Saturday, December 02, 2006

Fox News Channel Won't Call Shiite-Sunni Fighting "Civil War," To Protect Conservative Interests

Fox News Channel’s Senior Vice President John Moody — whose infamous politically-slanted internal memos have gained notoriety — will not allow his network to use the term "civil war" to describe the fighting between Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis.

Moody said said in a statement that “some are using the term civil war to indicate failure, not inside Iraq, but on U.S. policy in Iraq. We’re unwilling to fall into that tender trap. We’re not using the term because there are non-Iraqis in the fray and that makes it something different.”

Let's break down this non-sensical statement:

-- "Some are using the term civil war to indicate failure, not inside Iraq, but on U.S. policy in Iraq." Not true. Some pundits and politicians -- Democrats and some Republicans, like Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and former Secretary of State Colin Powell -- have used the term "civil war" to describe the fighting between rival groups of Iraqis.

Coinciding with recognizing the obvious, critics of the management of the Iraq War have suggested that if the Bush Administation had listened to various people along the way -- starting with Gen. Eric Shinseki's correct claim that the U.S. needed several hundred thousand troops to control the situation -- then maybe Iraq would not have devolved into a civil war.

But the claim that people are using the term "civil war" solely to criticize the U.S. is just empty conservative spin.

-- "We’re not using the term because there are non-Iraqis in the fray and that makes it something different." That's flawed logic. By most accounts, the number of "foreign fighters" in Iraq is small --likely less than 10 percent of those who are fighting.

Furthermore, most of those foreigners have chosen to fight alongside their Shiite brethren. And even if all those foreigners were staying outside the Shiite-Sunni conflict, that wouldn't change the fact that there is a Shiite-Sunni conflict raging throughout Iraq.

Moody can come up with whatever spin he wants to avoid the truth. The reality is, Fox News Channel is a conservative-friendly network, Moody knows the Bush Administration refuses to call the Iraq situation a civil war, and thus he is following suit.

19 Comments:

Anonymous whoop4467 said...

Deny any reality, deny all reality is the mantra of this administration and faux news! And both want us to live by the fear that "they are coming to get us"! Whoever "they" is!

I feel safer living in a world of reality. I do not feel safe living in a non-reality world!

2:55 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

-- "We’re not using the term because there are non-Iraqis in the fray and that makes it something different."

David R. Mark said...
"That's flawed logic. By most accounts, the number of "foreign fighters" in Iraq is small --likely less than 10 percent of those who are fighting.


First off, I'm glad that Fox is not joining the lemming media who have decided in their infinite wisdom to declare this a civil war. Good for them.

Secondly, I'm also very grateful that we have a network who actually is pulling for us to be victorious in Iraq, and are not afraid to let that patriotism come through in their reporting. It's refreshing.

IMO, and in the opinion of many others, the percentage of foreign fighters in Iraq is not exactly relevant. What matters is the fact that without the help of Iran, Syria, al Qaeda and other sundry supporters, this insurgency between al-Sadr's Shi'ite militia, and the al Qaeda supported Sunni Ba'athists, would not have ever become this much of an issue.

In any case, the old MSM has been in as much of a hurry to declare this a civil war as they were to delare it a quagmire, and I'm shocked at that! Shocked I tell you! :rolleyes:

6:23 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity said: "Secondly, I'm also very grateful that we have a network who actually is pulling for us to be victorious in Iraq, and are not afraid to let that patriotism come through in their reporting. It's refreshing."
Then Trinity continues with nonsense about the media having wished upon us this quagmire.

Reading such depressing "logic" like this makes me so angry. What is really shocking is that we have people who can think like this.

That's right don't blame the Bush Administration for the problems in Iraq. Blame the media!

It's has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism. It's about telling the truth!
WHAT IS WRONG WITH OUR MEDIA SOURCES SIMPLY TELLING US THE TRUTH?
Remember the old saying, you can't begin to solve a problem until you recognize there is one.
So Trinity says the media should play along with the president no matter the conditions on the ground. Never mind that such an attitude would never result in a solution.
Under Trinity's logic, we should have never left Vietnam.
Under Trinity's logic, the only role of the media is to be a shill for the president, even when he is George W. Blunderbush.

Have you, Trinity, read any of the countless eyewitness accounts from reporters based in Iraq of late? I haven't seen a single one of them calling Iraq anything less than a civil war, or much worse.

Geeze, why do I bother?

11:17 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible shouts...
"WHAT IS WRONG WITH OUR MEDIA SOURCES SIMPLY TELLING US THE TRUTH?"


That's precisely what I'd like to know.

Telling only a portion of the truth, (i.e., the negative parts that you want out there for whatever reason), while not reporting on other stories, (i.e., the more positive ones that might give a little balance and perspective to what is happening) is pretty much the same as lying, imo. In fact, that's exactly what they are. Lies of omission.

"Remember the old saying, you can't begin to solve a problem until you recognize there is one."

Yes, I'm quite familiar with it. Now try applying it to your own bias. You cannot even admit that there is a liberal bent to MSM.

11:46 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

trinity said... Telling only a portion of the truth, (i.e., the negative parts that you want out there for whatever reason), while not reporting on other stories, (i.e., the more positive ones that might give a little balance and perspective to what is happening) is pretty much the same as lying, imo. In fact, that's exactly what they are. Lies of omission.

First off, then why did the Bush administration lie so much by their ommission of the complete details of Iraq's WMDs, chemical weapons, and the real truth about Iraq's capability to be a strong military force! I would hope you want to hear all of the postive, negative and truthfull things about the run-up to the invasion!? Talk about living in the reality world Trinity - you are so far out into the non-reality sphere you can not even talk intelligently about the truth! Hiding the truth about the whole Iraqey situation does no good for our country! If you repukes really want everyone to support what we as a nation are trying to do to win the global war on "terror", then I recommend the honest truth - good and bad!

Secondly, who is suppose to provide all of the truth and all of the postive things about the Iraq war - you, Bush and his cronies, the MSM ( the ones imbeded in the military or the freelance journalist?), the military, the foreign press, foreign governments, the casual observer of the war, the Iraqey people, or is it suppose to magically appear? There are a lot of sheepey conservative journalist that want every bit of news to be postive with only a sprinkle of negative- so where are they? Faux news could send you, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingram, Russ Liebaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Drudge, and about 100 others that all agree with you to Iraq to compile a report that has all of the postive things and no negatives! It would be at this point about half a page and that is why no journalist or sheepey conservative is writing all of the positive about Iraq.

Like twot said, Many Americans have to feel they are being feed the truth(good and bad)before jumping on the support train. Many Americans follow a President( especially GWB) no matter what they are told - This phenomenon is explained very well in John Deans's book "Conservatives without Conscience".

2:10 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Yeah, Trinity. I don't expect to top Whoop's informed response but would like to add: don't you believe if we were really making great strides in actually beating down the insurgents and rebuilding Iraq (instead of our efforts in reality leveling much of the country) that would be the story?
Do you actually think the journalists would be able to hide that story?

So what has been the good news?
The residents of Baghdad only have electricity for a portion of the day? Haliburton over-charging taxpayers for well-demonstrated incompetent work not limited to serving a major U.S. military base contaminated water?
What about the contractor, Parson's Corp. that botched the $75 million police academy project where human waste dripped from the ceiling?
Should the media hide such stories because they are not "patriotic" enough?
What about Thomas Ricks' acclaimed book, "Fiasco"? Ricks is recognized as an objective source, being neither anti-war or anti-Iraq, who has obtained his info directly from top U.S. military sources on the ground in Iraq.
Look for reports from main stream media journalists in Iraq over the summer who insisted they wanted to report on the painting of a schoolhouse or some other Bush-friendly project, but it was too dangerous to get to the location without U.S. military escorts.
Don't you think Bush's purple-finger election garnered enough coverage?
Did you ever think Trinity that the news of the reality of the situation SIMPLY OVERWHELMS any good news?

Should the media underplay such stories as the month of October being the bloodiest month since the Occupation began for civilian deaths with 3,709 killed mostly from sectarian violence (and not Al Queda), and among the bloodiest for U.S. military deaths?
If you ask me, the main stream media is actually UNDERREPORTING
the various polls of Iraqi citizens showing the majority of Iraqi citizens believe the U.S. occupation is only making conditions worse, and a majority support attacks on U.S. troops.
Here's one recent example:
"The Jordanian sociology students reported that of 600 Iraqi citizens randomly selected and surveyed in Baghdad, 63% of them report losing one or more family members to military attacks since the invasion, and more than half of these casualties were civilian. The survey also indicates that approximately 40% of all Iraqi children under age 10 lost one or more parents. 1 out of every five Iraqi children under age 10 were orphaned by the war and/or subsequent occupation. In a country of 25 million people, 45,000 civilian casualties have been documented by project Iraq Body Count, but both the Red Crescent and the Arab League believe the John Hopkins University/Lancet report of 600,000 deaths is "far more realistic".
http://tinyurl.com/y9zsxx
I could go on but it is tiresome standing up for what has been obvious to everyone except for the die-hard conservative apologist Bushies.

8:33 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Secondly, I'm also very grateful that we have a network who actually is pulling for us to be victorious in Iraq, and are not afraid to let that patriotism come through in their reporting. It's refreshing.
The media's job is not to "pull for us to win." The media's job is to report the news, period. It's not refreshing, it's asinine and undermines the journalism profession.


Telling only a portion of the truth, (i.e., the negative parts that you want out there for whatever reason), while not reporting on other stories, (i.e., the more positive ones that might give a little balance and perspective to what is happening) is pretty much the same as lying, imo.
Going out of your way to tell "positive" stories when 3000 civilians are dying every month is not telling the truth. It's engaging in a false balance in order to try to assuage people taht things aren't so bad there. Many reporters over there - who are working their damnest - have said that they want to tell "positive" stories but have been told that they cannot report on X school because "it'll be bombed if they show it on TV" and the like. When the situation is entirely broken down and into chaos, as it has now, to do so otherwise is on the level of lying, for the purpose of, I don't know, trying to make people feel better about a situation that is in reality much much worse than what we're seeing. Our networks rarely, if ever, show the bodies of the dead, which is one way they're avoiding even showing all of the reality of what is truly going on.

Civil war does seem to be a too-cute definition, insomuch as there are a number of factions there. But "total chaos" works just fine.

Now try applying it to your own bias. You cannot even admit that there is a liberal bent to MSM.

I answered a whole bunch of criticisms of yours and Bernie Goldberg in an earlier JABBS post from a couple weeks ago, but I don't think you ever got back to me. Try to locate that if you can, we had a discussion going.

8:53 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"Civil war does seem to be a too-cute definition, insomuch as there are a number of factions there. But "total chaos" works just fine."


It's true that it's chaotic. I think it's safe to say that all wars are chaotic in one sense or another.

As far as the discussion on Bernie Goldberg, do you remember which post that was?

12:48 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"That's right don't blame the Bush Administration for the problems in Iraq. Blame the media!"


I blame the Saddam loyalists, al Qaeda, al-Sadr and Iran and Syria for the problems in Iraq.

thewaronterrible said...
"Yeah, Trinity. I don't expect to top Whoop's informed response..."


Yeah. Because it's so brilliant to keep repeating that grand canard saying that Bush lied, yap yap yap. When I see that tired old BS mantra being used, I lose all interest in trying to reason.

If a person truly believes that the president lied to take us to war, there's really no where to go from there conversation-wise.

And whoop's strawman claiming that I'd want someone to report only the positive and none of the negatives is idiotic. Of course the bad news has to be reported on. But the progress needs to be spoken of as well by MSM, and it isn't.

1:06 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

P.S. And if whoop mentioned that detestable snake John Dean and his stupid book once more, I'll puke.

1:08 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

There's profound, undeniable evidences the president lied to drag this country into war. The matter has never been investigated so how can you be so sure, Trinity?
I'll tell you why.
It's because you're wearing your Liebaugh-Levin-approved Bushie ear-plugs and blindfold.
And don't knock John Dean's book if you cannot offer anything to counter its arguments.
Ann Coulter doesn't count.
And you've consistently ignored on this blog over the past few years whenever someone has presented substantiated evidences on this matter. You ignore the argument or nip at some small aspect of it, like the pesky chiwawa nipping at the heels.

Then you say above "progress needs to be spoken of as well." What progress? The media has reported on the good news when it happens, such as the purple fingered election, but as I said above, any objective review of the situation finds the bad news simply overwhelms the good.

You wouldn't place priority on news of a single busload of people making it out of New Orleans during Katrina while the rest of the city drowns, for example.

11:08 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"There's profound, undeniable evidences the president lied to drag this country into war.


You're nuts.

The matter has never been investigated so how can you be so sure, Trinity?

See? I told you you were nuts.

I'll tell you why.
It's because you're wearing your Liebaugh-Levin-approved Bushie ear-plugs and blindfold."


Right. And what are you wearing, twot? If there has never been a thorough investigation, then why are you so quick to believe the worst about President Bush?

For as much as some libs deny their profound hatred of this president, posts like yours convince me that they're very much mistaken, at least in cases such as yours. You believe the worst, because you want to believe the worst.

12:55 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity said: "Right. And what are you wearing, twot? If there has never been a thorough investigation, then why are you so quick to believe the worst about President Bush?
For as much as some libs deny their profound hatred of this president, posts like yours convince me that they're very much mistaken, at least in cases such as yours. You believe the worst, because you want to believe the worst."

I am quick to "come to believe the worst" about Bush because I do something you do not do. I examine the evidences.
It is a shame under these kinds of clearly documented evidences of Bush pre-invasion lies there has never been an investigation. The Dems won't do it next year because it is not politically expedient. Not a very good excuse when history would normally demand an investigation under these circumstances. I would even wager that's what a majority of Americans may have hinted at when they voted to place the Democrats in power last month.
Look at the disaster your president has created for the U.S. in Iraq.
I am not alone in "believing the worst" about him. Only about a third of the country approves of the job Bush is doing.
And historians are already labeling him "the worst president in history."
http://tinyurl.com/ye5ndx

Take off your Liebald-Levin approved blindfold and earplugs and study the objective facts for a change.

1:14 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

The media has reported on the good news when it happens, such as the purple fingered election, but as I said above, any objective review of the situation finds the bad news simply overwhelms the good.

Exactly.

1:15 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

As far as the discussion on Bernie Goldberg, do you remember which post that was?

It's a post from November about "Mark Levin claiming 60 to 65 percent of Americans are conservatives." Something like that. Right now it has 45 comments.

1:23 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Has Trinity found herself in a quagmire and has cut and run from this particular post?

10:55 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"Has Trinity found herself in a quagmire and has cut and run from this particular post?"


No. Trinity has a life outside of this blog, and the time I have available to post varies from day to day.

I might add that, unlike many who post here during the work day, my free time is dictated strictly by my personal schedule and family stuff, and does NOT involve any theft of service. ;)

12:23 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

I might add that, unlike many who post here during the work day, my free time is dictated strictly by my personal schedule and family stuff, and does NOT involve any theft of service. ;)

Wait, you actually pay for your pornography? Loser.

2:14 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Well, it's great that you're staying the course, Trinity, because you make this blog so entertaining, as well as enlightening as to how the Conservative mind works, or doesn't work.

Anyway, Dumsfeld's replacement Robert Gates declared today the U.S. is not winning the Iraq war.

Wait, Better kill that story!
It's clearly biased because it's too negative and/or does not factor in all the good things happening in Iraq (sarcasm).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
20061205/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/
gates_pentagon

2:35 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares