(as if this isn’t happening already)
Word comes from RL that the Army has hired PR firm Hass MS&L of Detroit to offer “exclusive editorial content” to blogs willing to run government propaganda.
“The Army believes that military blogs are a valuable medium for reaching out,” account executive Charlie Kondek has written to a number of pro-military blogs in a January 6 Email.
“To that end, the Army plans to offer you and selected bloggers exclusive editorial content on a few issues you re likely to be interested in,” Kondek says.
About a year or two ago I said it would be supercheap for the government to set up a couple of fake Iraqi blogs to talk about how great the war was going. People said I was paranoid or crazy.
How you can believe anything the WaPo reports about military blogs is beyond me…
If that’s all they’re doing, then there’s almost wrong with it. But it’s illegal or at the very least dishonest for them to use propaganda to influence domestic opinion and pass self-promotion off as objectivity, which would be the likely effect if not the sole intent in the first place of this.
Apparently, Oliver Willis isn’t the only person who thinks so. From the link:
Personally, I think the military should just blog this themselves. Apparently, they think that their experience and observations of how things are going in Iraq does not square with the coverage that they see through the traditional media, and are attempting to find alternative forms of media to get their message out. Does not strike me as some cataclismic event.
“We all know that the moment some public affairs flunkie strayed from the official happy talk and openly engaged in the information fight, he or she would get nuked” – clearly the writer has an open mind about the military.
The problem, as I see it, is that the military no longer has any reason to suspect that the traditional media is going to accurately portray them.
The article linked to indicates that the columnist would like to know more about battles won, battles lost. I would love for him to point out one single solitary military battle lost in this war.
JD,
Perhaps you’ve heard the old saying about Vietnam? “We won all the battles but lost the war.” That’s quite common in counter-insurgency. Every major military engagement looks, on the surface, to be a huge victory for counter-insurgent forces. After all, when insurgents come out of the woodwork to engage in a noteworthy battle, they get mauled. When counter-insurgent forces launch a major offensive they either destroy insurgent forces, or the insurgents get away. Either way, the insurgents no longer have the particular geographic haven they once had. Thus, in Fallujah and Najaf – the biggest counterinsurgent operations of the war, the US won easily. However, most military activity in a guerrilla war is of the smaller nature, and it’s very difficult for supporters of the counter-insurgency effort to highlight tangible signs of progress. In fact, because it’s so difficult, supporters of the war effort often highlight dubious metrics to advance the claim that they are winning. In Vietnam it was enemy body counts. In Iraq, it’s numbers of Iraqi soldiers trained, or numbers of schools painted. The reason these Iraqi examples don’t help us in the long run is not that they are incorrect, but that they are only a small part of the bigger picture. More important than numbers of Iraqi soldiers are to whom they are loyal. And more important than numbers of schools painted is evidence that Iraqis know this and are satisfied with it (a recent poll showing that only 30% of Iraqis even knew these reconstruction projects existed is evidence that the school-painting has done little good; add on top of that the fact that insurgents tend to blow up recently painted schools so locals have little time to take advantage of reconstruction largesse).
So, what is a military blogger going to do? I have no problem with the Pentagon paying milibloggers to get their side of the story out. Propaganda is a fact of war. I’m sure the mainstream media gets lots of stories wrong. But the public shouldn’t and, at this point, won’t, be fooled into thinking that the perspective of US military personnel is authoritative on the real nature of progress in the struggle to create a stable, democratic, secular Iraq.
Why do you insist on calling it propoganda then, if it is true ?
Who should we consider authoratative? Murtha? Dean? frameone? you? Who knows more about the situation on the ground than the people on the ground ?
elrod, the US hasn’t been in many counterinsurgency operations, certainly not enough for you to gauge what is common.
You might want to spend a few semsters at the War College, as so many of our military leaders have done, before you make casual judgements about our ability to wage asymmetrical warfare.
The reason, I believe, why the DoD wants to employ MilBlogs to get their story out, is because they can’t even get their press releases into the mainstream press.
I use to write a blog (still up, but not updated) that focused on noncombat stories, and humsn interest stories. It was nearly impossible to find such stories in major newspapers. The stories were either hometown stories in hometown papers, or they were DoD releases.
That’s still true today.
Consider the story of SFC Paul R. Smith. {Don’t check the link yet}
Do you know who he was?
Do you know what’s special about him?
I’ll bet you don’t.
Now check the link.
Now you know why the DoD needs help from the MilBlogs.
Nice link. Right at the beginning, the military website uses a soldier’s death to link the bogus war in Iraq to the bogus “War on Terror.”
The man died fighting an illegal war, and the Bushies use his death for propaganda. Got any more gems like that, Frank?
Oh, and you’re probably right about the US military getting involved in counterinsurgency. Vietnam notwithstanding, we’ve usually just hired others to do our dirty work.
Yup. The mainstream press never covered Paul R. Smith. Frank, you are an idiot.
What was it you said Frank? “It was nearly impossible to find such stories in major newspapers.” Did you ever try looking in them? Seriously, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Bald face lying like that.
Hey look they covered Smith in the LA Times.
“I didn t say the papers didn t cover it.”
Oh of course not. You said:
“It was nearly impossible to find such stories in major newspapers. The stories were either hometown stories in hometown papers, or they were DoD releases.”
Nearly impossible Frank? If you have to click through more than two Google search pages you give up and condemn the mainstream media for failing to cover the heroes of the Iraq war?
But what about the second part of that idiotic assertion. Either local papers or DOD press releases? Really? I found six articles in three major US city papers on Smith a matter of minutes all of which were written by the papers own reporters.
You have no credibilty Frank. You buy whatever swill bigger conservative liars are selling and then you spit it up here. When someone calls you on it you gnahs and snarl your teeth then go right back to sucking your thumb.
Hey look the Washington Post covered Smith
frameone, still grouchy, eh, sissy boy?
I said check the link. I didn’t say the papers didn’t cover it.
Can’t you follow instructions?
It takes pages and pages of hits, before you get to the mainstream newspapers.
The New York Times story begins on A13
The LA Times story about SFC Smith begins on A12.
Photographer == US Army
What’s that, where the wedding announcements are?
And you called me an idiot.
I guess without your online Federalist Papers you’re kinda wimpy, eh, Paul?
But thanks for sharing, Paul. Please come back.
I believe he switched to a pacifier
I suppose that now your blood is boiling, Paul, which it seems is a regular thing for you, I might as well get this over with.
I don’t feel like reading anymore of your stupid arguments against a point I was never trying to make. So let’s return to what I actually said, instead of what you are trying to pretend I said.
I use to write a blog (still up, but not updated) that focused on noncombat stories, and human interest stories. It was nearly impossible to find such stories in major newspapers.
Get it, Paul? “Nearly impossible” Not “the mainstream press didn’t publish anything about SFC Smith.” OK, so far, wild man?
Next, I wrote (this is not what you cooked up in your feverish imagination):
The stories were either hometown stories in hometown papers, or they were DoD releases
Get it, Paul? The aforementioned stories — not the story of SFC Smith’s MoH.
You see, Paul? You tried to create an argument where there was none, because it was more important for you to drum up an excuse to cal me an idiot than it was to discuss the issue at hand. After all, in regards to the actual subject, I was right, and you had, and still have, nothing to say.
At this point in time, I’m sure you, and all the other commenters on this blog, are just chomping at the bit to read that blog, aren’t you?
Well, here it is.
Twice.
Oh I get it. So when you said “Consider the story of SFC Paul R. Smith” you meant consider it in reference to a completely different point than the one you were making in the post immediately preceding. Which might have made sense except that you use Smith’s story to make the exact same point: “Now you know why the DoD needs help from the MilBlogs.” A point which, in specific reference to Smith’s story, is totally unfounded and without merit since the major urban papers of the country did indeed cover Smith’s story with some running multiple stories on him.
What fascinates me here Frank is the depths of your self-delusion. It’s an amazing thing to watch.
It’s crystal clear that you were in no way mobilizing the Smith story as evidence for your assertion that they DOD “can t even get their press releases into the mainstream press. Yup, crystal.
“in regards to the actual subject, I was right”
Really? Can you even tell us what the actual subject is? Because if the subject is your inability to find coverage of Smith in mainstream papers, that’s your fault because the stories on Smith are there. If the subject is the New York Times’ lack of non-combat, human interest stories (since following your explanation you don’t beliece Smith’s story falls in this category) perhaps you would like to point one out.
On your milblog you headlined a post: “Pentagon Working on Criteria, Design for New Iraq, Afghanistan Medals.” Yup, you ‘d never finda story like that in the New York Times. Oh wait.
Following on with your explanation Frank, when you wrote this in the first post:
“The reason, I believe, why the DoD wants to employ MilBlogs to get their story out, is because they can t even get their press releases into the mainstream press.”
you were not referring to Smith’s story. And then when you wrote this in the next post:
“Now you know why the DoD needs help from the MilBlogs.”
You were speaking in reference to Smith’s story.
Oh, ya, I totally get that you were talking about two totally different things.
Could I also point out that you if you’re criticizing the New York Times and other major city papers for not running stories like the one you posted on Senior Airman Kylee Reynolds, a member of the 3rd Weather Squadron, 3rd Air Support Operations Group, who won the Air Force’s prestigious Dobson Award, you are so completely full of hot air I’m suprised you aren’t freaking tied down. Do you honestly believe that it is the proper role of the New Times, Washingtong Post or LA Times or any other major newspaper to cover this kind of minutiae? Seriously?
Was the New York Times supposed to stop the presses because Gen. Richard B. Myers was honored as the 2004 “National Father of the Year” by the National Father’s Day Council? And was that your caption beneath the photo of Myers: “Warrior, Leader … Daddy?” Oh mercy, that’s priceless.
Anyway, it’s pretty clear that you have no idea what you’re talking about on just about every front. What an ass.
Corrigan: I could think of think of thins to say about your foul, unpatriotic comment, but I am stunned.
Asshole.
Gee, frameone, I’m overwhelmed. All this attention paid to one little comment.
Let’s try this again, OK, maniac?
I wrote (and, for obvious reasons, you have ignored)
Do you know who he was?
Do you know what s special about him?
I ll bet you don t.
Now check the link.
Why don’t you mention that, eh, frameone?
I’ll tell you why, you lunatic!
Because it doesn’t fit your contrived argument: That I said the MSM didn’t cover SFC Smith’s MoH story. That is not what I argued. What I said was that the mainstream press rarely covered simple little stories about the military.
The fact that you can “hunt down” mainstream coverage of such stories does not — I repeat, does not — disprove my point.
If you had responded to my comment by saying, “Of course I know who SFC Smith was… He was the first soldier to win a MoH in Iraq,” that would have argued against my point.
But, no, you didn’t check the link to see that you had to go several pages in before there was a MSM reference, so you disregarded — repeat, disregarded — that part of the argument I was making
See, frameone, you want to argue about what you want to argue about, because it gives you an opportunity to abuse me. It has nothing whatever to do with the point of this thread, or the point I was making.
Get it, mad man?
First off, Oliver, it s not propaganda because the milblogger can choose to not post it or write about it. By signing up for the deal, they re not agreeing to even publish anything that the DoD sends them.
Plus, milboggers already act as BS detectors for media outlets. Are you going to pre-accuse them of swallowing everything the DoD puts out hook, line and sinker? If any of them has any reservations about something that they were sent, all it would take for most of them is to call around to find out if the DoD release is factual. So now you re going to fault them for wanting to get a portion of their blog-fodder straight from the source?
And frameone, be honest, did you know SFC Paul R. Smith s name before Frank posted it? Did you even know why his name was important before that?
My guess is probably not.
Without the name and a search engine you would have had no idea who the man was or why he is heralded. Did you even know a Medal of Honor was awarded to a soldier in Iraq?
As for your finding of articles out of the LA and NY Times, Frank was not only right about where they appeared, but what he didn t mention is that they ran only one day. After that, SFC Paul R Smith was forgotten about.
Why couldn t they put the guy on the front page? Oh, I know! Because that month was spent fighting Bush s Social Security reform! No, wait, it was the Talon News Gannon/Guckert scandal! No, it couldn t have been either of those because they aren t more important than honoring a man who gave his life to protect other soldiers. And we all know that the front page goes to the most important news story. Especially in the case of the NY and LA Times, if said story involves dead US soldiers.
So what else was in the news around then? Hmm, Howard Dean said he hated Republicans, Scott Ritter confirmed that Bush had signed off on a June 2005 attack on Iran, Eason Jordan slandered every member of the US military, the Austrians got caught selling sniper rifles to Iran, anti-war protesters mobbed military recruiters here in Seattle and Ward Churchill got proven to be a plagiarizing fake Indian.
Well frame, I just can t seem to find out why they put him in the back of the paper. I guess since he wasn t the 2000th dead service member, he just wasn t that important to them.
Hopefully that ll get cleared up with milblogs getting DoD stories at the same time as the mainstreamers?
Don’t think too hard, Frank, it’s not your strong suit.
Was my comment foul? That’s subjective. Was it unpatriotic? Damn right. If patriotism involves cheerleading an illegal and unnecessary war that’s gotten countless thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of US soldiers killed, then I’ve got no use for patriotism. That’s the kind of patriotism that kept us in southeast Asia far too long, and those of us with working brains know how great that turned out.
Long after the last of the Bush administration’s justifications for war have dried up, you’re still cheerleading, and trying to hype DoD propaganda to that effect. How many dead soldiers will it take for you to accept that you’re in the wrong? Do you even care about the dead Iraqis we were supposed to be liberating? I notice you didn’t link to any of their eulogies.
I’m the asshole for pointing out the obvious? Coming from someone mired in your position, Frank, that’s a high compliment.
Once again, you’re arguing apples, when I’m presenting peaches:
Was the New York Times supposed to stop the presses because Gen. Richard B. Myers was honored as the 2004 National Father of the Year by the National Father s Day Council? And was that your caption beneath the photo of Myers: Warrior, Leader & Daddy? Oh mercy, that s priceless.
First of all, my argument was never that the MSM was supposed to cover these stories — jeebus, you’re friggin’ crazy! — the argument was that the DoD, in order to publish these stories, would have to resort to blogs.
Second, a self – proclaimed movie critic such as yourself should have caught the reference to Robert Duvall’s drunken monologue from “The Great Santini.”
Sorry you didn’t get it, Paul.
frameone has morphed into Corrigan
That is your intent, isn’t it?
I mean, it seems to be your job to create dissension.
I see an interesting parallel between Corrigan and frameone: Their rants are overlong, full of coarse, and unnecessarily agressive language, subject matter totally unrelated to the subject at hand, and gratuitous insults of all sorts of people. Unsupported and undocumented statements abound, while at the same time their targets are besmirched for doing that very thing.
A paper on the psychopathology of commenters such as AlexCorrigan and frameone would prove very interesting.
AnalogKid:
If the ‘milblogs’ are as full of crap as your comment, then maybe they should be ignored.
First off, this whole complaint about the “MSM” ignoring dead soldiers is standard winger bullshit. Remember how so many of you knuckledraggers went apeshit when Ted Koppel read the names of hundreds of dead US troops on Nightline? That was done in a solemn and tasteful fashion, but I guess Koppel didn’t salute Dear Leader and praise the Glorious War, so he was aiding the enemy.
Also, you loads are quick to run behind “the troops” when your lame-ass arguments bleed out, so you think you’re going to get away with hyping the DoD, too? Newsflash, geniuses: the DoD is an arm of the executive, headed by Donald “Go-To-War-With-the-Army-You-Have” Rumsfeld. These are the same pricks who hired a Hollywood expert to manufacture the phony Jessica Lynch ‘rescue.’ These are the same jerkoffs who lied about Pat Tillman’s ‘heroism,’ then dropped his story like a hot potato when the lazy-ass corporate whore press finally caught on that Tillman opposed the Iraq war and admired the writings of Noam Fucking Chomsky.
Yeah, we should trust anything that comes from those lying, murdering bastards. And remember, this isn’t Freeperland; people here (winger trolls excepted) have working brains. This type of bullshit is instantly sussed:
Howard Dean said he hated Republicans, Scott Ritter confirmed that Bush had signed off on a June 2005 attack on Iran, Eason Jordan slandered every member of the US military, the Austrians got caught selling sniper rifles to Iran, anti-war protesters mobbed military recruiters here in Seattle and Ward Churchill got proven to be a plagiarizing fake Indian.
I noticed you didn’t provide any evidence to back up your claims. Gee, might that be because you made that shit up?
Here in Democratic Chicago (the bluest part of an otherwise red state), there are two major papers and a plethora of local TV news stations. They run stories about dead and living soldiers all the time. Are those stories headliners? No, but neither is the war itself. Have you noticed how the ‘librul’ media networks show live or taped greetings from soldiers in the field, especially during holidays and major sporting events? It happens here on the local outlets all the time. So what is you nitwits’ f–king problem?
It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out. You don’t want to see any bad news. You want the media to reinforce you rosy fallacy of Dear Leader’s war of freedom. There’s no questioning that US soldiers are just human beings like the rest of us; we don’t need a “milblog” to tell us that. However, there’s also no question that those soldiers are now fighting a lost cause, and an illegal one at that. You can’t sanitize the spilled innocent blood, no matter how many bright and shiny propaganda websites you throw out there.
OMG — frameone has morphed into Corrigan — Heaven help us!
BTW, AnalogKid, thanks for your comment. The psychopathic frameone can be quite a handful. Now that Corrigan’s off his meds, this blog will become ever so exciting.
frank,
You’re on today.
Dugger
I congratulate you, cleo. While your comment is incorrect, it does, at least, or should I say, at last, make a relevant point.
You’re not claiming that I “bring out the beast” in people like frameone and Corrigan, are you?. I’m not here to create dissension, if, by that, you mean amongst bloggers.
But, surely, you would not deprive me of my right to dissent from the “I love you, you love me, let’s all hate Bush” posts that pass for informative around here.
Milblogs are useful for a variety of reasons. They represent the people on the front lines so their opinions are raw and unmediated by the DoD. There are milblogs that attack the war in Iraq as viciously as anything you’d ever find on DU. And, of course, there are milblogs that support Bush and the Iraq War 110%. That’s the beauty of them. My problem is not with the milblogs themselves but in relying exclusively on them for progress regarding the overall war effort. The struggle in Iraq is political, not military, and the comments of ordinary soldiers are of limited value in assessing the political views of ordinary Iraqis toward the nascent government. US soldiers can view bits and pieces of the overall guerrilla war – how the residents in a particular town reacted after the recent capture of a known insurgent, for example – and generalize from there. But for Americans to understand what the overall picture is, they need to look beyond the US-insurgent battlefield and into the political scene in Iraq.
That’s why I think the Iraq bloggers – whether the Iraqis themselves or informed observers conversant in the Arabic press – are more useful than milbloggers. Whether it’s pro-US Iraqi bloggers like Iraq the Model or war skeptics like Juan Cole, I learn much more from them about where the overall war is going than I do from US soldiers.
A point about propaganda: Propaganda is not necessarily false. It’s just slanted. Clever propaganda appears objective but is not. Crude propaganda is obviously biased and so is ignored. The DoD paying milbloggers is propaganda but probably useful because the stories are believable and reflective of a real corner of the war. After all, regardless of the opinions of ordinary US soldiers on the overall war, they are all Americans and their loyalties are to America first. The Lincoln Group propaganda, on the other hand, was a disaster because it cast doubt on any Iraqi who tried to praise the US or the overall campaign. It made liberal Arabs appear to be foreign agents.
Frank;
Kudos! Reasonableness is always welcome.
So, frame, how’s the weather where you are?
BTW we’re having a potluck torture-social at the church tonight and you’re invited.
Nobody expects the Dugger Invitation!
Frank changing horses in midstream doesn’t make you or your argument any more credible. It’s obvious to anyone reading your two posts that you were holding out Smith’s story in support for your previous claim: “The DoD wants to employ MilBlogs to get their story out, is because they can t even get their press releases into the mainstream press.” You concluded your post on Smith with the assertion: “Now you know why the DoD needs help from the MilBlogs.” You assert this even though anyone who reads the New York Times, The LA Times and the Washington Post could have clearly read several stories on Smith, recognized his sacrifice and understood the honor bestowed upon him. These papers covered the story. So why would the DOD have needed any help from Milblogs to get Smith’s story out? Answer, they didn’t need any help because the mainstream press was covering it.
See, Frank, no vitriol, no personal attacks, no animosity, just the plain unvarnished facts. You made a claim that is totally baseless and when you were shown you were wrong you turned right around to say you never made the claim.
It’s no wonder Dugger leaps to your defense, someone who rarely if ever cites facts or provides links to his assertions, regularly ignores facts presented to him and concost outlandish rationales for why he can’t find the facts he claims exists. I’ll never forget when Dugger asserted that the reason he couldn’t find any evidence supporting is argument for torture is because there is no objective clearinghouse for positive information about how torture is effective. Brilliant. Two peas in a rotting pod.
And while Frank is so concerned with staying on topic, let us not forget that the issue raised in the article linked to by Oliver was not the New York Times failure to splash Senior Airman Kylee Reynolds all over its front page. Here’s what the author of the article notes:
“…The “content” under discussion, an Army public affairs officer tells me, is not the nitty gritty of deployments and living conditions overseas. It is planned to be an official counter to the perceived unwillingness of the mainstream media to report the “good news” from Iraq and the war on terror.”
That’s considerably different from whether or not the Air Force is having trouble getting the New York Times publishing its bake sale announcements. Frank, of course, knows this which is why he cited Smith instead of Reynolds as evidence that mainstream press is blocking the “DOD message.”
Hilariously, analogkid jumps to Franks defense to argue that Smith was only mentioned one day in the papers cited. First of all, the New York Times ran three articles on two separate days about Smith specifically or Smith as part of a larger story on heroes in Iraq. And why didn’t they put him on the front page? The Washington Post did indeed run Smith’s award of the Medal of Honor on its front page (A1) and followed it up the next day with a story on Smith on the front page of its Metro section (B1). By analog’s standard every paper in the country woudl have to run a story on Smitth every day of the year from now until perpetuity, otherwise they hate America.
So which one of you liars and idiots wants to step up next?
Personally, I have no problem with personal attacks, vitriol, and the like. However, what matters are accuracy and intellect. These wingers show up with neither; they ooze in with their lame Straw Men, watered-down Bushie talking points, and wildly shifting excuses for Dear Leader.
But hey, I’m game. If these wingers want to keep at it, I’ll play, even if they are easy marks. It’s great to practice your perimeter shooting, but you have to hit the layups and free throws, too.
Whenever one of them comes up with a well-reasoned, accurate right-wing argument that isn’t already obvious, I’ll retire from blogging and commenting. Until then, it’s pigeon season!
Who’s next? Frank? Dugger? Care to dispute facts, or do you want to fling some more ad hominem attacks?
“I have no problem with personal attacks, vitriol, and the like.”
Really? And I thought even after using a Nazi metaphor for our Marines in Iraq, you were a really, really, really, really decent human being.
Dugger.
frameone and Coreigan: two psychopaths back – to – back in the Cyber Saloon. “My kung fu is strong.”
You guys are a joke.
I’m asking you once again, Paul. Can you stop frothing at the mouth long enough to answer this question honestly?
Before I raised the point, had you any idea who SFC Paul Smith was?
Because if you never heard of him, given the fact that write like you know damn near everything, then how in the world could anyone else in the United States have heard of him?
You certainly know more than, what, 99% of the American people, don’t you, Paul?
And that is why the DoD needs help from the MilBlogs.
Because the self – styled “smartest man in the universe” never heard of SFC Paul Smith.
OK, Paul?
Still want to fight? I’ll meet you and Corrigan at the corner of http://tinyurl.com/d7kud and http://tinyurl.com/anlo5
Are you tellng everyone here that you did not put forth Smith’s story in support of your calim that The DoD wants to employ MilBlogs to get their story out because they can t even get their press releases into the mainstream press?
Because if you didn’t could you kindly explain what you meant when you wrote this in direct reference to Smith’s story: “Now you know why the DoD needs help from the MilBlogs”?
Did you or did you not put forth Smith s story in support of your claim that the DoD wants to employ MilBlogs to get their story out because they can t even get their press releases into the mainstream press?
Just answer the question Frank.
frameone, the connection between the two comments remains in your mind, and nowhere else.
You are still ignoring my questions
Do you know who he was?
Do you know what s special about him?
I ll bet you don t.
Now check the link.
Sgt Alvin York was a conscientious objector who won the Congressional Medal of Honor in World War I. A movie was made about him. Probably 25 to 30% of Americans could tell you that Gary Cooper played Alvin York.
Would you care to hazard a guess as to how many Americans could identify SFC Paul Smith, and what his claim to fame is?
You never heard of him, did you?
Did you?
STFU
It s obvious to anyone
frameonespeak for “What I say goes!… Even though you wrote it, I will tell you what you meant!”
This usage, and “everyone knows” are phrases often employed by liberals to make a totally unsupported, undocumented point.
And Frank, the article Oliver linked to wasn’t about Army Day parades, it was about the DOD pushing propaganda about how great things arein Iraq. Big difference.
Oh, I see. Sergeant York! (I never heard his real name before.)
OK, you might be right. Folks who like old movies will know about him. Probably 25 or 30 percent? Who knows?
Nobody searches through news archives for news.
They watch an hour on TV, or read a paper every day.
If the MSM doesn’t cover it, it’s like it never happened
If the DoD wants to develop some human interest in the military, they certainly can’t rely on the MSM, which has politicized this war from Day 1.
And that includes FOX, Limbaugh and O’Reilly, as well as NYT and WaPo.
Another example from left field: When I was a kid, back when the earth was cooling, hundreds of people from my town went to a nearby Army base for Armed Forces Day the second Sunday in May.
In May of 1966, I marched with my Basic Training company in the Armed Forces Day parade in Philadelphia. Thousands of people turned out to see us. Now, Armed Forces Day comes and goes without a mention, except in the MilBlogs.
Frank, I admit to being a dyed-in-the-wool, dripping fangs pacifist, and I’ve never heard of Alvin York. I’d be surprised if one American in a hundred has heard his name, knows there was a movie about him, or that Gary Cooper played him.
No point. Just sayin’.
“And that is why the DoD needs help from the MilBlogs.”
THe DOD needs millblogs because I might not have known about Smith? But I don’t read milblogs. I read the New York Times. And the New York TImes covered Smith. So tell me again why the DOD needs milblogs?
First of all I’ll take you insistence on Smith’s case as proof that you were indeed putting forth his story as evidence that DOD needs milblogs because the mainstream press is not covering enough non-com, human interest DOD-related stories. Again, that’s totally untrue.
But Frank think about this logically. Does my knowing who Smith was have any bearing on whether or not it was nearly impossible to find coverage on him in the mainstream press? In other words, my not knowing who Smith has nothing to do with whether or not the New York Times didn’t cover it. Because they did cover it. So did the Washington Post and the LA Times.
How many people in the country even know who Sam Alito is at this very moment and the New York Times is covering his hearings every day on the front page? If you walked out on the street and asked someone who Alito was and they said they didn’t know, would thar prove that the NEw York Times wasn’t covering the hearings enough?
A) I couldn’t prove a negative
B) I can’t do that kind of research for a 100 word comment on a blog
C) You’d probably contrive some sort of argument against what I found,anyway, as you just did.
You don’t like me, do you, Paul?
“Thousands of people turned out to see us. Now, Armed Forces Day comes and goes without a mention, except in the MilBlogs.”
And BTW Frank, people turning out for a parade and coverage in the media are not the same thing. Nice conflation between the two. For your point to have madeany sense you should have said “Armed Forces Day used to be covered a lot. Now it goes without a mention.” Of course then you’d have to prove that. Could you?
A bit of friendly advice, Paul: Don’t even dream about going into teaching.
It isn’t that I don’t like you Frank. I don’t know anything about you except the fact that I disagree with your views on just about everything. But even more than this, I believe that your views, if put into action, would represent a fundamental threat to everything I hold dear about our system of government and our way of life as Americans. I also believe that you hold many of these views because you have been misinformed, unaware of the facts or simply don’t care. More and more it seems self-evident that you just don’t care. Put it all together and I find no reason to treat you with any degree of respect. Like Duger before you, you are incapable of reasoned debate. Again, your responses here in this thread are self-evident of this. Your claims about the Smith’s story and how it relates to the DOD propaganda efforts are utterly unfounded. When confronted with the facts of the case you simply claimed you made no such assertion. It’s simply unbelievable how far you and guys like Dugger will go to cling to a worldview that has no basis in reality. I don’t hate you Frank, I want to help. If I could once and for all convince you of your basic idiocy I think it would consitute a huge step forward for you personally.
BTW, this story out of Iraq will go a much longer way toward determining the fate of the Iraq war than anything a milblogger might say.
Oh, Gee, Paul, I’ll never live up to your impossibly high standards.
I’m such a fool to disagree with you, the master, or should I say badger, because you cling to a point like one.
If you truly have no respect for me, do us both a favor and ignore me.
This statement, “If I could once and for all convince you of your basic idiocy I think it would consitute a huge step forward for you personally,” is typical of the limitless arrogance that sickens me about you.
I have no problem telling you that I don’t like you. You are truly convinced that there is no right or wrong, there is only frameone’s law: What I say goes. He who disagrees with me is an idiot.
As to “what you hold dear”, I don’t believe you hold anything dear. I think you are perhaps the most self – centered man it has ever been my misfortune to encounter. A world ruled by people such as yourself would be worse than Hobbes’ “nasty, brutish and short.”
You are obviously completely out of touch with anything resembling humanity. Obviously, for you, the argument is the point. You just want to “subjugate your opponent”; you have no real point to make.
More and more it seems self-evident that you just don t care.
Now you’re getting warm, bucko! How important is this bs, anyway?
I tried to tell you that before but you were too rabid to pay attention.
This is BULLSHIT, Paul. Not Parliament. not Meet the Press, this isn’t even College Bowl. This is BULLSHIT.
Calm the fuck down, sissy boy, before you blow a friggin’ fuse!
One more thing: I disagree with your views on just about everything.
I don’t recall you ever agreeing with me about anything. You must be thinking that some day I’ll agree with you about something.
Uh oh, Frank’s been drinking again.
And like most bar rags who have a snootful, they think they whip Mike Tyson.
I meant Frankie.
Before I raised the point, had you any idea who SFC Paul Smith was?
No, but thanks to you, Frank, we all know that he was a man who would most likely still be alive if Dubya and his handlers hadn’t started an illegal, unnecessary war against Iraq. Now what was your f–king point again, Frank?
Oh, that’s right, you didn’t have one. Just taking advantage of another chance to suck off Dear Leader. Were you this hot for Nixon? If so, you’re getting less discriminating with your political johns:
Simple Arithmetic
With this many idiotic true believers around, the DoD shouldn’t have to pay for propaganda.
Ah, yes, Jadegold, the third rat in the cellar…
Actually, Corrigan, we know that SFC Smith died for his country, a brave and selfless act that a big, bald, “french fry” model such as yourself would never have the balls to do.
BTW, I was waiting for you and frameone at at the corner of http://tinyurl.com/d7kud and http://tinyurl.com/anlo5 all day yesterday.
You never showed up. What happened? You had tickets fpr Brokeback Mountain?
BTW, Jademold, it was frameone and Corrigan who issued the challenge to take on all comers. I was mocking them.
You know, mocking? As you mock yourself each time you post .
they think they whip Mike Tyson. What are you, studying Ebonics?
Jerk, get back to work.
And how are you doing gathering that evidence that you went to a military academy?