July 28, 2008
For six years, with few exceptions, the Washington press corps has been cheerleading for the Iraq War – and the pattern is continuing in Campaign 2008 with the endless demands that Barack Obama apologize for not supporting the troop “surge.”
On Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” NBC’s Tom Brokaw became the latest Big Media star to hector Obama about his opposition to George W. Bush’s troop “surge,” which the U.S. press corps and Republican John McCain credit with reducing violence in Iraq.
5 comments:
Mr. Parry-
Thanks for this! I saw Tom Brokaw on "Meet the Press" yesterday and was dismayed! He is obviously not ignorant about "the surge," so he is clearly complicit with the White House and the Neo-Cons! And Katie Couric--oh geez! It seems that Keith Olbermann (and Rachel Maddow) on MSNBC are the only truth tellers about this miasma! But what chance do they have of reaching a broader audience, since they are on cable--not much! Therefore, we must challenge the talking heads at CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN! Please write a column on how we can best do this!
Many thanks!
Kate Madison
Depoe Bay, Oregon
Please help me to understand why no journalist ever gets around to listing the numerous reasons originally given for the "surge."
Only a few will acknowledge that the surge was supposed to accomplish a lot more than it has. The "great?" McCain never talks about this, only saying that it has been successful. Anyone want to say how many Iraqis were killed in this endeavor?
I think our whole country supports the troops. After all, these people were not drafted, they volunteered to fight. That doesn't mean that we should still be there - trying to recover the the US ownership of the oil wells that Saddam nationalized, among other things.
If so many of us want to end this stupid "game" of "Power-struggle", "Empire Building," or whatever it is, why aren't we heard, why are we dismissed - "You don't understand"?
I understand that we are surrounded by a bunch of people who think we can rule the world; I don't think there is any majority to do that.
Phyllis
Bob,
I said in both 2000 and 2004 elections, "Where is the media?" I said in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, "Where is the media?" I felt like I was screaming, like in a nightmare where your screams are mute. I write to the media executives and pundits on Fox, CNN, CBS and MSNBC almost daily challenging their snippet, inacurate reporting of the news, and for the constant imbalance in reporting. Other than one or two comments to Consortium, I have found the Parry's to be all that is right in good journalism. Thank you.
I watch Meet the Press every Sunday and caught the Tom Brokaw interview. I remarked to my husband how aggressively Brokaw went after Obama. He was literally in attack mode. By the end of the interview Brokaw seemed to have warmed to Obama, he was more than cordial. I wondered why there are no "journalists" going after McCain on his eight year support of the war.
I'm a senior and would be a constant contributor to Consortium, if I could.
Hopefully a thanks occasionally will help also.
Kathleen Flanagan
Fallon, NV
Good commentary. "The surge is working" has become the mantra of not only the McCain campaign, but also the media. Its workability has gone from something to be questioned and examined to a fait accompli. Unfortunately, the effects the surge was supposed to produce fall fall short, and it robs the U.S. of its ability to act responsibly militarily and/or as a moral force elsewhere in the world. What a tragedy that such enabling has come from the so-called watchdog sector.
Obama HAS given the "surge" credit - he just isn't giving it the 100% credit he is expected to by the black/white side of the political spectrum. He was completely justified in not believing it would help, since other troop "surges" in Iraq simply led to "surges" in violence.
It dismays me that many of today's politicians, and reporters, lack the ability to see that events of history are not simple cause-effect situations. There are many causes, contributing factors, etc and they lead not only to the effect under consideration, but numerous other effects and side-effects. One of the things that encourages me about Obama is that he can see and analyze all of these. Brokaw has been documenting the history of his time long enough to know this, so I was surprised that he didn't back down sooner. We have had 8 years of a single-minded president. I WANT politicians - and reporters - who can stand back and analyze a situation. If this is what Obama means by "change", I'm all for it.
Post a Comment