I don't know if they hate the military as much as they disrespect it.
I believe they hate this administration so much that they will do anything to make it look bad and if the military happens to take it in the neck during the process, well, that's okay with them.
With the military being so high profile at the moment they are the surest target for them to hit at the administration.
Maybe they can count it as a two-fer.
Has anybody seen anything about conditions in Baghdad lately? I mean like electricity, fresh water, sewage system and such. No? Me neither. It must be better than it ever was then, eh?
StinKerr: sounds plausible; the miltary as a collateral target with GWB being the main one. However, the military is an old enemy to these types--passed down from thirty-five or so years ago.
I believe that most of the journalists who write for Newsweek and the other big news outlets dislike the military, would prefer to think of it in Vietnam-era terms, are angry at the military for supporting Bush, understand and respect absolutely nothing about the military culture and have no desire to learn what motivates a man like Mat Schram.
We are never going to read about heroic deeds by military men or women in the traditional press, but we can be darned sure that they will write about any allegation of baby-killing they run across.
They are suspicious of the military; I am suspicious of them.
This is off the subject, but I was going through the Yahoo search engine this morning - subject: Jesse Jackson, when I ran across your post: Run, Jesse, Run! November 29, 2003
Just wanted to say thank you.
Imagine for a moment who is at these magazine media outlets. They have graduated from the campus environment we have become familiar with as of late. Or, at least you should be familiar with unless you've been living in a cave.
The young are living out their raised clenched first salute leftist rag fantasies. The older journalists are housed, fed, with more food in the refrigerator, more paychecks coming, and they're thinking "Ah, what the hell, lets have a little fun and encourage the young reporters and the jihad as well." They've got endless dreamy lives of wine & cheese parties with the rich and powerful and a lot of art to watch others buy at these parties because it is just a little beyond their own budget. But fun to watch and talk to the art-babes selling the art. Who knows the older journalists might get lucky with one of the wine & cheese party art-babes since their wife can't make it to all of them. Oh, and about the veracity of that one story? The older journalist thinks inside - "Like, who cares, only the unwashed masses care for the truth. Life is parties with the wealthy and powerful. The masses will just have to get over it, what else can they, or will they, do?"
I believe are right, they have barricaded themselves in their ivory towers. This explains why more people turn to blogs and radio for their news. I can take a topic and view both sides of the argument on my own while on the net . . . but I can't do that with any of the tripe on the tube or "glossy national news mags".
OTS, Baldilocks I have read your blog for almost a year now but this is my first time to post. You have a great site, thanks for a job well done!
Also, the blogosphere has held the MSM accountable (which they still are not accustomed to) and they can no longer schmooze everyone.
Okay, okay. Maybe they DO hate the military. I haven't read them in decades. I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt. Something that they seem to have forgotten in favor of publishing a two-fer.
No I don't think they hate the military, they just don't understand what is going on.
First most journalist do have a liberal bent and more than likely came from an educational institution that was not "warm and fuzzy" about the military. They have no real experience with today's military and what the real stakes are.
Second from market forces they are always angling for an edge to find another Watergate or view that the GWOT is another Vietnam. They must pander for readers and viewers to maintaim market share to support the expensive communications medium.
This is unfortunate because this is really a war we need to win. When the MSM is actively rooting for the enemy, this puts are brave men and women in uniform defending are very way of life at further risk which I find totally incomprehensible.
The MSM is no longer the provider of objective news/info of the day. The Internet and the Blogos have eclipsed the MSM in this role.
StinKerr,
When I want to get real news from Iraq, I click on Arthur Chrenkoff's "A roundup of the past two weeks' good news from Iraq" on the Wall Street Journal site.
I get to it by reading the WSJ's Best of the Web, which should be on everyone's daily reading list (after Baldi's site, of course).
Mr. Chrenkoff has a roundup on Afghanistan, too, but I think it's a monthly.
NewsWeak is such a rag. It's right up there with "enquiring minds want to know..."
The LA Riots happened when John (therapysessions.blogspot.com) was in the peace corps in africa. As you can imagine, he was out of touch with what was going on; radio only gave overviews that it was something not good.
Then, the local missionaries or someone passed him a copy of Newsweek. The story started to the tune of "It was full-metal-jacket time in the streets of LA. Lock and Load," and continued with tripe, not ever really telling the story, just the drama.
He hasn't read a copy of it since.
(he's a us spews and world distort fan, also the economist)
(i read entertainment weekly, and get lectures from him on world news ;-)
Off topic a bit - I just finished what I feel is my best pro-military article to date. To save space, I'll leave the link. I feel this is what we have to do...
"Does Newsweek Hate the Military?"
Yup. And right about now, I'm hating them right back.
Posted by: Noble Eagle | May 17, 2005 at 05:21 PM
I don't know if they hate the military as much as they disrespect it.
I believe they hate this administration so much that they will do anything to make it look bad and if the military happens to take it in the neck during the process, well, that's okay with them.
With the military being so high profile at the moment they are the surest target for them to hit at the administration.
Maybe they can count it as a two-fer.
Has anybody seen anything about conditions in Baghdad lately? I mean like electricity, fresh water, sewage system and such. No? Me neither. It must be better than it ever was then, eh?
Posted by: StinKerr | May 17, 2005 at 07:41 PM
StinKerr: sounds plausible; the miltary as a collateral target with GWB being the main one. However, the military is an old enemy to these types--passed down from thirty-five or so years ago.
Posted by: baldilocks | May 17, 2005 at 08:32 PM
I believe that most of the journalists who write for Newsweek and the other big news outlets dislike the military, would prefer to think of it in Vietnam-era terms, are angry at the military for supporting Bush, understand and respect absolutely nothing about the military culture and have no desire to learn what motivates a man like Mat Schram.
We are never going to read about heroic deeds by military men or women in the traditional press, but we can be darned sure that they will write about any allegation of baby-killing they run across.
They are suspicious of the military; I am suspicious of them.
Posted by: MaxedOutMama | May 17, 2005 at 10:55 PM
This is off the subject, but I was going through the Yahoo search engine this morning - subject: Jesse Jackson, when I ran across your post: Run, Jesse, Run! November 29, 2003
Just wanted to say thank you.
Have a good one.
Michael
Posted by: Michael Terry | May 18, 2005 at 07:44 AM
Imagine for a moment who is at these magazine media outlets. They have graduated from the campus environment we have become familiar with as of late. Or, at least you should be familiar with unless you've been living in a cave.
The young are living out their raised clenched first salute leftist rag fantasies. The older journalists are housed, fed, with more food in the refrigerator, more paychecks coming, and they're thinking "Ah, what the hell, lets have a little fun and encourage the young reporters and the jihad as well." They've got endless dreamy lives of wine & cheese parties with the rich and powerful and a lot of art to watch others buy at these parties because it is just a little beyond their own budget. But fun to watch and talk to the art-babes selling the art. Who knows the older journalists might get lucky with one of the wine & cheese party art-babes since their wife can't make it to all of them. Oh, and about the veracity of that one story? The older journalist thinks inside - "Like, who cares, only the unwashed masses care for the truth. Life is parties with the wealthy and powerful. The masses will just have to get over it, what else can they, or will they, do?"
Posted by: Steve | May 18, 2005 at 07:45 AM
Steve,
I believe are right, they have barricaded themselves in their ivory towers. This explains why more people turn to blogs and radio for their news. I can take a topic and view both sides of the argument on my own while on the net . . . but I can't do that with any of the tripe on the tube or "glossy national news mags".
OTS, Baldilocks I have read your blog for almost a year now but this is my first time to post. You have a great site, thanks for a job well done!
Also, the blogosphere has held the MSM accountable (which they still are not accustomed to) and they can no longer schmooze everyone.
Posted by: W.NM. | May 18, 2005 at 10:13 AM
It's been awhile since I visited. Love the new photo.
Posted by: Norma | May 18, 2005 at 03:33 PM
Okay, okay. Maybe they DO hate the military. I haven't read them in decades. I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt. Something that they seem to have forgotten in favor of publishing a two-fer.
Posted by: StinKerr | May 18, 2005 at 05:22 PM
No I don't think they hate the military, they just don't understand what is going on.
First most journalist do have a liberal bent and more than likely came from an educational institution that was not "warm and fuzzy" about the military. They have no real experience with today's military and what the real stakes are.
Second from market forces they are always angling for an edge to find another Watergate or view that the GWOT is another Vietnam. They must pander for readers and viewers to maintaim market share to support the expensive communications medium.
This is unfortunate because this is really a war we need to win. When the MSM is actively rooting for the enemy, this puts are brave men and women in uniform defending are very way of life at further risk which I find totally incomprehensible.
The MSM is no longer the provider of objective news/info of the day. The Internet and the Blogos have eclipsed the MSM in this role.
For further on this see:
Link Here
and:
in the essays that appear here:
Link Here
Posted by: Ron Wright | May 18, 2005 at 07:27 PM
Newsweak (and the rest of the liberal MSM) doesn't hate the military so much as it hates conservatives and everything they do, say, stand for, etc.
That's why- for the MSM- every war (when a Rebublican is in the WH) is Vietnam, and every Republican president is Nixon.
Yesterday, today, tomorrow, and forever.
Posted by: bdj | May 19, 2005 at 12:27 AM
StinKerr,
When I want to get real news from Iraq, I click on Arthur Chrenkoff's "A roundup of the past two weeks' good news from Iraq" on the Wall Street Journal site.
I get to it by reading the WSJ's Best of the Web, which should be on everyone's daily reading list (after Baldi's site, of course).
Mr. Chrenkoff has a roundup on Afghanistan, too, but I think it's a monthly.
Posted by: Iron Mike | May 19, 2005 at 05:32 AM
Yes, Newsweek hates the military, but that's really just a corollary to the fact that Newsweek hates America.
Posted by: DSmith | May 19, 2005 at 09:23 AM
NewsWeak is such a rag. It's right up there with "enquiring minds want to know..."
The LA Riots happened when John (therapysessions.blogspot.com) was in the peace corps in africa. As you can imagine, he was out of touch with what was going on; radio only gave overviews that it was something not good.
Then, the local missionaries or someone passed him a copy of Newsweek. The story started to the tune of "It was full-metal-jacket time in the streets of LA. Lock and Load," and continued with tripe, not ever really telling the story, just the drama.
He hasn't read a copy of it since.
(he's a us spews and world distort fan, also the economist)
(i read entertainment weekly, and get lectures from him on world news ;-)
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman | May 19, 2005 at 09:41 AM
Off topic a bit - I just finished what I feel is my best pro-military article to date. To save space, I'll leave the link. I feel this is what we have to do...
Operation Win The War
http://deadissue.com/archives/2005/05/20/operation-win-the-war/
Posted by: www.deadissue.com | May 20, 2005 at 01:32 AM