More Evidence of how Little We All Know

Here are a few more (selected) items that may help show how little the media in the U.S. really covers.

1. http://www.townhall.com/Columnists...(and_haditha)


2. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/744426.html


3. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,19955774-5007220,00.html


4. http://newsbusters.org/node/6668

Across the board, without exception, there has been no discussion of these in Main Stream Media. Don't you wonder why?

Well, for one, they make complex situations out of what people would like to be simple ones. People would like to be able to point and say "you are bad" or "you are wrong". In some cases that's possible. However, in most cases it's not.

Additionally, the media loves headlines! Soundbites! And 10 second video clips. If you have to read a paragraph or two to "get it", it's no good. Too long. I heard the term drive-by media the other day...I like it. Mainstream media pulls up to your house, pops off a couple of headlines or soundbites and never looks back. They're off to the next breaking story. Never taking the time to give you proper background, context, or even the full story.

OK, so, let's just accept that this is true just for a second. You should still be wondering...what's the point? What do they stand to gain from doing this? Sure some people have personal agendas but, it really goes beyond that.

The line between news and entertainment is virtually gone. With multiple 24 news channels and a consolidating print industry (newspapers), capturing audience is do or die. So just remember, the goal of big media is NOT to inform you. It's to keep you watching/reading. The simplest way to do that is to play off your emotion not your intellect.

It's your job to dig up something that resembles the truth. You'll probably never find it but, at least you can be better informed. Sometimes you'll find things you don't like. Things that are contrary to your opinion or intuition. That's the point. Read it! You may learn something.

Do any of us really know the truth (Pt II)?

There's this issue of being careful about what you read, what you watch...taking into account who you're hearing it from, etc, etc. In general, media literacy.

That's only part of the problem. There's another part. You have to be smart enough to look for information you may not be seeing or hearing or reading. For example, an article quoting a certain retired Major General Lewis Mackenzie saying,

"What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it."

Gen. Mackenzie was describing the contents of an email he received from one of the now deceased UN observers in Lebanon. At first I was very skeptical about this story (found here: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21786_Canadian_General-_UN_Observer_Post_Used_By_Hizballah&only) but, then I dug, just a little, and found some more:

1. http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004343191


2. http://newsbusters.org/node/6597


3. http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=23de301b-7949-48db-a1b1-9fa1256db49f&k=29432


4. http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/8958.htm

One question is, who is this Lewis Mackenzie fellow? Why should he get these emails? And why should he be believable? The usual Wikipedia ref is here. He's a retired Canadian Army General who served on the staff of the UN force in Bosnia.

My point is, have you read anything about this in the Ithaca Journal? NYT?? Seen anything about this on CNN? MSNBC? CBS???

....No
....Why?

Do any of us really know the truth?

Each of us, every single one, gets his or her information from some form of mass media. Here's an intersting piece on a report aired over several days on CNN: http://newsbusters.org/node/6552. Apparently Hezbollah had such firm control over journalists in the area at the time it was only later than the journalist (CNN's Nick Robertson) could "come clean".

Challenged by Reliable Sources host (and Washington Post media writer) Howard Kurtz on Sunday, Robertson suggested Hezbollah has “very, very sophisticated and slick media operations,” that the terrorist group “had control of the situation. They designated the places that we went to, and we certainly didn't have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath,” and he even contradicted Hezbollah’s self-serving spin: “There's no doubt that the [Israeli] bombs there are hitting Hezbollah facilities.”

On Monday, July 24th Nick Robertson delivered another piece on Hezbollah activities. This time, he didn't report what they wanted him to. Instead, he reported on their efforts to manipulate the media. Apparently, Hezbollah had lined up several (a dozen or so) ambulances in front of a hospital and called the news media. One by one the ambulance drivers were instructed to turn on their sirens and drive around the block while the media filmed them "rushing off to save the wounded". Hooray for Hezbollah.

Manipulating the media for domestic consumption is nothing new. Hitler did it with great success (afterall, his party did control the media). The Communist Party in the former Soviet Union did it nearly as well for far longer. Milosevic did it in Yugoslavia to gain control of the country in a reasonably infamous incident. He staged an attack on Serbs at a polling place by Albanians of all people (in reality his own party cronies) and rallied his supporters to fend them off declaring, "nobody should even try to beat you". You can read a bit about it here: http://www.famainternational.com/mirror/smcontent.htm.

It is now known that nothing was either accidental or spontaneous about his visit to Kosovo Polje, the BBC reporters who made the series about the collapse of Yugoslavia had also noticed it. Everything was arranged, staged and orchestrated there: the behavior of the Serbs, the incidents with the Albanians...

There's a difference between spin and the out and out staging of events which would not have otherwise occurred.

Each of us needs to be responsible in our consumption of mass media. We need to be media literate. We need to understand that certain outlets have an interest in telling us one story over another. We need to take in information from a diverse set of sources and question everything we take in.

We also need to understand, none of us will ever know the whole truth about anything. FAR too may people in this world are CONVINCED they are right and everyone else is stupid.

Unconditional Failure

In reference to this post: http://sineman.blogspot.com/2006/07/can-us-conceivably-oppose-ceasefire.html

Why would any nation involved in a conflict decline a ceasefire? At a basic, emotional level this would seem to be a legitimate question. However, if you take a look back into history, think about present day facts, and consider possible alternative histories, you may come to realize that there are scenarios in which accepting the first ceasefire which presents itself would be a poor choice.

Many may be familiar with the phrase unconditional surrender. Made most famous by none other than Franklin D. Roosevelt (D). If you're not familiar with it, better study up. In the meantime, the Wikipedia reference (of moderate value) is available. Two things mentioned are salient here:

1. Announcing that only unconditional surrender is acceptable puts psychological pressure on a weaker adversary.


2. It has also been criticized for forcing an opponent into a position where he has nothing to gain by negotiation or diplomacy, and might as well fight to the bitter end

Placing psychological pressure on one's opponent has obvious advantages. In WWII I believe the policy also served a very important political purpose in that it helped solidify a difficult alliance which was crucial to victory.

The criticism of the policy is valid. To address it, we must examine the present day situation. We must consider, what would happen if Hezbollah declared a unilateral ceasefire and disarmed? Simple, the fighting would stop. Now, what would happen if Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire? What would happen if Israel disarmed? Would Hezbollah stop shooting? Disarm? Live on in peace? Or, would Hezbollah carry out its stated objective and annihilate the state of Israel? I think we all know the answer to that.

Imagine a combination of December 1944, CNN, and the Battle of the Bulge. Americans warm and cozy in their homes, celebrating the holidays when CNN bursts into their living rooms with breaking news of heavy fighting in Belgium. Reports of American soldiers cut off, with no blankets, no coats, some without boots (they didn't have body armor in 1944), low on ammunition, no air cover, and a rejuvinated Wermacht pounding them mercilessly. In the course of a couple of days, thousands are dead, thousands are missing (and feared dead), and thousands more are grievously wounded. Would you want our government to agree to a ceasefire? What if we did? How would the world be different today? How many more would have died if this had happened?

Now, I'm not suggesting that an Israeli policy of unconditional surrender is appropriate here. However, simply bombing for a while, blowing up some stuff, killing some bad guys (kicking the hornets nest as it were) will not do anyone any good. To do so would constitute an unconditional failure.

Israel lauched a military operation (with military objectives) to protect its population from attacks (kidnappings, then rockets) from an unlawful, irregular force on its border. It has every right to see the current operation through to completion. Once that operation is complete, Israel also has some obligations.

U.S. & Israeli Terrorists? No.

In the original post: http://sineman.blogspot.com/2006/07/dont-us-israeli-military-actions.html

The Sine Man asks:


In a word, no. International Law is very clear on how to identify a lawful combatant and an unlawful combatant:

1. that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates


2. that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance


3. that of carrying arms openly


4. that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

If two reasonable people were to debate, point-by-point, on a legal basis, the status, under International Law, of a U.S or Israeli Soldier as compared to a car bomber in Iraq or a Hezbollah fighter in Lebanon I feel there is little doubt as to the outcome. And don't give me the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter" slogan. It's just that, a slogan. For example, American Revolutionary War soldiers generally met every single one of the criteria above (perhaps with the exception of the distinctive sign requirement)...and that was well before these criteria existed.

Isn't it interesting how some of us invoke internation law when we're upset about invading Iraq but, choose to ignore it when we ask the question "Are U.S. & Israli soldiers terrorists?"?

A more important point though, is that of "What are the lasting impressions of 10-year-olds and 12-year-olds in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon that are being built right now?". Propoganda will not work. Paid news media will not work. I'm stunned that people thought to be smarter than most think it will.

This is a very complex matter and one of decades of academic and media study. Marcel Ophuls documents, in a movie titled The Sorrow and The Pity, how three different people can have three very different memories about the same events in history (A German occupied town in France '41-'45). The question is, how can this be overcome? And how can an entire nation (or culture) come to share the same memories of certain events?

One approach, used with some success after WWII in Europe, less success in Japan (for specific reasons), and even South America at various points, is to use the law. Mark Osiel (Mass Atrocity, Collective Memory, and The Law) outlines this process at length. It is a difficult read (as is any book about the law) and it's subject is equally difficult (the extermination of millions). To vastly summarize his book:

"...such trials, when effective as public spectacle, stimulate public discussion in ways that foster the liberal values of toleration, moderation, and civil respect".

Furthermore,

"...such proceedings indelibly influence collective memory of the events they judge".

If the international community could bring terrorist leaders to justice in International courts instead of killing them it could be the beginning of the type of process Osiel describes.

Of course, much of this pre-supposes a military victory. The U.S. has that in Iraq to a sufficient degree. Israel is in the process of that vs. Hezbollah. I hope somebody in Israel has read Osiel's book.

Genesis

This is about one thing. Have you ever heard the saying 'two brains are better than one'? or, heard someone ask for help, 'I could sure use a second pair of eyes...'? That's what this is about. I've seen the Sineman's signs for a long time now. He's lucky to have access to such a good location. He can inject his thoughts into unsuspecting motorists minds 7-days a week. The trouble is, I think some of those thoughts are down right wrong. Full of false accusations, exaggerations, and misrepresentations.

I intend to add that second brain. I don't expect everyone to like what I say or agree with it. I would like it if everyone who went to Sineman's site and read or commented came here and read or commented. I think, in the long run, the more information we all take in, the more points of view we all consider, the better off we'll be.

This is the sign that got me thinking of finding a forum to voice my opinion re:Sineman's messages.

The original post is here.

At face value, I get this sign. He doesn't like innocent people being intentionally killed. Neither do I. In fact, I don't like innocent people being accidentally killed. Come to think it, I'd prefer nobody got killed.

"So now, at least, we have a concrete case to consider where troops on the ground appear to have created the Iraqi equivalent of a Mai Lai massacre."

There are two problems:

1. Haditha was no Mai Lai.


2. The implied meaning is fundamentally wrong.

Let's start with the mistake of comparing Haditha to Mai Lai.
Wikipedia reference on Haditha

Wikipedia reference on Mai Lai

I don't want you to think Wikipedia is the be all and end all of facts but, lets get some basic ones out in the open and go from there. Wikipedia is convenient for doing that ok?

Read these two articles and note the total lack of similarity. 24 people killed in Haditha, 500+ people likely killed in Mai Lai...nobody really knows for sure because of the vast cover up. There was no cover up in Haditha. The Sineman sees deferral and cover-up in the case of Haditha. I see the slow moving behemoth that the US Military is. Everything takes time. Far longer than anyone wants. It's just the way it is. With Mai Lai, one man served 3 years house arrest. I have a funny feeling that several people will spend many years in prison over Haditha (and rightfully so!). There's not much more to say about this. Read the articles, the scope and scale of the killings and subsequent actions are vastly different. The involvement of the US Government at the highest levels just isn't there re:Haditha whereas in the Mai Lai case, clearly the Government failed miserably and at nearly all levels.

Now, regarding the implied meaning of the sign. As a former member of the US Armed Forces this really irritates me. "How may other Hadithas have there been?" = "How many other murderers are there in the US Military?".

I'm sorry to say that this is simply not based in reality. There are millions of people who have served in the US military over the years and never fired a shot (outside of boot camp). Even more have never fired a shot in anger. Of the few who have been involved in armed conflict the vast majority have acted in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The internationally recognized LAW by which our armed forces willingly choose conduct themselves when engaged in conflict. Compare the discipline and behavior of today's modern, all-volunteer force to armed forces of the past or modern militant/terrorist groups. You simply can't. I wonder if Hezbollah has a UCMJ?

When you compare Haditha to dropping 500lb bombs on militant strongholds (suggesting there's no difference) you must recognize that one tactic used by these fighters is to place equipment and people of military or political value on top of or near civilians to attempt to deter western militaries from attacking. It's simple. The militants are betting that the political cost of killing the civilians is higher than the military or political gain of destroying the equipment or killing the fighters. Where is the morality in that? What part of the Geneva Convention does that follow? I'd say that it's a qualitative difference that we need to do a better job communicating to ourselves and the muslim world.

When does it become beneficial to attack? When can the innocent casualties be tolerated? When militants kidnap Israeli soldiers (inside their own border) they build support for action against them regardless of collateral damage. When tyrannical governments fail to live up to international agreements of which they are a part of, they build support for action against them regarless of the cost. When militants explode car bomb after car bomb they build support for action against them nevermind the consequences. Suddenly, the cost of attempting to destroy would be attackers is lower. There is little or no domestic price to be paid for innocent deaths overseas. This is terrible. This is the result of terrorism.

This another way of thinking about things.

Having said this, please remember, I'd prefer nobody get killed. I'd prefer nobody felt the need to terrorize another.