Its called a "hook". Get over it.

Theres nothing factually incorrect about the headline. It just requires that you read a.k.a "buy" the story if you want sufficient detail in order to validate its truth. This entire invasion is predicated on lies, distortions and sensationlism. Your a bit late to the game aren't you?

Think of it this way. If more people were able to detect the bullshit surrounding the premises of this illegal occupation before it got off the ground then there wouldn't a sensationalist headline on the subject for you to grumble about now. A stich in time saves nine and brother you're well and truely late.

It just enrages me because things are finally settling down,

Huh? This is the bloodiest month in the last 10 months and things are finally settling down? Its odd that your more enraged by the "sensationlist", yet factual headline about increasing casaulties in the Iraq Occupation than you are about "the increasing number of casualities in the Iraq Occupation".

Has it really become that much of a spectator sport for you? You must be a fox news viewer where battlefied deaths and statistics are reported using sporting jargon and terminlogy as if it were an NFL encounter rather than an ongoing matter of conquest and occupation, life and death. Still as the mid-Western country town hick of a mother said to her newly enlisted cannon fodder private of an offspring...."batter up sonny boy batter up".

Your rage is well misplaced.

Has it really become that much of a spectator sport for you?

Umm, yeah it has, since I am just come from the Army and work as an intelligence analyst. I guess you could classify me as a 'spectator' as I have a professional interest in the outcome. And I work every day to make this country safe. And for six years I wore a green suit every day for my country. And you did what, bigrickstallion? What is your back story?

This entire invasion is predicated on lies, distortions and sensationalism... If more people were able to detect the bullshit surrounding the premises of this illegal occupation before it got off the ground,...

Looks like someone has too much bile in one's system, as well. At least I understand the premise for war, as well as the absolute necessity to leave as soon as it is responsible and proper. We made this mess, we're gonna clean it up.

battlefied deaths and statistics are reported using sporting jargon and terminlogy as if it were an NFL encounter rather than an ongoing matter of conquest and occupation, life and death.

I am very lucky and blessed that many of my friends who went to Iraq came back. I am also sensitive to death in this constantly dangerous landscape. I am also very conscious that many of my friends who are in the 4th Infantry Division are planning to leave this fall for Iraq. And my other friends are in other units who are on their way within the year. So yeah, I understand, buddy. I just don't trust journalists to report the unvarnished truth, instead of spicing it up in order to get click-throughs. I also don't like journalists who amplify the half-truths in order to advance an anti-war agenda.

Still as the mid-Western country town hick of a mother said to her newly enlisted cannon fodder private of an offspring...."batter up sonny boy batter up".

What exactly in the hell are you talking about?

We made this mess,

Amen to that.

singrdave -

As you can see, bigrickstallion has no answer for anything when confronted by someone who has valid reasons to disagree. Some, such as BRS, are simple whiners with nothing else to contribute, devoid of constructive ideas.

Your assessment of the media's bias is dead on. They've decided the war is and was immoral and no facts or broader historical perspective will bother them in the least as they continue their indirect condemnations of America. They have an agenda, and it is not balanced reporting of the news. And it is not just now getting yellow. It's been yellow since the last of the embeds left Iraq.

Cheers,
Daiwa

As you can see, bigrickstallion has no answer for anything when confronted by someone who has valid reasons to disagree

No answer for anything? An answer for what?
Ive already responded to his initial "rage" re journalism. Hacking at the leaves while the leaving the roots in tact does little to remove an unwanted tree.

All he's subsequently said was Ive been to Iraq, Ive done this and Ive done that. Would you rather I personally attack him for that? If anything at least he's put his money where his mouth is and fought for what he believes in unlike many of the ProWar-salute the flag types around here.

They've decided the war is and was immoral and no facts or broader historical perspective will bother them in the least as they continue their indirect condemnations of America

Listen to yourself. You complain the media are not reporting the facts when the basis of this article is a media item reporting the facts.
Seems to me if anyones whining here its you guys. After 2 years of constant Pro-War spin the reality is finally beginnning to set in.
I dunno why your grandstanding for yet more facts when your clearly so boxed in by the facts at hand.

Your already in a hole. My advice is too just stop digging.

the basis of this article is a media item reporting the facts

No, the basis of the article is a media item with a misleading headline that misrepresents the "facts" it contains. And it's just one of thousands focused on selective aspects of the war the media want to report, presented in a slanted fashion. No one can argue the media don't try mightily to influence events, as opposed to reporting them, at least not with a straight face.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Sorry for the double post - a common JU glitch.
Cheers,
Daiwa

No, the basis of the article is a media item with a misleading headline that misrepresents the "facts" it contains.

Well now your just quibbling.

No one can argue the media don't try mightily to influence events, as opposed to reporting them, at least not with a straight face.

Well certainly not me which was the point in my orignal response about singrdaves' misplaced rage. The press is not the problem here. The press may wrangle headlines to sell copy but they are not lying. The facts are that October casualities exceed any other month of the year. That is a more important issue than whether the headline reads right from a ProWar perspective.

Huh? This is the bloodiest month in the last 10 months and

Math is not your strong suit.  That would be 9 months.

Well now your just quibbling.

Our local paper, to its credit, ran the same story with a headline including "since January." At least the headline-skimmers got an accurate impression of the content.

It remains true, however, that the media love the words "bloody" and "bloodiest" and headline them whenever they can. You made a comment earlier about it just being a "hook" - hooks are fine for entertainment, but news should be about facts and events, not "hooks". That's just one of the many problems with the media's mindset.

Cheers,
Daiwa

No, the basis of the article is a media item with a misleading headline that misrepresents the "facts" it contains.

Well now your just quibbling... The press is not the problem here.

Daiwa was right, my friend Big Rick. However you wanted to read the article, you may or may not have noticed that the title of the article was that 'Iraq Journalism' is 'Getting Yellow'. Not that Iraq is or isn't a bloody mess, though I am glad the article spurred some debate over the validity of the war. I was commenting on the media's attempts to spin Iraq events to draw attention to their own coverage. Back in the day, it was called "Yellow Journalism". Remember "Remember the Maine"?

The press may wrangle headlines to sell copy but they are not lying.

That is also my point. I am not accusing them of lying per se, but rather having a predisposition

to report the unvarnished truth, instead of spicing it up in order to get click-throughs. I also don't like journalists who amplify the half-truths in order to advance an anti-war agenda.

And for the record, I did not say I had been to Iraq. My unit went to Iraq, I have friends who are in Iraq currently, but I have not gone to any "forward location". I was truly blessed to still fight the war as an intel person while coming home every night to family and my own bed.

That is also my point. I am not accusing them of lying per se, but rather having a predisposition

After Jason Blair, they are getting gun shy about lying.  However, as the headlines you point out prove, they have an agenda, and will distort the news to forward that agenda.

After Jason Blair, they are getting gun shy about lying.

One would hope that the media has always been hesitant to lie. But sadly that is not the case...

What if I put as a headline:

SINGLE-DAY FRIENDLY FIRE INCIDENT HIGHEST FOR US

You honestly would think what, exactly?






Then the text disclaims that "the death of the two Marines Thursday killed in the friendly fire incident outside Fallujah was the US's deadliest since last Tuesday, when three Army intelligence analysts were killed in a chow hall fight..."

Misleading headline?

Misleading headline?

MSM Agenda.