Why is this news worthy?

www.cnn.com...

The above link is one of the top stories on CNN's website today.

What strikes me is odd, Is that they found it news worthy to present 20 insurgent deaths by the coalition as a major headline.

What was so special about this ?

Why is this headline worthy, yet record number of troops last week being slaughtered was hidden?

This is the governments control over the media at its best.

We've got civil war, us citizens being killed, we're getting no where on Irans nuclear issue, yet.. we find it nessecary to present as many 'positive' facts to the public, hoping to give them that false sense of security that.. well hey maybe we are slowly but surely making headways in iraq.

20 insurgents.. that sounds like a lot...
how baout the 25 American servicemen deaths we've had in october already.

It is digusting that this administration is using the death of 20 IRAQI Citizens, in this war to promote them being elected. If this war was legitimate, justified and the right thing by the people. they wouldnt need to promote there army killing people, the public would already be behind it.



[edit on 8-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]

It's not just the fact they killed 20 insurgents. If they put up news every time an insurgent was killed the news would be full of it. Educated guesses by the United States and the Iraqi government average the Insurgent death toll at 15,000+

It is digusting that this administration is using the death of 20 IRAQI Citizens, in this war to promote them being elected.

Well for starters I think there are a lot more disgusting things to come out of the war. I'd say beheading people with a hunting knife is far more disgusting but hey... that's just my opinion.

These people surrendered their Iraqi citizenship the day they picked up a gun to fight the government. The leaders of Iraq have said pretty simple that the 'freedom fighters' and insurgents are enemies of Iraq.

The story is far more than "yeeee-haw we killed the bad guys!". It's documenting an offensive operation being conducted by coalition forces. They used casualty figures in the headlines. It's not the point of the whole story to inform people that 20 insurgents are dead.

Why is this headline worthy, yet record number of troops last week being slaughtered was hidden?

I'd say that 20 kills with no dead or wounded is more 'slaughter' than placing a bomb on the side of the road and running 2 blocks away.

Shows how these suckers perform when they're faced with man-to-man combat.

20 insurgents.. that sounds like a lot...
how baout the 25 American servicemen deaths we've had in october already.

Well for starters 20 insurgents in one FIREFIGHT is far more impressive than 25 US soliders killed as a result of IED's over a 2 week period.

What's the big deal anyway?... it's not like it's false news. It actually happened and CNN are reporting it. Wake up mate, anti-war reporting isn't the only kind of reporting. God forbid something going well in Iraq that would damage your Anti-US agenda.

But think of how many people are being killed by coalition forces on a daily level...
And its been 8 days, not 2 weeks.. that 25 soilders have been killed..


Yet, these 20 insurgents were news worthy.. nothing major about the operation.. not us were killed..

I think the only reason this has been advertised, is simply more propoganda for the upcoming elections.

Its not a big deal your right.. but things like this report having come common practice... I just shake my head at how quickly mankind has throw its future into the S*T heap.

My bad on the 2 weeks figure. Lost track of time :p Thought it was the 15th hehe

If the US was reporting bias information on Iraq do you think so few people would support it?

I'm just saying that this is the first time (other than Fallujah) that I've actually seen Insurgent casualties reported. If the US really wanted to boost support for the Iraq war they'd have to do alot more than one news report on a whole bunch of insurgents being killed.

I agree though, it does have propaganda value. But you've really got to expect that in a war and mentally prepare yourself to counter it. If this was the USSR, China or North Korea in Iraq... we'd probably get told that 200 troops are dead and get reports of 'glorious victory' every day :p

I don't think this is common practice just yet. I hear of US casualties almost every day and how bad the war is going. Sometimes it makes me think the media is acutally hiding the good stuff as opposed to the bad stuff. Which is true in some cases.

Either side of the war protest using control over the media is plain wrong. I'll agree with you on that. But I don't think we're at that stage yet.

This will be an interesting conversation on ATS Good work on starting the thread and I'm really looking forward to getting the opinions of ATS'ers. For starting up some conversation worthy of alot of input, you get my vote

You have voted Agit8dChop for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Thumbs up to ya mate!

And I agree, this is one of only a handful of times ive seen insurgent reports...
Fallujha, fundly enough was when the US elections were on in 04..
I remember becuase I was in Florida, watching the elections, fallujah and arrafat clogging the headlines.

How about our media start presenting the FACTS, rather than the headlines that benefit upcoming elections for a certain party.

I thought deliberatley maniuplating public media wasnt allowed, especially when a supposid UNBIASED and balanced public affairs programme is meant to be presenting the facts on both sides of the fence, not just the side that benefits a political parties goals.

Fallujha, fundly enough was when the US elections were on in 04..

Touché, April 04. 1,600 Insurgents dead. I actually remember it because it was highly reported lol. Mind you 35 dead US soldiers was also reported but they provided that as a contrast to the 1,600 so I guess if the result of those reports went anyones way it would have been Dubya's.

How about our media start presenting the FACTS, rather than the headlines that benefit upcoming elections for a certain party.

True statement but for the sake of keeping this statement unbiased it applies both ways. Headlines on infowars, prison planet and even the New York times have a history of being deceptive.

But by the same token Fox News and CNN do the same thing for the other side. And let's not go into Al Jazeera lol.

I thought deliberatley maniuplating public media wasnt allowed, especially when a supposid UNBIASED and balanced public affairs programme is meant to be presenting the facts on both sides of the fence, not just the side that benefits a political parties goals.

I fully agree. The case is often a prodominatley unbiased report with a deceptive headline slanting towards one side. How many people walk past a news stand and read the headlines and never buy the paper? Alot. Extremely effective but extremley low tactic for either side.

It has to stop for both sides.

This is a morale issue. Many US soldiers had been killed only a few days into the month of October; reporting insurgent casualties shows that we're not the only ones doing the killing.

As fungi mentioned, it has its propoganda value, but it also has a retributional value.

There is a strong possibility that US casualties (and for all I know, UK too) have been underreported. If they can move someone out of Iraq before they succumb to their wounds.... then the didn't die in Iraq.

There's a thread about it - with some people claiming close knowledge of this practice - here.

In terms of military logistics, if you are alive when you've left the combat zone and die en route to medical treatment, then it is recorded differently than a death which occourred in the combat zone. It doesn't take someone with close knowledge, because it's SOP.

This practice can, and has been, used politically to play down the casualty count, but its core purpose again is logistical, not political.

Anyway, not sure how that fits into this topic.

www.cnn.com...

Another example..

Are we going to get daily updates of the insurgent casualties leading all the way up to the elections?
It will be interesting to see the news AFTER the elections.
What strikes me as obviously over worked in this one are the following..

"The operation netted a "high-value target," who was believed involved in the murder of an Iraqi soldier in August, the military said. "

In august?

So an Iraqi soilder was killed.... amongst the HUNDEREDS that have previously been killed...
And we are stating this in our front page news headlines because we caught the guy whom murdered him?

Id have to think capturing or killing a murder in Iraq.. is something that happens almost every half hour or so...

We dont care that a high value target, whom murdered an iraqi 2-3 MONTHS AGO has been captured..

Then we get this
"Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Sunday that the situation in Iraq "is not as desperate as people think," despite a recent warning from a top Republican U.S. senator."

So, your expected to believe this US placed foreign affairs official, over genernals.. soilders... ex military officials? whom all say its going from bad to worse?
Exactly how is the situation not desperate?
How many bullet ridden bodies does it take per month for you to achnowledge that the situation isnt getting better?
How about 200 bullet ridden bodies, whom show the signs of torture turning up SINCE the end of September..
todays the 9th, so we'll say 12 days.. over 200 bodies...
If you found 16-20 bullet ridden, torutured corpses a DAY in your streets.. would you truley believe that the situation around you wasnt DESPERATE?

Im tending to think the news outlets and the PR bosses are severly under estimating the intellegence of US citizens.
do they really think your going to buy into this hogwash enough to vote for Bush in the upcoming elections?

Or is this just a staged setup..

So when these suspicous voting machine spurt out ANOTHER victory for bush and his cronnies.. you can account it to the surprising positive reports coming out of Iraq in the lead up..

Its like a cheesy movie... I feel insulted as a non political player that another human being on the other side of the planet can so easily think he can dupe my fellow regular citizens.

[edit on 8-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 8-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Are we going to get daily updates of the insurgent casualties leading all the way up to the elections?

You're going to get daily updates of whatever the network deems interesting. Reports come to the networks constantly, they look at what they've got and make a story using whatever criteria determines it.

Id have to think capturing or killing a murder in Iraq.. is something that happens almost every half hour or so...We dont care that a high value target, whom murdered an iraqi 2-3 MONTHS AGO has been captured..

Think again. Most Coalition deaths are due to IEDs, so there's really no one person we're able to catch in many cases.

And I understand the point you're making in regards to news being used as propoganda, but I respectfully suggest that you speak for yourself regarding what "we" care about. The Iraqi death toll is a more sensitive subject for some than it is for others.

So when these suspicous voting machine spurt out ANOTHER victory for bush and his cronnies.. you can account it to the surprising positive reports coming out of Iraq in the lead up..

Bush is gone in 2009, doesn't matter what news gets reported. As to his cronies, I usually don't like to quote polls, but Iraq, the GWOT, and the republican response to the Foley issue, among many other things, have taken their toll on republican popularity, so I don't think things are looking good for 'em. If that's what you're worried about.

Its like a cheesy movie... I feel insulted as a non political player that another human being on the other side of the planet can so easily think he can dupe my fellow regular citizens.

Take a deep breath...and remember to always look outside the box. It really doesn't matter who gets elected president, or to congress, or the senate... you don't get into politics without playing the game, and it's a dirty game. I'd like to think that having some dems in congrol would do some good, at least being the polar opposite of Bush. But they're not. They're just going to use the new powers left by the previous administration to shape the country as they see fit, as will the next administration, and so on, and so on. Democrats will clip off parts of the constitution, and Conservatives will just find nifty ways to bypass it.

Republican, Democrat...they're all snakes in the grass. It's called "two steps forward, one step back". Those in control, whether it's OA, NWO, whatever name you want to call them... they are willing to take all the time they need.

It's good to see that you recognize the media for the propoganda machine that it is, but don't get freaked out by how easily people are swayed. Make a difference where you can; the rest are lost. That's my opinion, anyway.

[edit on 8-10-2006 by Astygia]

What you are seeing is typical shallow media reporting.
As for the story killing insurgents only achieves so much this is something that the media , some military leaders and the Bush admin fail to understand. The war in Iraq is more about winning the hearts and minds of the population and the politics that go with that task.