbites were always the same: UNITED STATES ARMY RANGERS ROB BANK!!!!

Now, why in the world does the profession of these men warrant a blaring headline?

When other people rob banks, it’s NEVER in the headline. It’s always, “Three armed men in masks take local bank.” You never hear if they’re plumbers, clerks, truck drivers, or anything else like that. No. But if they’re military, even if they’re ex-military, this ‘fact’ will conveniently be floated to the top.

Why? Is it because the media holds the military in such high regard they are simply aghast and in disbelief when soldiers do something stupid or wrong?

No. It’s because the media, by and large, ***LOVES*** piling on the military whenever an individual in the military fucks up. It’s guilt by association. Doesn’t matter if the perp was off duty when he did the crime or whatever else he was not supposed to be doing. The press will run it as follows:

MILITARY PERSONNEL FUCK UP BADLY, FILM AT ELEVEN!

We know the press will tag us every time they have even a small excuse to do so. You don’t see this with other professions, other than perhaps the police department. They get it up the ass from the press too. Just let an off-duty copy do something stupid, and it’s front page news. Can’t say the same for plumbers or truck drivers or motel clerks.

Yes, one might argue that any news event involving the military — or cops — is going to get front-page news because these topics are exciting and sensational and they potentially attract readers and viewers, which means $$$ revenue for the advertising.

But the giant, critical eye forever aimed at the military has been open and staring for so long now, the bias is taken as a given. It’s part of our training as military members, when we discuss keeping our asses wiped and our noses clean. We know the media will hound us out and blanket-blame all of us any time one of us does something wrong, or simply does something dumb.

This is also part of what I like to call the Emphasis Warp that occurs all the time in the media too.

On any given day in a big city — like Seattle, or the greater Seattle-Tacoma area — there are countless crimes and events that are potentially newsworthy. Only a very few of them will be plucked and pushed to the front pages. Who is making these decisions, and why? Why do some stories get massive coverage that lasts for days or weeks or months or years? While others — often of equal or more note — get buried or ignored?

Naturally this weekend’s roundtable got around to Abu Ghraib, which has becomee the My Lai of my generation. Most of us agreed it was a miserable example of soldiers doing stupid shit. Though unlike My Lai, no Iraqis were killed. Simply humiliated on film. But that doesn’t matter because when the media got wind of this, the giant shit tornado that ensued was colossal and beyond all proportion with the events on the ground. It was used widely to inflame anti-war and anti-military sentiment. I personally had someone walk up to me on the street in Seattle after this happened and make some rude comments to me about me being in the Army. Nevermind that I was not involved, and if I’d been at Abu Ghraib would have submitted the perps for UCMJ action the second I got wind of it.

Yes, we can blame the public for being so brainless as to blanket-blame organizations and groups when it’s individuals who are at fault.

But the media is a too-happy accomplice in this too-typical sort of thing. They shove stories to the top, blow shit beyond proportion, enjoy smearing and slamming cops, troops, politicians, and other people they feel deserves Endless Critical Attention No Matter What.

I’m not asking the media to go back to the WWII days when they were basically on Our Side and were trumpet-blasters for the Righteous U.S. Military Cause. It would be nice, but I’m not asking for that. I am asking that the media re-prioritize and take into consideration the wider ramifications of their slant.

Doubtless, this will not happen. And doubtless, circulation will continue to fall. Not because the internet and TV suck the brains out of potential readers, though this is a big factor. But because many people, having discovered alternative sources of information, via mailing lists and feeds and blogs and whatnot, just don’t feel like paying for the same old slanted shit at the daily fishwrap anymore. Why fund reporting that is annoying and Emphasis Warped when you can get half a dozen other sources — for free — and contrast and compare and make up your own mind?

Because that’s what I know I would like if I could make the media “objective:” let the facts be known, without Emphasis Warp, give the various views and angles equal time, and let the public decide what they think. Especially about news items that are politically charged. And the media damned well knows which items these are, because they always get thrust righ to the top and are kept there long after their shelf dates have expired.

OK, soap box over. Here’s your blog back. Sorry about the donut crumbs I got all over it.