Ralph Peters loses his mind ... justifies execution of US Soldier by Taliban

[Greyhawk]

Of course, both the Ralph Peters case and the Michael Jackson example aren't typical situations. But I stand by my point that it's a constant battle in the media to keep ahead of public sentiment. If you allow people with whom you disagree to sway millions of viewers and voters unchallenged, you can easily find yourself on the wrong end of the debate. And that can certainly affect policy.

Concur with that, too. The task becomes to convince those whose impulse might be to agree with one position (or be attracted by it) to see the error of their ways - with a positive message. It's too easy to keep those who are repulsed by it in the first place "in the fold".

While we aren't in their number, it could be helpful to imagine some folks who might agree with Peters most extreme points (imagine because I haven't heard anything supportive from anyone as far as quotes in the media, nor do I expect to any time soon) and consider how you would counter the argument without broadening the divide - the latter being the desired result of the video producers.

On the other hand, if there are no such folks, then no problem.

[Brandon Friedman]

"Doing a solid job" and "being a television media advisor on military issues" are mutually exclusive. I'm not asserting that to be a wiseguy. The media is not interested in solid analysis. They are interested in selling advertising. They sell that advertising space by appealing to an audience. A viewer in that audience will find no appeal if the "news" program is inconsistent with the existing views of the viewer. Most viewers (in my highly un-scientific estimate) do not want to learn, so much as they want a continuous stream of information that reaffirms their views. It is a source of assurance. From the media's standpoint, the best analyst is the one who can most artfully deliver information in terms of black or white, right or wrong, yes or no analysis. The more clear-cut and definite the analysis, the more reassuring it is to the viewer.

Television is not a medium for the free flow of ideas, for give and take, learning, discussion, or contemplation. It is to entertain, comfort, and deliver information. Very little of that information is actually news and that is by design.

For the most part, I agree with your analysis of the TV news media. That said, I'm not on board with the idea that "'Doing a solid job' and 'being a television media advisor on military issues' are mutually exclusive." Of the "media advisors on military issues" I know, most do a solid job of providing cogent analysis. Some are partisan (on both sides), but that doesn't mean they're not passionate, insightful, and able to effectively communicate the needs and views of their respective constituencies within the military community. Some, like Ralph Peters, are just crazy and incompetent. I'd name a couple of good ones, but will recuse myself instead since I work in the field.

The problem (and we could probably agree on this) is that even the good military guests are constrained by the fact that they have to transform complex topics on which they're well-versed into sound bites easily digestible by a flaky public within a four-minute segment. But again, that's the media's fault--not the guest's.

[jenniferro10]

Sounds like we are all of one mind on this. Hence the term: punditard. Good night, God bless.

[Schmedlap]

If you allow people with whom you disagree to sway millions of viewers and voters unchallenged, you can easily find yourself on the wrong end of the debate. And that can certainly affect policy.

In the case at hand, I don't see how public sentiment toward this guy could impact policy. Are we going to just declare him a dirtball tell Mr. Tallyban to keep him?

Of the "media advisors on military issues" I know, most do a solid job of providing cogent analysis. Some are partisan (on both sides), but that doesn't mean they're not passionate, insightful, and able to effectively communicate the needs and views of their respective constituencies within the military community.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Who or what are "their respective constituencies within the military community"? To me, doing a solid job as an analyst means that the analyst helps to inform the viewer. But the viewer doesn't want an analyst. The viewer wants someone to reassure him of his existing opinions. The "analyst" label just lends credibility to the person and enhances the reassuring experience.

But again, that's the media's fault--not the guest's.

And that's kind of what I was getting at. The media does not want people who do a solid job. They want someone who plays to the crowd. If an analyst does a solid job, then the viewer will change the channel back to American Idol.

Given that Peters' went black on credibility a long time ago...

That's hilarious. I have to use that one. I miss Army lingo.

Be careful. Someone unfamiliar with the term might think you're making a racist comment (they'll be wondering, "went black?" - what does that mean? Why's it gotta be black?).

[goesh]

- frothing mad Pete, what a jerk. I'm glad they are not going to run the clip saying they won't help the Taliban but had this happened in Iraq when Bush was CIC, they darn sure would have aired the tape - that gripes me as much as what mad Pete is saying.

[Fuchs]

I didn't see much of Peter' writings in the past years. I think he had his high time before OIF.

I recall him as needlessly ruthless and hawkish, rarely with insights that deserve support. Most of the time he was just an annoying source for people with whom I disagreed.