« Baldfaced Insults And Mental Sloth | Main | Whither Condi, Part III »
February 11, 2007
What's Your Idea Of Doom?
A story in yesterday's Houston Chronicle bore the headline:
New U.S. commander warns of doom for Iraq
And the body of the story continued:
BAGHDAD, Iraq — The new U.S. commander in Iraq warned today that the country was "doomed to continued violence and civil strife" if American and Iraqi forces did not work together.
I guess it's a small thing, but does anyone agree with me that there's a disconnect between the outcome implied by the headline and general's exact words? To me, "doom for Iraq" conjures up images of a complete breakdown of all civil government combined with complete anarchy dominated by factional thuggery. In other words, a cessation of the idea of Iraq as a sovereign country.
Now I realize that there is partial breakdown of some civil government and some degree of violent factional thuggery. But there is also no doubt that a lot of normal day-to-day activities are ongoing. And I also contend that "continued violence and civil strife" doesn't equate to the "doom" that the legacy media headline writers are touting.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.thebernoullieffect.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/742
Comments
In reading the article you reference, I see some other notable quotes that tell a vastly different story than the headline bears:
“The way ahead will be hard, and there undoubtedly will be many tough days. But as I recently told members of the U.S. Senate, hard is not hopeless”
“These tasks are achievable. This mission is doable”
“I go away with great feeling of pride because we've laid the foundation for Iraq's ultimate success”
In this article, there was a plethora of quoted material, all of which had the tenor of the quotes above. The only mention of “doom” was a passing notion that if Iraqis will not rise to the occasion, which would not be in their best interest, then and only then will there be the “doom” so prominently headlined. General Petraeus seems confident that this will not happen.
The AP seems more in line with al-Jazeera than ever before. There is a definite agenda here and it most certainly is not victory for the United States.
Posted by: The Bad at February 11, 2007 05:21 PM
Yeah, The Bad, that's all fine and good. But I think we call all agree that "Good Chance For Success In Iraq If Forces Work Together" just doesn't sell papers these days.
And it's all about selling more papers.
Oh wait, maybe it's all about reporting the news and what actually happened...
... now I'm confused.
Posted by: Jim Voigt at February 26, 2007 02:01 PM
Oh wait, maybe it's all about reporting the news and what actually happened...
I may not know much but one thing I do know: it's not about reporting what actually happened. "Progressives" see journalism, as well as public education, as agents of social change. What a crock of horsecrap.
Posted by: Jeff at February 27, 2007 12:06 AM
