Unfortunately, much of what I consider the “good news” — the quiet heroism of enlisted men just hanging in there, continuing to patch up the blown-up people on both sides, trying to do the decent thing as the stories keep changing and the good guys on one day turn out to be the bad guys the next — is not covered in MSM while abstract and deliberately anesthetized accounts of what this suit said to that one is served up as so much “intelligence” about how the war proceeds. If you want to learn anything real about the war, you have to read the blogs written by deployed troops.
I think she means “news that would make you think we’re kicking someone’s ass.” The Silver Star narratives are narratives of valor, but not exactly the uncontested Mission Accomplished high-five that she thinks — like the truth — is out there somewhere.
Ha! I love the sourcing: Frequent liar Brent Bozell and the Media Research Center by way of Newsbusters in the heart of conservative fantasy land!!
Bridgett, exactly. What I consider to be good news–people acting heroically, people saving lives, etc.–doesn’t translate into “We’re winning!” There is no Mission Accomplished moment coming.
Or we had it, and we all know what came of it.
Kitty, true.
I can’t believe it: I’m the monotheist, and I’m the one that argues for both/and thinking when looking at those two.
There is no denying that mentions of Iraq (in the macro sense) on the evening newscasts and the cable nets are down, and that corresponds with a decline in civilian and military deaths. I’ve noticed it, at least. It doesn’t bleed, so it doesn’t lead. They seem to have turned their attention to the economy and the housing slump.
There is also no denying that there has been a lack of micro-reporting, at least since the Dr Bob Arnott came home. (He was pretty incredible). And, I have no doubt that the army plays a huge part in this.
Both / And.
These days media outlets have to stay up to date on the current bad news of the moment in order to maintain their ratings. The news is no longer about informing the viewers/readers. The news is a business just like any other.
The corporate media formula isn’t as simple as selling bad news. They aren’t avoiding ‘good news’ so much as they are avoiding complexity in favor of selling contrived controversy. Let’s take the current example: it isn’t really controversial that Iraq is a clusterfuck, but there are complicated explanations for why it is a clusterfuck.
So that’s part of the point you shed light on, Aunt B., when you juxtapose the Terry Frank piece with the Army story. Frank is clearly implying that there is good news from Iraq that is being intentionally overlooked by the corporate media. The Army story implies that what some might interpret as good news contains a great deal more complexity (i.e. if things are going so well, then why are these soldiers still fighting for their lives?). The larger picture, of course, is more complicated than all of that, and it inevitably leads to questions that even some ostensible opponents of the war/occupation might not want to face.
CS, that’s such a good point and probably one that bears repeating. It isn’t just about “bad news sells” or “anything to advance our liberal agenda”.
It really is about distilling the news down to the least complex story possible (which is often “good v. bad”), even when the complexity is the story, is what is so important for us to understand.
Tiny Cat Pants 
Unfortunately, much of what I consider the “good news” — the quiet heroism of enlisted men just hanging in there, continuing to patch up the blown-up people on both sides, trying to do the decent thing as the stories keep changing and the good guys on one day turn out to be the bad guys the next — is not covered in MSM while abstract and deliberately anesthetized accounts of what this suit said to that one is served up as so much “intelligence” about how the war proceeds. If you want to learn anything real about the war, you have to read the blogs written by deployed troops.
I think she means “news that would make you think we’re kicking someone’s ass.” The Silver Star narratives are narratives of valor, but not exactly the uncontested Mission Accomplished high-five that she thinks — like the truth — is out there somewhere.
Ha! I love the sourcing: Frequent liar Brent Bozell and the Media Research Center by way of Newsbusters in the heart of conservative fantasy land!!
Bridgett, exactly. What I consider to be good news–people acting heroically, people saving lives, etc.–doesn’t translate into “We’re winning!” There is no Mission Accomplished moment coming.
Or we had it, and we all know what came of it.
Kitty, true.
I can’t believe it: I’m the monotheist, and I’m the one that argues for both/and thinking when looking at those two.
There is no denying that mentions of Iraq (in the macro sense) on the evening newscasts and the cable nets are down, and that corresponds with a decline in civilian and military deaths. I’ve noticed it, at least. It doesn’t bleed, so it doesn’t lead. They seem to have turned their attention to the economy and the housing slump.
There is also no denying that there has been a lack of micro-reporting, at least since the Dr Bob Arnott came home. (He was pretty incredible). And, I have no doubt that the army plays a huge part in this.
Both / And.
These days media outlets have to stay up to date on the current bad news of the moment in order to maintain their ratings. The news is no longer about informing the viewers/readers. The news is a business just like any other.
The corporate media formula isn’t as simple as selling bad news. They aren’t avoiding ‘good news’ so much as they are avoiding complexity in favor of selling contrived controversy. Let’s take the current example: it isn’t really controversial that Iraq is a clusterfuck, but there are complicated explanations for why it is a clusterfuck.
So that’s part of the point you shed light on, Aunt B., when you juxtapose the Terry Frank piece with the Army story. Frank is clearly implying that there is good news from Iraq that is being intentionally overlooked by the corporate media. The Army story implies that what some might interpret as good news contains a great deal more complexity (i.e. if things are going so well, then why are these soldiers still fighting for their lives?). The larger picture, of course, is more complicated than all of that, and it inevitably leads to questions that even some ostensible opponents of the war/occupation might not want to face.
CS, that’s such a good point and probably one that bears repeating. It isn’t just about “bad news sells” or “anything to advance our liberal agenda”.
It really is about distilling the news down to the least complex story possible (which is often “good v. bad”), even when the complexity is the story, is what is so important for us to understand.