Some US troops question Woodruff coverage

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060131-041958-8164r

The American media stood up and took notice when an improvised explosive device grievously injured an ABC News crew Sunday.

In Iraq, and throughout the military, there is sympathy and concern for anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt, but there is also this question:

"Why do you think this is such a huge story?" wrote an officer stationed in Baqubah, Iraq, Monday via e-mail. "It's a bit stunning to us over here how absolutely dominant the story is on every network and front page. I mean, you'd think we lost the entire 1st Marine Division or something.

"There's a lot of grumbling from guys at all ranks about it. That's a really impolite and impolitic thing to say ... but it's what you would hear over here."

[PDJane]

1. and frankly......

it doesn't surprise me in the least.

[cantstandbush]

33. Troops need to take it up with the administration that allows little or no

coverage of either dead or maimed military. It would just be too many 'negative' stories coming out of Iraq. They need to face the fact that they are fighting and illegal war for a lying, evil administration that cares only about oil and Israel under the guise of "spreading democracy and freedom and fighting terrorism." Wake up soldiers!

[Erika]

2. We have thousands of these injuries by our troops

See at www.icasualties.org

The war is hidden from us in most cases.

[Delphinus]

19. Yes, it sure is hidden.

I watched a movie last night, "Why We Fight", and it talked about this very thing. After Vietnam, they looked at ways to make sure the American public never saw the true cost of war again. That's why we have to go to news from another country to get the truth.

[Straight Shooter]

3. I will take the opposite position and say the coverage is a good thing.

People are just not aware of how many serious head injuries are occurring to our troops, nor the devastating effects that these women and men will live with for the rest of their lives, along with their families who must take care of them.

I want to see a lot of coverage of this issue, and I want doctors explaining with great specificity what is involved with a head injury, and how many head injuries our troops are sustaining. I really don't see this as an issue of Woodruff and the cameraman being more important, but certainly Woodruff has celebrity status and naturally the media will focus on someone well-known.

[DemonFighterLives]

4. I can really see your point

I feel sorry for the servicemen's plight and it may not be fair, but if it raises awareness, it is a good thing.

[RamboLiberal]

5. I'm with you on that - this story is bringing home what happens

to our troops. I've actually heard them mention number of casualties from IED's - near 10,000. And it's brought it home to the media as well how dangerous Iraq remains.

[dweller]

7. "naturally the media will focus on someone well-known"

or, naturally the media will focus on some of their own" ?

more likely the second. The media is no more. 2245 on a T-shirt will get you arrested, since it's really #1 anyone is concerned with, no?
dp

[bettyellen]

10. the media is not allowed to see or talk to injured soldiers

let alone dead ones. blame your bosses, soldiers.
america has no clue, it would be too "radical" to give a fuck what's going on over there.

[saigon68]

17. The pentagon has this Image of WAR

Rather than this




They don't want the public to see it the way it is.

[salin]

13. access to Woodruff, and little access (ie prevention by Pentagon)

to the military wounded. It isn't that Woodruff is more important - it is that the Pentagon blocks serious coverage of injured servicemen in an effort to prevent folks back home from seeing the realities of the war, and possibly (further) eroding support for the war. It isn't a media issue (in terms of choice of coverage) it is a Pentagon/Bush admin PR issue.

Those folks in the service complaining -have every right to do so - but they need to point the complaints at the source of the problem.

[Straight Shooter]

29. True. Everything you say is true.

But if any good can come of Woodruff being harmed so severely, let it be a door opening to the truth of what's going on in Iraq in terms of head injuries.

(Incidentally, not aimed at you but aimed at coverage of this invasion/war, I don't like the term "injuries." In many cases the correct term should be "maimed," not "injured." Gives Americans a false impression of how serious these wounds are.)

[saigon68]

32. Here is the Maimed

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/24/2476/F7

[Straight Shooter]

35. There you have it.

This is what the people don't get when they hear "injury."

The New Yorker had a great article on soldiers who had lost limbs. Beautiful photography of those who were now wearing prosthetics and trying to live a normal life, whatever that is anymore in the U.S. But none of the photos were of head injury victims. Why? Because Americans don't want to see someone with a vacant stare and part of their head blown off with reconstruction attempts to make up for what's missing now.

War is hell. What part of h-e-l-l don't they understand?

[salin]

38. Excellent point

per "wounded and injured" and the word's power to mask and minimize the permanance and severity of the "injuries."

[Raine]

39. I think the coverage is a good thing too

People identify with a guy they see everyday on their TVs so I think it will really hit home more with them and (hopefully) make them think.

[Barrett808]

6. "Take it up with the Pentagon"

"Take it up with the Pentagon"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2076431

CALLER: Hello, my question is for the panel this evening. The first thing I want to say is I want to commend President Bush and all of the United States military on all of the hard work and success that we've had with the war against terrorism in Iraq.

And my question is, why are the civilian reporters given more media attention than the American soldiers who are the everyday heroes that are wounded on a daily basis?

...

LOGAN: Well, I just want to say that Christiane is absolutely right, and on top of that there's a real irony in that caller's question. Because it's the military themselves that pressure us not to keep reporting the deaths of soldiers, not to focus on the deaths of soldiers and Iraqis ever single day in this conflict.

They tell us you don't tell the good news, you don't show the schools that are opening, you don't do this, you don't do that, why are you always focusing on the death?

And you try and say to them, it's because as a reporter I just feel like every time somebody else dies, I have a responsibility to make sure that death wasn't in vain. That somehow, in some way, it's acknowledged.

KING: So the lady from Ohio should take it up with the Pentagon.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/30/lkl.01.html

[fooj]

8. I heard it live. Logan was spot on!

Peace.

[DoctorMyEyes]

11. Thanks for posting that

The problem lies as much, if not more with the Pentagon as it does with the "media". I'm glad a caller got through with that question, because we need to be reminded of the answer.

[Charlie Brown]

9. It is impolite

Woodruff is a public face and it's only natural that his incident would garner more attention from the press.

I try not to criticize the soldiers but their reaction to the press over this seems extremely petty to me. Woodruff's wounding warrants as much attention as any other victim's plight.

He is a human being, too.

[EFerrari]

12. I think the larger point here is, in addition to objectifying

"the enemy" our troops are also objectified in this situation. Witness how little coverage the wounded get unless some politician wants a photo op?

Woodruff is of course a public figure and your point is well taken. Had he been an anonymous body in a uniform, this incident would have been a two second bleep.

[leftchick]

14. this really is a BS article

First they scream because the media does not report the "good news". Then Pentagon clamps down on reports of soldiers killed and wounded. Then they scream when a fomous person gets injured. You can't have it both ways. Take it up with rummy.

[saigon68]

15. The Troops volunteered to enlist

Suck it up boys. Quit complaining

Wait til you get back and find most people don't give a SHIT

[leftchick]

20. crocodile tears from a "senior military officer"

No doubt from the same bunch screaming for "good news"..


<snip>
"The point that is currently being made (is that) that press folks are more important than mere military folks," a senior military officer told UPI Tuesday.

[saigon68]

21. Morning LC

Same old stuff again eh ?

[leftchick]

22. yes indeed.

good morning saigon...

more of the same....

[UpInArms]

31. WP:Curtains Ordered for Media Coverage of Returning Coffins

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55816-2003Oct20?language=printer

Tuesday, October 21, 2003; Page A23

Since the end of the Vietnam War, presidents have worried that their military actions would lose support once the public glimpsed the remains of U.S. soldiers arriving at air bases in flag-draped caskets.

To this problem, the Bush administration has found a simple solution: It has ended the public dissemination of such images by banning news coverage and photography of dead soldiers' homecomings on all military bases.

In March, on the eve of the Iraq war, a directive arrived from the Pentagon at U.S. military bases. "There will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Ramstein airbase or Dover base, to include interim stops," the Defense Department said, referring to the major ports for the returning remains.

A Pentagon spokeswoman said the military-wide policy actually dates from about November 2000 -- the last days of the Clinton administration -- but it apparently went unheeded and unenforced, as images of caskets returning from the Afghanistan war appeared on television broadcasts and in newspapers until early this year. Though Dover Air Force Base, which has the military's largest mortuary, has had restrictions for 12 years, others "may not have been familiar with the policy," the spokeswoman said. This year, "we've really tried to enforce it."

President Bush's opponents say he is trying to keep the spotlight off the fatalities in Iraq. "This administration manipulates information and takes great care to manage events, and sometimes that goes too far," said Joe Lockhart, who as White House press secretary joined President Bill Clinton at several ceremonies for returning remains. "For them to sit there and make a political decision because this hurts them politically -- I'm outraged."

...more...

[TriMetFan]

16. Americans are getting to hear that the war is not doing so good.

So for the first time let these morons play this story over and over again.

[0007]

18. Why these two?

A professor at American University's School of Communication said, "When you see the kind of coverage this story is getting it draws attention to the lack of coverage that hundreds of cases don't get."

[Harper_is_Bush]

23. So now they are grumbling that the media isn't covering the bad news more?

Can't win.

[Bridget Burke]

24. Written by the UPI's Pentagon Correspondent....

She got an e-mail from an officer in Iraq. And she talked to some anonymous military "spokesmen." Surely she'll be going to Iraq for detailed coverage of our military casualties? The article ends with a list of soldiers killed in a week--but the military do not release information on the wounded. No doubt some were wounded as grievously as Woodruff & Vogt--surely she'll be on the story! Surely her PR pals will give her full access!

Of course the media cover this story--Woodruff & Vogt are their friends & co-workers. Anyone decent laments the wounded & the dead, but we feel it more strongly when someone we know is a victim.

The answer is not less coverage of Woodruff & Vogt, but more coverage of our military casualties. However, the result might be even more Americans turning against the war. I'm sure it won't be allowed.

[pearl]

26. This is pure propaganda

straight from Rummy. What happens if the press gets
blown up on the way to report all the good news?
This is not a story from real soldiers, its straight from
the pentagon pr office.

[LizW]

25. ABC just did a good piece interviewing the Drs in Iraq

Diane Sawyer, although I can't stand her, did a good job. She was genuinely appreciative and almost seemed emotional thanking the Drs.

Now if ABC will just step up and cover the similar and very numerous injuries that have happened to our soldiers and marines. It will be a travesty if they cover Woodruff and Vogt's recoveries without mentioning that there are thousands like them fighting to recover from the same kinds of devastating wounds.

[melissinha]

27. it exposes the media's self-serving ways

How many stories of infured and dead soldiers have been covered by this media? They only really care about their own... sure they sent Woodruff out there, but how about the reporting that he was doing??? Where is that???

[Libby2]

28. As was said on LK

contact the pentagon.

[gratuitous]

30. Am I understanding this correctly?

Reporting on Woodruff and Vogt hurts the troops' morale? Is that what I'm taking from this story?

It's all so confusing! I hope the RNC blast fax can straighten this out before I'm forced to engage my brain and actually think about stuff. 'Cause I don't like to think about stuff. I like to be told stuff, but not think about stuff.

[NativeTexan]

34. I am right there with 'em.....

....I am sorry for the injuries, but this wasn't the death of a national leader or something! And we only get to hear about the deaths of soldier heroes as just another daily factoid about Iraq

[Bridget Burke]

36. The government suppresses reporting about military casualties.

We aren't allowed to see coffins arriving in the USA. There is NO coverage like that many of us remember from Vietnam--don't want Mr & Mrs America seeing bleeding soldiers on the evening news. Deaths are reported, but injuries aren't.

[wordpix2]

37. the officer needs to know that M$M are only concerned with their own

and corporate profits---not with the troops shedding blood so the corporate execs can drive their gas guzzlers and heat their McMansions.