Joe the Plumber: ‘I think media should be abolished’ from reporting on war

[MacLean]

Why? Because they might write stories like this?

Your entire story was reported on from the home front, and has nothing to do with battlefield reporting or the hazards those of us who go in harms way we're speaking about.

[MacLean]

If I may derail this thread a little further off course, I am a connoisseur of beers, Maclean. Cheap beers. Keystone, PBR, Lone Star (my favorite), Strohs...I even once closed a big insurance sale (back in the pre-LE days) over a table full of empty Pearl cans. If you ever head down to Texas, lemme know...there's a great bar in Dallas (Deep Ellum section) called "Longhorns" that sells big-ass hamburgers and $1 cans of Lone Star. And I'f I'm ever up NW, I'll call you and we can share some bottles of "beer" with hints of blackberries and peat moss.

Blackberries and moss, LOL!

It might surprise you to know that as much as 77% of the hops grown in the United States are grown right here in Washington - and 25% of the worlds supply.

So even your PBR has roots out west.

[Terminator]

Your entire story was reported on from the home front, and has nothing to do with battlefield reporting or the hazards those of us who go in harms way were speaking about.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Maclean again.

[Willowdared]

Your entire story was reported on from the home front, and has nothing to do with battlefield reporting or the hazards those of us who go in harms way we're speaking about.

It was intended as an example of some of the countless stories on the military that actually try to make a positive change for our military personal.

Going by the statements of Joe the Plumber...

he believes the media shouldn’t be allowed to do “reporting” on wars.

Which gave me the impression this was not just about embedded reporters, but all reporting.

Of course, he also thought there were no reporters on the front lines during WWI or WWII, which proves he's a moron.

[countybear]

Your entire story was reported on from the home front, and has nothing to do with battlefield reporting or the hazards those of us who go in harms way we're speaking about.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Maclean again.

Got him.

[Terminator]

Big time ownage.

[gopherpuckfan]

I'm currently reading "American Soldier" by General Tommy Franks (which, BTW, is a *great* read). He said that for the build-up to the first Gulf War, the planners at CENTCOM knew Saddam relied on CNN as gospel truth as to what the U.S. forces were planning on doing. Franks allowed false plans to leak to the media so that Saddam would think we were going to attack from one direction. CNN bit hook, line, & sinker and the U.S. ground forces completely caught the Iraqi army by surprise with their advance from the SW desert.

Reporting on war is good and necessary. Reporting on troop locations and strategies is, at best, dangerous and treasonous, at worst.

[Odd]

Wow, really? I mean sure, we new to cable news were fed shit like this...but basing military planning on it? Bizarre. (Watch - see how it jives with your recollections from the time.)

CNN Lies fresh from 1991. (Didn't they later admit they weren't in country in an agreement with Saddam? Not that many viewers gave a damn about being lied to.)

YouTube - CNN LIES to us, Live from 1991

Edit * BTW, I'm not saying they weren't giving him better intelligence than they were reporting to us. I don't know the ins-and-outs of that agreement. I just remember they had one.

[Morris]

After several quarters in college exploring a journalism degree, I learned that the media is a whorehouse and a business that really believes in the worst, wants the worts and the worst sells for them. The jackoffs at CNN, MSLSD, FoxyNews, whatever want failure because it is good business. Most could care less about the troops so long as their asses and gear got out intact.

Unless a reporter has genuine experience, they should stay home and keep bopping their wife and mistress. I have no use for schlocky journalists and talking heads.

As an example, the Spanish-American War would not have gone forward if Randolph Hearst hadn't ginned up a tragic accident on the USS Maine as a deliberate attack. Hearst wanted papers to sell and war stories sell papers. So began the age we now see on television and other new media forms.

[MacLean]

I'm currently reading "American Soldier" by General Tommy Franks (which, BTW, is a *great* read).

Agreed! Excellent book, and debunks a lot of the media bullshit we heard about the ground war in Iraq.

Remember when we were told they were bogged down? Read the book and find out the real game Franks was playing.

[Retdetsgt]

The purpose of the media is to sell soap, not report the news. They report the news so people will read/watch their reports and see the commercials for soap. That's where they make their money, not reporting anything.

The competition created by the Internet and cable news has created a panic where they have to sensationalize everything just in order to compete.

Now that being said, do you people who are bitching about the media really want a state controlled media? Putin routinely shuts down any media that criticizes him. About a year ago, Chavez closed the last independant radio station in Venezuela.

The Democrats want to pass the "Fairness Doctrine", which will virtually eliminate conservative talk radio.

I don't like the way the media reports the war. I didn't like the way they reported the Vietnam war either. But if you're naive enough to think that left to its own devices, the government will "do the right thing", you're an idiot. I was in the Army during war and I've spent just about all my adult life working for the government in one form or the other. The one thing I know for sure it that the people in the government can't be trusted any farther than you can see them. Do you really think that w/o the press, the government will act according to the way YOU think they should?

A free press is a small fucking price to pay for freedom. If you want a locked down press, there are a number of countries you can go to and try it out.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "A government strong enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have".

[MacLean]

A free press is a small fucking price to pay for freedom. If you want a locked down press, there are a number of countries you can go to and try it out.

I went back and read over the entire thread.

I didn't see anyone advocate a state controlled media.

I didn't see anyone suggesting we should lock down the press.

What I saw, repeated several times, is that we do not have to cooperate with the press and provide them access to a combat theatre where they promptly report everything they see.

An enemy found doing the same thing would be shot as a spy.

The first amendment says the press can report what they wish to report, but it says nothing about requiring the military to provide intelligence information.

[Five-0]

Having a free press is one thing. The press is free here. They just choose to bow and slant to the very party that wants the "Fairness Doctrine". I think you have misinterpreted the statements here.

Reports on the war? Yes
Reports constantly telling us we are in a quagmire, when in fact we are winning? NO.
Buying into the progaganda readily provided by terrorist? NO.

I, like you, do not have faith in politicians. Especially those in D.C. I do have faith in our troops. The New York Times comes to mind most often of as a member of the press that underminds our policies abroad.
As far as the Jefferson quote, I only need my government to protect me from foriegn invasion. The rest goes to my State and, more importantly, my responsibility.

[Retdetsgt]

I didn't see anyone suggesting we should lock down the press. went back and read over the entire thread.

I didn't see anyone advocate a state controlled media.


What I saw, repeated several times, is that we do not have to cooperate with the press and provide them access to a combat theatre where they promptly report everything they see.

What's the difference? Geraldo was the only one that gave out sensitive information. The embedded reporters, for the most part gave a sympathetic slant to their broadcasts. It's the ones here that put the political wings to it.

Restricting the press is putting state control on it. It's just a matter of how much and where do you stop it? People here always talk about once government gets a toehold on something, they expand it, do they not?

[Retdetsgt]

Reports constantly telling us we are in a quagmire, when in fact we are winning? NO.
Buying into the progaganda readily provided by terrorist? NO.

What other restrictions should you put on them? And who decides? Restricting the press is like gun control, where do you stop it? Do you really want to open the door where someone can tell the press what they can't report?

The second amendment has been compromised, why not the first? What's next, the press can't criticize the President? That would be the next logical step. Look at the restrictions placed on gun ownership and the continuing fight to add more?

[Five-0]

What other restrictions should you put on them? And who decides? Restricting the press is like gun control, where do you stop it? Do you really want to open the door where someone can tell the press what they can't report?

I don't restrict them. I just choose to get my information from other sources. Judging from the financial statements of many print media outlets and ratings of the old guard network news shows....I am not the only one. You sound like you want to blame me for censoring the press you are wrong. They, like law enforcement, have great power over society. When they choose to use that power irresponsibly they do themselves and our society a disservice.

[MacLean]

What's the difference? Geraldo was the only one that gave out sensitive information. The embedded reporters, for the most part gave a sympathetic slant to their broadcasts. It's the ones here that put the political wings to it.

Restricting the press is putting state control on it. It's just a matter of how much and where do you stop it? People here always talk about once government gets a toehold on something, they expand it, do they not?

The difference is between cooperation and restriction.

Geraldo was not the only one who gave out sensitive information, it was done over and over again so often that the COMBAT COMMANDER decided to use it to his advantage.

Check into this yourself, the data has been provided if you wish.

I am not - and neither is anyone else - advocating restricting the press by any State control. What I suggested, echoing Xiphos, is that we do not need to provide them access to combat. If they choose to go, they have the same rights as anyone else in the middle of a gunfight.

[Retdetsgt]

I don't restrict them. I just choose to get my information from other sources.

Same here. But your last post, I read as saying they shouldn't be allowed to :

" Reports constantly telling us we are in a quagmire, when in fact we are winning? NO.
Buying into the progaganda readily provided by terrorist? NO. "

I don't buy much the media sells either, but I don't believe they should be restricted either.

[Retdetsgt]

I went back and read over the entire thread.

I didn't see anyone suggesting we should lock down the press.

Except for this

Yeah, while we're at it. Let's just abolish that whole 1st amendment thing.

The reporters there don't do as much damage as the ones here who sit in newsrooms and never leave the office. Dan Rather was one of the most openly biased reporters I ever saw who purported to be a journalist.

I dunno, but I saw a lot of postive stories coming from the embedded reporters when the invasion first started. I've seen few if any since they were removed.

[Retdetsgt]

The difference is between cooperation and restriction.

Cooperate and report what I tell you to?

The press screws up a lot, but now and then they get it right. And it's usually a reporter from a fringe media.

We have a weekly rag here that is so liberal it's unbelievable. But yet, they've been the only ones with enough guts to report about a former mayor and US Sec of Transportation under Carter for having sex with his 14 yr old baby sitter. The main media wouldn't touch it until they had the balls to come out with it.

You guys are saying the press shouldn't be able to do this and that. Who can tell them not to but the government?