Yes, a little bit of reading goes a long way... in this case over at Gateway Pundit with a post on the intention of the Iraqis to actually prosecute AP. And as it was late at night I read the comments and was a bit disturbed that someone actually castigates folks for *not* trusting the media and believing in them as they are 'unbiased' in their reporting of casualties! Yes, some poor dear heart has pulled themselves out of the basement they have been in since 1947 and actually was blinking hard at the light of day. But that was broken by the assertions that there is Rightist support for the Shia against the Sunnis. You may have run across this before, but it is news to me. I do understand them in their differences, multivariate and criss-crossing all over other faultlines, and can't really say that, in the end, this will be seen as a purely sectarian tussle. Those lovely assertions on the media... how quaint!
But, when I woke up I realized that this needed a reply on media bias. And so, as usual with all my commentary I have extracted from elsewhere, you get it as I wrote all bleary-eyed and semi-coherent, first cup of coffee not even finished! Unbiased media.... *sigh* are there really such naive souls around as to really believe that?
Dear me! Unbiased media? Really?Just really getting awake by the end, and realized it would not be a great day with the humidity so high, yet again. Of course, it could be worse, as I detest ice storms. But, really, 'unbiased media'? Get that poor soul some sunscreen, a glass of Long Island iced tea and some hours out of the sun. The 21st century takes a bit of getting used to, but one can find it... if they let go of the 20th century first.
Ok, tell me what the #1 cause of violent death in Iraq has been for nearly two years running.
It is something that is completely uncovered by the MSM: Revenge Killings. It is Kurds and Shia Arabs getting revenge on Ba'athist Sunni Arabs. It outpaces sectarian violence *still*, to this day. To report on *that* requires having to go to Iraqi media and looking at the overall figures and seeing that Sunni Arabs are being targeted along multiple paths of which sectarian is just *one* and not even majoritarian! Hit up strategypage.com and start digging, they have reported on that about every 6 months or so when cumulativie statistics are available.
So, why can't the 'unbiased media' report on THAT? It is not telegenic nor is it limited to a few parts of a very few cities. Yes it takes this little thing known as "investigative journalism" to find that and properly report on it in perspective.
Now as to the whole sectarian business: it is *not* the majority of either sect involved in this. Sunni and Shia Arabs are heavily inter-divided WITHIN their sects, the Shia more heavily due to Iraq having been the central point for Shia Islamic learning, so just about EVERY Shia sect in Islam has a few handfuls of followers there if not MORE. Ali al-Sistani has about 60% following within Arab Shia Islam inside Iraq, which makes his faction the largest at 36% of the Nation. The Sadr/Badr/hot-headed Shia's make up about 20% of Arab Shia Islam and that is a following of the break-away Khomeinists in Iran. Even with THAT, it is a minority within that faction that does the actual bombing and killing, so call that 20% hardcore, which would be highly over-representative of all insurgent movements for the past couple of hundred years. So, that gets you the overall support at 12% of the Nation for the faction as a whole and 2.4% for the hot-heads. The rest of the Arab Shia Islamic factions are the highly interdivided minor sectarians and the metro-sectarians and rural tribal sects which want *nothing* to do with Iran or Sadr.
On the Sunni side, by all accounts, Ba'athists were 10% or so of Arabs Sunni with some actual supporters a bit higher than that. Call it 20%. Thus, 4% of the National population. The al Qaeda/Wahhabi/extremist/hot-heads come in around 10% of the Arab Sunni population and they, like their hot headed-counter parts are at most 20% within that. Call tha 1% of the National population due to rounding errors. The other portion are inter-divided similarly, with a metro-sect and dispersed tribal sects that also sub-divides *them*.
Say, where is the 'unbiased media' on these things?
Then there is the whole 'tribal thing' which ZERO percent of the media actually wants to address. I take their unreal 'Realists' to task and ask them why they can't do a proper analysis of Iraq just based on that as it is the DRIVING FORCE of the Nation. The tribes may have started out very wary and anti-American, but a long and hard process to quiet the provinces and bring stability to the majority of the TRIBES has been the major objective ever since the Ba'athists evaporated as a coherent entity in Iraq.
But that sounds like a strategy in Iraq which we are told by the MSM isn't there! Alert the Media!
Oh. What was that about unbiased media and 'fair reporting'?
Then there is the other fact that the media will NOT report on ANY good news, whatsoever, in Iraq. Not only do they NOT put the sectarian violence in perspective just for overall violence in Iraq, in which it is #2, but they then refuse to do ANY reporting on ANYTHING good going on in Iraq. In point of fact the Washington Post did a 'hit piece' on the rebuilding effort, which I put through the lens of someone actually having some experience with government contracting. And I have come to the conclusion that the Washington Post has NO ONE on their staff who understands the actual process of spending Federal Funds. You can NOT have the fund spending rate that the numbers they give demonstrate AND the accusations that they purport *both* be true. So I will trust the entire legal chain in the Federal expenditures process, especially in the DoD over the Washington Post. Once the basis of the article evaporates they are left with 3 year old news. And then we learn that while their 'investigative reporters' went to Iraq, they did not even bother to do any of this thing known as "investigation". That comes out because of a later piece which has those reporters in Iraq co-incident with the worst scandal of the rebuilding and MISSING IT.
So if I can't trust the WaPo to get their home beat right, which IS the Federal Government as their local reporting leaves much to be desired, and they no longer have investigative reporters that know how to investigate, then what they are publishing is not only biased, but misinformed and distorting facts to fit a story.
Then, I add in historical perspective on post-Warism and find that the situation in Iraq is mirroring one that the West and the World has note dealt with for decades and heading on to a century now. Save that it is not *just* Iraq by that historical perspective.
And that, to me, is far more frightening than any mere sectarian violence as it leads to a future that puts the world in a far worse state. Because we will NOT adhere to what it means to be a Nation.
And somehow the media just doesn't report on that... because they are a major contributor to the problem of feeding pap to the populace. But then I do NOT want extra generations with this war. While those blindly following the media, apparently, do.
And you will not find THAT analysis from any media source, as it points up their multi-generational bias in extremis. So that fair and regurgitated pap, can be fed to someone else, tyvm. It rots the brain if you accept it without question and even questioning the news you AGREE with. I do that.
And find the media wholly disagreeable.