« The Machine vs. Grassroots | Main | Sexy Tuesdays? »

August 14, 2007

Who's driving the MSM?

I constantly hear harping by those on the right of the "liberal mainstream media". A charge I have never believe for a millisecond.
Why don't we pull the curtain back and take a closer look at the machinery? Then you can all make up your own minds about who's doing the driving.

Let's take the story of Private Beauchamp that went from the somewhat obscure New Republic to the pages of the WSJ in less than a month as an example.

The right wing "blogosmear" (as my friend Hart refers to it) has been pushing this story in an attempt to discredit The New Republic's "Baghdad Diarist" since recent revelations in the Pat Tillman story and the recent convictions of U.S. troops for the rape and murder of a 14 year old Iraqi girl (and her entire family), and the murders in Haditha have thrust military misconduct into an uncomfortable spotlight.

For a more complete background I urge you to visit The Democratic Daily's well researched series on the Beauchamp story. "The Carolina Fabulist" is only the latest installment. You should read the earlier pieces as well.

It shows an interesting trail from Army Command in Iraq, through RW blogger Michael Goldfarb, through far to many RW blogs to be coincidental, all the way to The Wall Street Journal.
It makes for a fascinating, if somewhat chilling read.

My personal view: A long time ago (about 38 years) I experienced daily life under combat conditions in Vietnam. I remember the toll the constant stress of being at risk took on my own psyche. The stories Beauchamp tells of what he saw in Kuwait and Iraq (ridiculing a disfigured woman, deliberately running over dogs with an APC, wearing the skull of a dead child in Halloween-like gallows humor) are both consistent and relatively mild compared with my own experience. While some are claiming "American troops wouldn't act so", some Marines are being convicted of rape and murder. The issue has been raised of not only lying about Pat Tillman, but the possibility that he was fragged by one of his own.

So I will ask the next question. What makes neo-con "pundits" (and I use the term VERY loosely) such "experts" on human behavior under combat conditions? How many of them actually SERVED in combat? How many of them went through their daily routine wondering if every breath might be their last? Because if they are not comparing the present situation to their own past experience, then who's agenda are they putting forward?

Mac

Posted by Mac at August 14, 2007 12:14 PM