Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Propaganda hacks

I have tried to be a good boy, but I felt particularly low and mean yesterday and visited Daily Pundit, Bill Quick's daily summary of all things incoherent.

His New Year's Eve text was the way MSM covered the 3,000th death of a U.S. soldier in Iraq. Quick surveyed the vast range of thousands of international newspaper and broadcast outlets and found nine that somewhere in their coverage used the phrase "grim milestone" to describe the death total. His conclusion: "Another Carnival of Originality brought to you by the propaganda hacks of the mainstream media."

Sure enough, if you enter "grim milestone" into Google, you get more than 600,000 hits. But if you enter "propaganda hacks," you get 1.3 million hits -- and two of the first three come from Daily Pundit. And those two don't include yesterday's entry.

Hacks of the world, unite. You have nothing to lose but your cliches.

4 comments:

Mark Tokarski said...

Mainstream media is not comprised of "propaganda hacks". That's a low-level Pentagon position. MSM is comprised of servants to power, or stenographers, to quote Barsamian. So there.

Mark said...

I don't think that modern America quite understands the relevance of the numbers. 3000 casualties in 5 years is amazingly low. We lost 7000 men on D-day. We lose 3620 people PER MONTH in the USA to car wrecks. You and the rest of the media should stop making it sound so much worse than it is.

-the other Mark

David said...

The other Mark,
I guess I don't understand your point. Those casualty figures are indeed low, provided they are payment toward the price of winning the war. But if our war strategy is counterproductive, then even one casualty is a waste. On D-Day, we suffered 6,600 casualties (including 1,465 dead) and effectively won the war. How close have soldiers' deaths brought us to winning the war in Iraq?

Note on casualties: It's 3,000 dead and some 20,000 wounded. Some observers have noted that because so many of the wounded now survive, the death total would have been substantially higher with the medical care available in earlier wars.

Eric said...

I think you both have valid points.

I want to see us win, not for our troops to be policemen-in-perpetuity.

I agree that 3000 casualties in 5 years is amazingly low for a war.

Exactly what do auto fatalities have to do with war casualties though?

It's not in the same ballpark, unless you think that the media is paying too much attention to 3,000 deaths over 5 years, instead of 200,000 plus auto-related casualties over the same time period.