> RoMunn wrote: > 1. What do you see as the purpose of ongoing criticism of the war?
The same purpose as ongoing criticism of anything - to weed out bad ideas, policy, and practices. > 2. What do you make of reports from soliders that things are much different > "on the ground" than news reports show? What "news reports" are the soldiers watching? Reports from soldiers are one source, but then there are facts such as the fact that electricity service is worse today than it has ever been. Or that there are more deaths today than there have ever been. Or the reporter who was on patrol with an Iraqi squad and one of them asked her to help carry his gun because it was "too heavy". If you form your opinion from multiple sources, you're likely to be close to the truth. > 3. What do you see in the varying degrees of similarity or difference in > reporting on the war from military commanders, politicians, and the media? In general the first 2 are the same. Any commander that would like to be promoted, or not demoted, will parrot exactly what the civilian leadership in the Pentagon is saying. Here are some ridiculous classics: "we don't need more troops" "we control the borders" "mission accomplished" And then by "media" you could mean anything. I've gotten extremely accurate reporting from my media which is: The WSJ, The Economist, Washington Week, The News Hour, The McLaughlin Group, and Hardball. All of these sources incorporate embedded reporters, soldiers, local reporters, citizens, and SMEs. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:200694 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
