Media's poor use of a narrative

[BayonetBrant]

The context is that CBS has sold their soul to the Democratic Party. They focus all effort on military leaders and military action, not on American leaders, American action and American interests. Improving 'Governance' responsibly is actually run by the US State Department through the Ambassador in Iraq and Afghanistan (check their web site), but we never hear about their action, or inaction. Critics will say that PRTs are fully engaged and the embassy has over 1000 civilians. However, there is a difference between responsibly and accountability. PRT leaders and Ambassadors are never fired. USAID leaders are not trumped through congress to explain the 'unfinished business.' It was never security problems Ms. Stahl showed; it was economic and governance. I did not know the DOD was charged with making economic and governance problems go away throughout the world, and I believe the budget for that "mission" would be slightly higher than the current rate.

I don't see how Congress' lack of action on holding non-military agencies accountable means that CBS has sold their soul to the Democratic Party.

Congress has chosen to behave a certain way.
CBS has chosen to behave a certain way.
Unless Congress told CBS what to do (good luck with that!) then I don't see how your assertion that "CBS has sold their soul to the Democratic Party" has anything to do with Congress not holding public (and widely promoted) hearings of non-military agencies in which their members are held accountable for a variety of (in)actions.

The reality is that a Republican administration made DoD the lead agency for post-war Iraq. Whether or not you agree with the decision, the fact is that it happened. And since 2003, Iraq - for good or bad - has been seen as a "military" problem, whether it was or not. Given that context, is it any wonder that CBS viewed the successes and failures of Iraq through a military lens?

As to questioning the metrics of success (ie, do the streets look like Manhattan?), again, you have to go further in the past than 60 Minutes in October of 2010.
Please tell us what the mission statement was for the invasion of Iraq, and please point to us the subsequent FRAGOs that define the changes in that mission over the past 7+ years that (re)define the end-points for us.
The point is that when you can't identify, locate, and articulate a specific set of guidance defining success for you, then you're at the mercy of having it defined by others.
You say that "good governance" wasn't part of the mission. I could very easily counter by asking "how do you know?" - and neither one of us has a clearly-defined mission statement to make our case for us.

[Old Eagle]

Steve hit the nail on the head.

The job of newspapers is to sell newspapers; the job of politicians is to get elected. Once you reach zen with these facts, life gets a lot easier.

To expect either of them to "do the right thing" in opposition to their own interests is unbelievably naive.

We should celebrate when they do act responsibly, but we shouldn't be surprised when they don't.

[Joske]

The "job" of the media is foremost to spread information, not to interpret this information. Interpreting information should be left to people acting as individuals and each news agency, news paper...etc should simply spread information in a way as close to the truth that is possible with the information they receive.

That is why i find it hard to understand that big news agencies in say the US support political parties, think of fox news. In Belgium on the other hand things are different the news is simply delivered as it is and the interpretation is left to the commentators and the people ( although it's also not really correct to compare a country like Belgium to the US ).

Off course what you see here is a documentary, you see a large number of events trough the eyes of the people making the documentary.
Now technicaly this wouldnt matter simply because the people watching the documentary know that it's a subjective piece of information, and most importantly because both the makers and the viewers have a decent understanding of the issue at hand.

Now in my opinion this second point is often lacking both with journalists and the population who voice their opinion on the subject.

(while thinking on this, i remembered a "discussion" on the subject of the afghan war in which the Belgian army has a small involvement in response to a statement by the belgian minister of defence that; "the war in afghanistan indeed was a "guerilla" but that guerilla was a spanish term for little war, and thus that it wasnt all too bad" and in response to this a belgian journalist who had been embedded with belgian forces in afghanistan and went to several warzones before that, said that " it wasnt a little war or a guerilla but that it was a real war".
Those arent the exact quotes, and although i dont know if they were intentionally simplifying or that those were some unlucky quotes, but if you talk like that about subjects that you are supposed to be an expert at then im inclined thinking to think that you dont really know what you are talking about.)

[SteveMetz]

The "job" of the media is foremost to spread information, not to interpret this information. Interpreting information should be left to people acting as individuals and each news agency, news paper...etc should simply spread information in a way as close to the truth that is possible with the information they receive.

I disagree. Who said that the media is supposed to recount verifiable facts stripped of context, implication, or meaning? Plus, this overlooks the point that most media are businesses. Simply recounting verifiable facts would not sell advertising space or copies.

[Joske]

I disagree. Who said that the media is supposed to recount verifiable facts stripped of context, implication, or meaning?

What i meant was that the media should portray events as objectively as they possibly can with the information they have and this information includes contextual explanation, statements of (all) major actors, ...etc.

Plus, this overlooks the point that most media are businesses. Simply recounting verifiable facts would not sell advertising space or copies.

Well being in a competetive enviroment does not mean that "information consumers" should take subjectivity for granted, also when a certain media firm would often over-sensationalize news and even employ facts ripped from their context or use falsified information other news agencies could exploit and expose these practices and force relatively subjective news agencies out.
This way competivity can even lead to more objective news reporting.

Off course this assumes that people want objectivity and dont simply want to get the news they want to hear, but ill leave that question open.


The main point i have on the subject is that people tend to speak out on things they hardly know anything about and proclaim/believe things that are plain stupid.

[SteveMetz]

What i meant was that the media should portray events as objectively as they possibly can with the information they have and this information includes contextual explanation, statements of (all) major actors, ...etc..

But the commercial media simply gives their customers what they want. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a business to do any different.

[SJPONeill]

Perhaps the real problem is no some much perception's of misuse of the media (both the 4th Estate and the media technology) but that we, the military, are not yet able to engage effectively in that space? To misquote another source "...we win all the physical battles, but lose the information war..."

The first step in gaining some form of parity in the information spce, might be to do as an earlier poster implied and that is to "...trust the jury..." by providing it accurate albeit at times unpalatable, information that is 'unspun' and allowing that jury to draw its own conclusions...?

[Kiwigrunt]

The "job" of the media is foremost to spread information, not to interpret this information. Interpreting information should be left to people acting as individuals and each news agency, news paper...etc should simply spread information in a way as close to the truth that is possible with the information they receive.

That is why i find it hard to understand that big news agencies in say the US support political parties, think of fox news. In Belgium on the other hand things are different the news is simply delivered as it is and the interpretation is left to the commentators and the people

It used to be like that in Holland. I’m led to believe it has changed a bit over the years as it has become more commercialised. The moment that happens sales become the number one priority. I didn’t like it when I first came here. The news reader essentially dictated how I should feel about the news. That, and all the ‘woman’s weekly’ BS encapsulated within it. That’s why I don’t watch it any more.
Now I’m not sure where documentaries like ’60 Minutes’ should fit in this picture. Should they be regarded as (old) news?