"UK forces suffer 100th Iraq death" Media celebrates!

[Darat]

OK slightly over the top but it's really peeved me off, the media has been waiting for this for months - a nice round figure that somehow means it's time to run a load of features and articles! :mad:

Whats the betting most of them had the articles ready , time-lines ready to roll out and the like?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/4665020.stm

We'll also ignore the rather inconvenient fact that 23 of these deaths were from "non-combat" injuries, which includes all those accidents that unfortunately could happen anywhere in the UK army.

But then 77 isn't such a "symbolic" number.

[Ryokan]

Would you rather the media ignore British casualties?

Wether you support the cause or not, give a thought to the men and women who died in a foreign country, far from their home and loved ones.

[Darat]

What I would rather do is for them is not be so calculating and callous in generating their headlines by using the misery of others.

This is to me an example of how the media uses misery, suffering etc. as nothing more then a commodity.

[Ryokan]

The media sells news. This is nothing new.

[Ed]

The media sells news. This is nothing new.

The media sells words which may or may not be news. They have the power to change those words into news though.

[NeilC]

It's new in the sense that another young man's life has been taken whilst fighting a political war for reasons that are unclear to most people.

I dunno about you but I would not go and fight. Nor would I let my kids go.

The media are not making money from misery, they are reporting reality. 100 is a watershed number psychologically.

[Bluegill]

What I would rather do is for them is not be so calculating and callous in generating their headlines by using the misery of others.

This is to me an example of how the media uses misery, suffering etc. as nothing more then a commodity.

But if they use really spiffy cgi graphics for the floating headline next to the news anchor's head, we can ignore the calculatingness and callousness because it looks sweetly professional. "OUR 1OOTH FATALITY: A nation mourns" ...that sort of thing, superimposed in white over a fluttering flag, with a jazzy snare drum tapping in the background.

[Darat]

The media sells news. This is nothing new.

Oh I know it's nothing new but actually what they are doing here is manufacturing so-called news.

[Ziggurat]

It's new in the sense that another young man's life has been taken whilst fighting a political war for reasons that are unclear to most people.

I dunno about you but I would not go and fight. Nor would I let my kids go.

Granted I don't know for sure how things are done in the UK, but in the US at least, you can't join the army until you're an adult, which means that it's not the parent's decision any more. You aren't legally entitled to not "let" your kids go, any more than you could make them go: it's their choice, not yours.

And in terms of the decision to serve, well, if you can't figure out why someone would want to participate in this war I can't really help you here. But I would like to point out that US army re-enlistment numbers are higher than they've been in a long time, and they're highest for units which have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. So not only are young men signing up for a reason, the actual service is confirming that decision for a lot of them.

[Mark]

"Support the Troops" by ignoring the casualties!

[richardm]

Granted I don't know for sure how things are done in the UK, but in the US at least, you can't join the army until you're an adult, which means that it's not the parent's decision any more. You aren't legally entitled to not "let" your kids go, any more than you could make them go: it's their choice, not yours.

In the UK you can join up at the age of 16. I believe that as a result of length of training they tend not to send you into active service until you're 17. But still, the age of majority is 18.

The army keeps getting dirty looks about it, but nothing happens.

Of course once you've signed on the dotted line then it's out of the parents' hands anyway.

[Ziggurat]

In the UK you can join up at the age of 16. I believe that as a result of length of training they tend not to send you into active service until you're 17. But still, the age of majority is 18.

The army keeps getting dirty looks about it, but nothing happens.

Of course once you've signed on the dotted line then it's out of the parents' hands anyway.

The US used to have a slightly similar problem, in that the voting age was 21 even though you could enlist or (more significantly at the time) be drafted at 18. With all the turmoil over Vietnam, and the issue of being drafted while not having the vote, they dropped the voting age to 18. That was the right thing to do, and I think even a lot of people who supported the war recognized that. I can't say that I like the idea of being able to sign up when you're not 18 (though it's not as problematic as being drafted when you can't vote), but the problem I see is the age requirement being too low, not that it's the enlistee and not their parent who gets to decide.

[Cylinder]

I can't say that I like the idea of being able to sign up when you're not 18 (though it's not as problematic as being drafted when you can't vote), but the problem I see is the age requirement being too low, not that it's the enlistee and not their parent who gets to decide.

I'm not certain that I understand that last part correctly and it doesn't really change the substance of your argument, but enlistment under the age of 18 requires parental consent:

10 USC 505(a) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000505----000-.html)

The Secretary concerned may accept original enlistments in the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, Regular Marine Corps, or Regular Coast Guard, as the case may be, of qualified, effective, and able-bodied persons who are not less than seventeen years of age nor more than thirty-five years of age. However, no person under eighteen years of age may be originally enlisted without the written consent of his parent or guardian, if he has a parent or guardian entitled to his custody and control.

I agree with the policy that allows 17-year-olds to enlist provided parental consent is given and that a high school diploma or equivalent is required. Parental consent should be required because of the legal and social issues involved with parental rights and informed consent and the high school diploma question helps answer a few questions in mind mind regarding quality of service, promoting education and promoting higher educational opportunities rather than subsidizing the failure of those institutions.

Edit: There is an emancipation clause in the statute which is OK with me as well, since that requires a judges to promote a minor to majority status.

[New Ager]

I like this quote from the article....

George Galloway MP, who wants all troops to be withdrawn from Iraq, said the latest casualty showed the "full disastrous consequences" of the war.

(New Ager)

People dying in a war is disastrous consequences??!?! I guess every war had disastrous consequences then.

In fact, people die in automobiles and in bathtubs. Do they have disastrous consequences?

How come liberals are shocked that people die in wars?

(Splossy)

It's new in the sense that another young man's life has been taken whilst fighting a political war for reasons that are unclear to most people.

(New Ager)

Only to liberals. The reason for the 100th time is that Iraq violated UN Sanctions.

Hey, maybe that could be a headline. "Liberals don't understand reason for war after being told 100 times"

LOL!!

[New Ager]

(Ryokan)

Would you rather the media ignore British casualties?
Wether you support the cause or not, give a thought to the men and women who died in a foreign country, far from their home and loved ones.

(New Ager)

I would rather the media not use the deaths of brave men as a political tool to bash people who policies they disagree with.

(Mark)

"Support the Troops" by ignoring the casualties!

(New Ager)

"Support the Troops" by making headlines for political gain based on their death.

[Ryokan]

How come liberals are shocked that people die in wars?

Hey, maybe that could be a headline. "Liberals don't understand reason for war after being told 100 times"

LOL!!

I'm a hardcore die-hard liberal.

I've been to war.

Have you?

[Mark]

(Ryokan)


(New Ager)

"Support the Troops" by making headlines for political gain based on their death.

Bush and the Republicans are the ones making political gain bytheir deaths. Duh.

[NeilC]

(Splossy)

It's new in the sense that another young man's life has been taken whilst fighting a political war for reasons that are unclear to most people.

(New Ager)

Only to liberals. The reason for the 100th time is that Iraq violated UN Sanctions.

Hey, maybe that could be a headline. "Liberals don't understand reason for war after being told 100 times"

LOL!!

Really? We were told by our PM that it was because he was developing weapons of mass destruction that could hit us in 20 minutes. That turned out to be a lie of course. He were also told it was to "help the people of iraq". I didn't believe it not did I want to help anyone. We don't go to war with other UN policy breakers. The rest of the world didn't deem it serious enough to wage war. And we broke with the UN's view by going to war. We didn't go to Rwanda to stop the genocide. So the reasons are, as I said, unclear. And bear in mind that polls show that over 50% of the UK public don't want to be there and it is unlikely that they are all liberals. I'm a tory voting, pro immigration-control, pro low-tax, anti welfare-state mostly right-winger. But I don't believe Blair or Dushand I don't want billions spent on war in some god forsaken country that has nothing to do with me.

I don't think anyone is shocked people die in wars. But that doesn't mean they like it either.

It seems odd to suggest that the press should desist from reporting the deaths of soldiers in Iraq. Especially when the war there is so controversial, with supposedly the majority of the UK public saying we shouldn't be there. I don't see how it's down to liberal media "using death" - they are reporting a fact. Peope are dying. And I would add: for what exactly?

No doubt you'd rather they hushed it up.

[Darat]

Just in case anyone was interested my point was not about the war but how the media manufacture the "news" with scant regard to the truth.

I wonder - if you ask people in the UK tomorrow how many soldiers have been killed in combat in Iraq how many will now say 100? (The figure is in fact 77)

I'd go so strong as to say the media for a sake of "nice" number are lying to the public.

[Mark]

Just in case anyone was interested my point was not about the war but how the media manufacture the "news" with scant regard to the truth.

I wonder - if you ask people in the UK tomorrow how many soldiers have been killed in combat in Iraq how many will now say 100? (The figure is in fact 77)

I'd go so strong as to say the media for a sake of "nice" number are lying to the public.

Can't speak for the Beeb, but the U.S. media have largely behaved like unpaid hacks for the war effort. Although they have, of late, started to do their jobs again, for the most part (there are exceptions, of course) they have been little more than a propaganda wing for the Republican Party.

[NeilC]

Just in case anyone was interested my point was not about the war but how the media manufacture the "news" with scant regard to the truth.

I wonder - if you ask people in the UK tomorrow how many soldiers have been killed in combat in Iraq how many will now say 100? (The figure is in fact 77)

I'd go so strong as to say the media for a sake of "nice" number are lying to the public.

And if you ask them how many soldiers in Iraq they would also say 100. They are not being lied to. They just don't read very carefully. If you didn't report it then that would be tantamount to lying.

Just what is your point? That people should read more carefully? That people are too stupid to be told the truth? That people should desist from attaching importance to round numbers?

[Darat]

And if you ask them how many soldiers in Iraq they would also say 100. They are not being lied to. They just don't read very carefully. If you didn't report it then that would be tantamount to lying.

Just what is your point? That people should read more carefully? That people are too stupid to be told the truth? That people should desist from attaching importance to round numbers?

See my opening post and my subsequent posts in this thread for what my point is.

[NeilC]

I did and they've been well refuted. All I'm left with is that you are peeved.

[Darat]

I did and they've been well refuted. All I'm left with is that you are peeved.


Care to point out which posts refuted the points I made in my posts?

[Ziggurat]

Can't speak for the Beeb, but the U.S. media have largely behaved like unpaid hacks for the war effort.

I don't know how the hell you came to that conclusion, but it sure doesn't look like it fits to me. Seems more like they jumped on every scandal they could (Abu Ghraib, up-armored humvees, body armor), and even invented a few of their own (Eason Jordan's unsubstantiated claim that the US military tried to kill journalists). Unhappy with the quality of their reporting? Hey, you'll get no argument from me on that point. But PRO-war? What alternate universe are you living in?

[Jon_in_london]

100 fatalities is not a lot considering the environment and the size and length of the deployment. Must be around 0.001%?

[Ryokan]

100 fatalities is not a lot considering the environment and the size and length of the deployment. Must be around 0.001%?

I agree, I'm actually surprised it's such a low number. No wonder the media, in Darat's words, celebrate ;)

[Mark]

I don't know how the hell you came to that conclusion, but it sure doesn't look like it fits to me. Seems more like they jumped on every scandal they could (Abu Ghraib, up-armored humvees, body armor), and even invented a few of their own (Eason Jordan's unsubstantiated claim that the US military tried to kill journalists). Unhappy with the quality of their reporting? Hey, you'll get no argument from me on that point. But PRO-war? What alternate universe are you living in?

Ignoring your insults and trying to answer reasonably, Abu Ghraib was more or less the turning point. Up to that point, we went to war in Iraq under the most spurious excuses (even I knew there were no WMDs) while the media, by and large challenged little or nothing that the Adminstration said or did. If they had done their jobs, we might not be in the mess we are in now.

Most conservatives regard any criticism of Republicans (no matter how well deserved) as examples of "liberal bias."

[NeilC]

Care to point out which posts refuted the points I made in my posts?

You claim that the number 100 is somehow irrelevant because some of the deaths are non-combat. But is has been pointed out that the media also report that fact. It is also possible that some of the non-combat deaths were caused by being in active service - ie they wouldn't have happened if they were in the UK training. Who knows?

You claim that the press are "celebrating" and using misery for their own profit in this case but provide no evidence. It is irrefutable however that they are, on this occasion, reporting a simple fact. 100 soldiers are dead. At least 77 of those are dead because we went to war in Iraq. The press have a duty to report the facts especially when there is massive public interest.

You claim that the number 100 is somehow being used. I say that the number 100 is significant in the minds of most people as a round number which is why it is reported this way. They actually report every death in of a UK soldier in Iraq as far as I know.

[corplinx]

The media are not making money from misery, they are reporting reality. 100 is a watershed number psychologically.


Are you implying that its a form of mild bias, some sort of emotional appeal fallacy?

[Ziggurat]

Ignoring your insults and trying to answer reasonably, Abu Ghraib was more or less the turning point. Up to that point, we went to war in Iraq under the most spurious excuses (even I knew there were no WMDs) while the media, by and large challenged little or nothing that the Adminstration said or did. If they had done their jobs, we might not be in the mess we are in now.

But you didn't claim they were merely incompetent. You claimed that they were republican pro-war shills, which isn't the same accusation at all.

Most conservatives regard any criticism of Republicans (no matter how well deserved) as examples of "liberal bias."

I'm not sure how that's relevant. I didn't make the claim that they were biased against republicans, I didn't make the claim that their criticisms were always or even usually unwarranted (I made one claim about unwarranted criticism, which was against the military, not the administration, and I'll stand behind that claim any day). My point was that the US media as a whole, whatever its faults, cannot be reasonably considered "propaganda wing for the Republican Party," as you claimed. Nothing you said here actually defends that original claim - the closest you get to that is saying that they didn't adequately challenge the administration's claims regarding WMD's. But regardless of what you think you knew at the time, regardless of how derelict they were in their duty, the democratic leadership wasn't really challenging the basic WMD claims either, and certainly not any MORE than the press was. Seems then that the democrats were also merely a "propaganda wing for the Republican party," but at this point the phrase becomes meaningless. That's only way to square your statement. Was the press incompetent? Sure, I'll buy that. Were they a "propaganda wing for the Republican party"? Nope.

[Mycroft]

It's new in the sense that another young man's life has been taken whilst fighting a political war for reasons that are unclear to most people.

I dunno about you but I would not go and fight. Nor would I let my kids go.

The media are not making money from misery, they are reporting reality. 100 is a watershed number psychologically.

It's a "grim milestone."

[DavidJames]

...but the U.S. media have largely behaved like unpaid hacks for the war effort. Although they have, of late, started to do their jobs again, for the most part (there are exceptions, of course) they have been little more than a propaganda wing for the Republican Party.
I have to disagree with Mark. I think many of them are paid quite well :D

Seriously... The media reports misery. Coverage of the war is no different then coverage domestically. It wouldn't matter if they approved of the war on not, it's the way the media works. Car crashes, rapes, murder etc. always dominate the news. You want them to talk about the good things in Iraq...sure, and while your at it, go tell them to report on all the planes that didn't crash today or how many people weren't car jacked or murdered.

[Mark]

But you didn't claim they were merely incompetent. You claimed that they were republican pro-war shills, which isn't the same accusation at all.




"Behaving like" was the operative phrase.

I think their actual motivation was ratings...Republicans are the majority everywhere now, so I suspect they were (and still are to some extent) afraid to rock the boat.

[Darat]

I agree, I'm actually surprised it's such a low number. No wonder the media, in Darat's words, celebrate ;)

It's proportionately the same as the USA casualty rate.

[Darat]

You claim that the number 100 is somehow irrelevant because some of the deaths are non-combat. But is has been pointed out that the media also report that fact. It is also possible that some of the non-combat deaths were caused by being in active service - ie they wouldn't have happened if they were in the UK training. Who knows?


And I never said that they don't report it however the headlines and the top line of the all the stories I've seen so far play on this magic "100" number.



You claim that the press are "celebrating" and using misery for their own profit in this case but provide no evidence.


The evidence is that the same stories did not run for 99, 98, 97, 96, 94, 34,37 & 43 person killed. For some reason all the reports and interviews with families of the dead have been "saved" for the 100th. Were those families views and opinions not important last week or when their child died?


It is irrefutable however that they are, on this occasion, reporting a simple fact. 100 soldiers are dead. At least 77 of those are dead because we went to war in Iraq. The press have a duty to report the facts especially when there is massive public interest.


And I have never said they shouldn't.


You claim that the number 100 is somehow being used. I say that the number 100 is significant in the minds of most people as a round number which is why it is reported this way. They actually report every death in of a UK soldier in Iraq as far as I know.

Glad you agree with one of my points.

[Mephisto]

Oh I know it's nothing new but actually what they are doing here is manufacturing so-called news.

But Darat, I think the politicians manufactured the news, the media was guilty of hovering about waiting for the magic number to be reached. I also embrace your cynicism because you're probably right that they had all the articles written (complete with all the mandatory catch phrases) beforehand. The pertinent information (name of the soldier, where he was from, the names of his parents or whomever he left behind, etc.) was left blank as there would be no doubt that the momentous number would eventually be reached. I'm sure there is a "500th British Soldier Killed in Iraq" article floating around somewhere.

(edited to add) There seems to be an almost festive atmosphere in "celebrating" have reached 100 casualties - perhaps the family will receive a fruit basket or some pastries for their sacrifice.

[fsol]

Whats the betting most of them had the articles ready , time-lines ready to roll out and the like?

Well of course they did. Just like they did when the Queen Mother died.

[schplurg]

Whats the betting most of them had the articles ready , time-lines ready to roll out and the like?And I'm sure the military already had all 77/100 body bags in Iraq waiting to be filled, rather than back at home in a warehouse to be ordered up as needed.

There are things that go on behind the scenes in the media, and in other industries, that would be very upsetting to many people. Necessary evils perhaps.

[Darat]

And I'm sure the military already had all 77/100 body bags in Iraq waiting to be filled, rather than back at home in a warehouse to be ordered up as needed.

There are things that go on behind the scenes in the media, and in other industries, that would be very upsetting to many people. Necessary evils perhaps.

The analogy with the body bags would be if the army had took 100 bags with them, only used 99 and shoot a soldier to use up the last one...

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I also embrace your cynicism because you're probably right that they had all the articles written (complete with all the mandatory catch phrases) beforehand.

According to Private Eye, the media have been so keen to run their "100th" stories that once we got past about 95, the only fact that the journalists were interested in was whether enough soldiers had been killed in a particular incident to get to the "magic" number.