I caught
this article at Redstate (yeah, I know). The author wonders why a certain soldier who asked a seemingly reasonable question (how about that armor?) became famous when this guy hasn't:
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, how do we win the war in the media? It seems like that is the place where we're getting beat up more than anybody else. I've been here -- this is my third tour over here, and we have done some amazing things. And it seems like the enemy's Web sites and everything else are all over the media, and they love it. But the thing is, is everything we do good, no matter if it's helping a little kid or building a new school, the public affairs sends out the message, but the media doesn't pick up on it. How do we win the propaganda war?
RUMSFELD: That does not sound like a question that was planted by the press.
(LAUGHTER)
RUMSFELD: That happens sometimes. It's one of the hardest things we do in our country. We have freedom of the press. We believe in that. We believe that democracy can take that massive misinformation and differing of views, and that free people can synthesize all of that and find their way to right decisions.
Out here, it's particularly tough. Everything we do here is harder, because of television stations like Al Jazeera and al-Arabiya and the constant negative approach. You don't hear about the schools are open and the hospitals are open and the clinics are open, and the fact that the stock markets are open and the Iraqi currency is steady, and the fact that there have been something like 140,000 refugees coming from other countries back into this country. They're voting with their feet, because they believe this is a country of the future.
You don't read about that. You read about every single negative thing that anyone can find to report.
I was talking to a group of congressmen and senators the other day, and there were a couple of them who had negative things to say, and they were in the press in five minutes. There were 15 or 20 that had positive things to say about what's going on in Iraq, and they couldn't get on television. Television just said we're not interested. That's just sorry. So, it is, I guess, what's news has to be bad news to get on the press.
And the truth is, however, it gets through eventually. There are people in the United States who understand what's really going on over here. They do understand that thousands of acts of kindness and compassion and support that are taking place all across this country. They do understand that large portions of this country are relatively peaceful. And something like 14 out of 18 of the problems it's had, incidents of down around five a day as opposed to the ones in certain places like Baghdad that are considerably higher.
And the Internet is helping. More and more people are seeing things that are taking the conventional wisdom and critiquing it and arguing it and debating it. And that's a good thing.
So, we are a great country. And we can benefit from having a free press. And from time to time people will be concerned about it. But in the last analysis, look at where we've come as a country, because we have had a free press.
And we've -- I mean, I've got a great deal of confidence in the center of gravity of the American people. What hurts most is in the region, where the neighboring countries whose help we need are constantly being barraged with truly vicious inaccuracies about what's taking place in this country. And it's conscious. It's consistent. It's persistent. And it makes everything we try to do in neighboring countries, where we're looking for support, vastly more difficult.
And we, as a country, don't do that. We don't go out and hire journalists and propagandize and lie and put people on payroll so that they'll say what you want. We just don't do that. And they do. And that's happening. And Al Jazeera is right there at the top.
I suppose Rumsfeld's extended answer is a bit of a Rohrshach test of one's political views. Opening up 100 schools, to me, is not going to make up for 1) a car bomb that goes off in the same city, killing (say) a dozen people, and 2) the fact that the insurgents have been doing this at will for well over a year now and have in fact been getting better at it. (Note the lack of joy/glee/schadenfreude in this diary. Schadenfreude still means something bad has happened and I can't ever take any pleasure in that.)
Let's consult with logic, shall we? If 1300 US soldiers have died in Iraq, roughly how many Iraqi civilians do you suppose have died? 10,000? I don't believe that Johns Hopkins study that said the number is as high as 100,000 (not yet, anyway). Do you think that 10,000 dead in under two years' time is supposed to go unnoticed by the locals? Even conceding (for the sake of argument) that half of Iraqi civilian dead have resulted from insurgent violence, that's still 5,000 civilians killed by foreign occupiers (those occupiers' good intentions notwithstanding).
So....with this in mind, let us consider the question that this soldier asks Rumsfeld. Why is the "bad news" getting precedence over the "good news"? Let's turn that around: how many new schools are worth the cost of 5,000 dead? That, I think will give you your answer. Also, the fact that Rumsfeld and other American officials still have to make secret, surprise visits to Iraq suggests that their whining about good news is based in CYA, not in truth. If the country was truly on its way to being pacified, I assume such visits would become more open, probably more frequent, and less of a surprise nature. That tendency towards opacity (recall Bush's surprise Thanksgiving visit in 2003) has not diminished.
This is the main point of this diary, but there are an enormous number of other things wrong with Rumsfeld's reply, such as the anecdote about the congressmen, which proves nothing and seems fishy to me anyway given the source. Frankly, I find it hard to believe any congressmen would have trouble getting on TV to talk about Iraq, up or down.
Rumsfeld also comes out and admits that even in the "quiet" provinces, there are still five "incidents" a day.
And we, as a country, don't do that. We don't go out and hire journalists and propagandize and lie and put people on payroll so that they'll say what you want. We just don't do that. And they do. And that's happening. And Al Jazeera is right there at the top. Um, Don, about the whole "embedded" thing....and let's have an honest conversation about Fox News, the Washington Times, and AM radio. Let's talk about Scarborough Country, Judith Miller, and Bob Novak, and then tell me that there is no official, majoritarian propaganda in this country whatsoever.
I happen to agree with this particular thought: We have freedom of the press. We believe in that. We believe that democracy can take that massive misinformation and differing of views, and that free people can synthesize all of that and find their way to right decisions. And I believe, eventually, America will find a way to reject the occupation.
Naturally, the Redstate author wants to "consider the whole picture of what is happening in Iraq" and accuses those of us who do not share their (ideologically-colored) rosy view of what's happening as being "molesters of the English language." Once again, the Right-Wing Eternal Persecution Complex. Is it Jon Stewart who says that the facts have a liberal bias?
[If you don't want to click through to Redstate--and who can blame you?--the link for the transcript is here. The entire transcript is interesting. There are only two other questions, both about stop-loss orders. The first one is a soldier, who is concerned. The other is an officer, who says he understands the need for unit cohesiveness. If the media can plant questions, can't the military?]
