Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 12, 2008 19:04:47 GMT -4
The Tet Offensive was the point at which American public opinion turned strongly against the war. After that it was a slow deterioration until the final retreat of American troops and withdrawl of American support for the South Vietnamese. Gen. Westmoreland wrote "The war still could have been brought to a favorable end following the [communist] defeat...But this was not to be. Press and television had created an aura, not of victory, but defeat." You'd have to say that the General was passing the buck: before Tet, the war was by all accounts under control and proceeding to plan. The offensive, while not producing any lasting territorial gains, showed the World that North Vietnamese forces were capable of significant military action on a nationwide scale; not just targets lining up to be knocked down by American firepower. That the offensive happened at all indicates a massive intelligence failure: ultimately the responsibility of the Commanding General. That Cronkite is still blamed leads one to question whether appropriate lessons have really been learned.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 12, 2008 22:14:59 GMT -4
You'd have to say that the General was passing the buck: before Tet, the war was by all accounts under control and proceeding to plan. The offensive, while not producing any lasting territorial gains, showed the World that North Vietnamese forces were capable of significant military action on a nationwide scale; not just targets lining up to be knocked down by American firepower. That the offensive happened at all indicates a massive intelligence failure: ultimately the responsibility of the Commanding General. I agree that the Tet Offensive was certainly a failure of American intelligence. I'm not sure that the North Vietnamese really were capable of another Tet, though. They took very large losses for no real military gains. Veitnam was not lost militarily. Yes American leadership made serious mistakes, but mistakes are made in every war. It was public opinion that forced an American defeat.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 12, 2008 23:44:34 GMT -4
An example of media bias - a reporter for the Associated Press praises Cuban efforts to evacuate before Hurricane Ike hits. Ah, if only people in New Orleans had been poorer - then looting wouldn't have been such a concern when Katrina hit! The story implies that they are killed by storms, not the government, but it's a bit ambiguous. Do American journalists really yearn to live in a country where authorities "quickly put an end to doubts"? Uh, where is the praising part? The report just says that it is easier, not better. And where does it say that the journalists yearn to live there? Seems like you are the one with the bias, Jason.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 13, 2008 10:00:55 GMT -4
It was public opinion that forced an American defeat. General Westmoreland's not having any better idea than attrition (and measuring it by bodycounts that rapily became inflated and meaningless) had nothing to do with it?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 13, 2008 12:07:54 GMT -4
It was public opinion that forced an American defeat. General Westmoreland's not having any better idea than attrition (and measuring it by bodycounts that rapily became inflated and meaningless) had nothing to do with it? Of course it had something to do with it - something to do with American public opinion.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 13, 2008 12:12:51 GMT -4
Uh, where is the praising part? The report just says that it is easier, not better. And where does it say that the journalists yearn to live there? Seems like you are the one with the bias, Jason. You're right - that one was a bit of a stretch. Still, easier would imply better, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 13, 2008 12:33:30 GMT -4
Uh, where is the praising part? The report just says that it is easier, not better. And where does it say that the journalists yearn to live there? Seems like you are the one with the bias, Jason. You're right - that one was a bit of a stretch. Still, easier would imply better, wouldn't it? No. I think Jason, that if you and me read the same book, it would be like reading different books. You put more words in the liberal media's mouths than they put in politician's mouths. ;D
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 15, 2008 11:08:22 GMT -4
Can you imagine ABC News' Charlie Gibson asking Sen. Obama, after Obama tells him he's ready to be president, "doesn't that take some hubris?" You don't have to imagine him saying that to Gov. Palin - you can read the transcript and watch the video. Gibson also misquoted her (the same misquote about the Iraq War being a task from God that I debunked earlier on this forum), he badgered her for an answer on what she thought of "the Bush Doctrine" while refusing to clarify what he meant by the term "the Bush Doctrine" (anticipatory self defense, apparently), and he accused her of using a "blizzard of words" to obscure what seemed a pretty clear answer to me. When is Charlie Gibson going to go after Sen. Obama with the same sorts of questions?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 15, 2008 14:49:15 GMT -4
Well to be fair, she's the VP candidate, so it should be "When is he going to Biden with the same sort of questions?"
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 15, 2008 15:13:31 GMT -4
Well to be fair, she's the VP candidate, so it should be "When is he going to Biden with the same sort of questions?" I'm not the only one who is confused. Judging by Sen. Obama's crticisms of Gov. Palin he might think that he's running against her directly too.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 16, 2008 11:16:59 GMT -4
Compare these headlines: "Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes" "Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the South Side"
As you might guess, one is a story the New York Times did on Sarah Palin this last weekend and the other is a story they did on Barack Obama back in May. You can tell just from the headlines which one is a generally positive piece and which is negative. To judge from the Times, Obama has "pragmatic" politics that were "forged" to perfection in a working-class background, while Sarah Palin was just waiting for her victory to engage in cronyism and vindictively destroy her enemies.
And those are in the news sections, not the opinion pieces. The opinion pieces are even worse, going into hyperbole about how evil Gov. Palin truly is.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Sept 16, 2008 11:36:28 GMT -4
As I understand it, Palin hired friends and lashed foes. As I understand it, Obama actually is someone who forges relationships. I don't think it is biased to report such things.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 16, 2008 13:10:18 GMT -4
As I understand it, Palin hired friends and lashed foes. As I understand it, Obama actually is someone who forges relationships. I don't think it is biased to report such things. However, you are yourself biased against Palin and for Obama, are you not?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 18, 2008 12:47:37 GMT -4
An interesting short piece by self-decribed Hollywood director that points out that ABC placed its camera very differently between Charlie Gibson's Barack Obama and Sarah Palin interviews - with Obama appearing large in the frame but Palin being noticeably diminished in comparison to Gibson.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 18, 2008 17:51:09 GMT -4
Another example of bias, from the Associated Press. Hackers broke into an e-mail account that Gov. Palin used for government business. Messages the hackers retrieved apparently eventualy made their way to the Associated Press, among other news groups. The Secret Service is investigating this violation of privacy. Most intersting is this statement: Why is the AP chosing not to cooperate with the Secret Service in a criminal investigation? Also, why does the AP refer to these e-mails as having been leaked? Usually "leaked" means that an inside source with regular and authorized access to the secrets in question chose to provide them to the press without permission. In this case it was hackers completely unconnected with Palin who violated her privacy. These e-mails were stolen, not leaked. Do you think the AP would refer to coversations picked up by the Terrorist Surveillance Program as "leaked"?
|
|