We Report (bad news only) You Decide (to quit reading)
Last week I decided that I could no longer subscribe to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. My decision was heavily influenced by an atrocious editorial that appeared in the paper on Condi Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. I called it the last straw. Earlier in that week another straw was the bold faced headline that the paper ran over the fold after the fighting in Ramadi:
TWELVE MARINES SLAIN
As others have already noted, the headline said nothing about the results of the fighting or the casualties that the Marines inflicted on the insurgents. And the word slain seemed like a grossly inappropriate way to describe the combat deaths of the Marines. Slain would indicate that they were helpless victims rather than combatants who had fallen on the field of battle.
This week the situation in Iraq seems to have stabilized. Coalition forces have retaken control of most of the areas that were lost last week, and as this New York Times story on fighting in Falluja on Tuesday spells out, the Marines are cleaning house there:
American forces killed more than 100 insurgents on Tuesday in close combat in a small village in central Iraq, Marine commanders said Wednesday.
The battle, classic urban combat that raged for 14 hours, was one of the heaviest engagements since the invasion of Iraq last year. It showed not only the intensity of the resistance but an acute willingness among insurgents to die.
"A lot of these guys were souped up on jihad," said Lt. Col. B. P. McCoy, commander of the Fourth Battalion, Third Marines. "They might as well been suicide fighters."
Marines fought house to house, roof to roof, doorway to doorway. They repelled attacks of machine-gun fire, volleys of rockets and repeated charges by masked fighters, Colonel McCoy said. Two marines were shot but their injuries were not life-threatening.
Anyone with even a bare knowledge of military history would recognize just how impressive this is. The idea that you could undertake offensive urban combat on the other guy's turf, kill one hundred of the bad guys, and suffer two wounded is almost unbelievable. Recall that when the Russians were fighting the Chechens in Groznyy they suffered thousands of casualties. And they were not shy about using whatever firepower they had available. While the Marines have been getting some support from helicopter gunships and AC-130s, for the most part they have not taken advantage of the overwhelming U.S. airpower available in order to avoid civilian casualties.
The fighting is mostly small squad action using machine guns, mortars, and snipers. The Marines are not blowing the insurgents away with shock and awe, they're systematically and methodically shrinking their area of control and killing many of them in the process. While suffering very few casualties of their own. This is a tremendous story and is good news.
Which is probably why the story never graced the pages of the Star Tribune. Last night at Keegan's, after yet another trivia victory, we were discussing this subject and I declared that I was waiting for the Strib headline that blared:
One Hundred Insurgents Killed
A friend said it was much more likely that the headline would be:
Two Marines Wounded
And he's undoubtedly correct. Yet another reason to cancel the paper. And while we're on the subject lets take a few more e-mails on it.
From Steve in Newbury Park, CA:
I moved to CA from MN years ago and I read the Pioneer Press on the Web, mostly for the sports. In general, I avoid the Red Star but I'll occasionally gander at the oped page if there's a news item that I suspect has got the editorial board all worked up and I'm curious to see the spin and talking points. I can't imagine being a subscriber if I still lived there, especially after 9/11.
The same is true out here. I know lots of people who have dropped the LA Times because of its slanted coverage - my cancellation predates 9/11. The LA Times is a much superior paper to the Strib - they've got the resources - but they just refuse to do the news straight.
And Mark in St. Paul:
I never take the local papers -- I do all my newspaper reading online -- but I cancelled the remainder of my 2 year Newsweek subscription last fall when they basically started factually misrepresenting and spinning Iraq in every possible negative way.
I was so disgusted by the tone of the magazine -- self-righteous, 'I-told-you-so' defeatism. Ending my subscription to Newsweek instantly made my life better. I'll take the more balanced, and frankly, better written editorial and news tone of the Economist any day of the week.
As a fellow subscriber to the Economist I could not agree more.
Craig weighs in:
i dropped the star and sickle years ago after they ran an article, front page above the fold, "mortgage interest deductions are a tax break for the rich". i guess only rich people own houses here in MN. which makes one wonder why some don't build bigger houses since they are rich?
not only should mainstream media not be patronized, the current advertisers need to hear that you won't buy their products because they facilitate propaganda campaigns of the left. it is the only way to overhaul the system.
And don't forget patronizing those advertisers who support the voices of the right. You do want to make sure your sidewalls are turned up right don't you?
No comments:
Post a Comment