Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 2, 2007

IF A MILITARY TIMES POLL FALLS IN A FOREST.... Following up on an item from the weekend, the Military Times newspapers published a massive new poll after questioning 6,000 randomly selected active-duty members of the Armed Forces. The results ran counter to much of the conventional wisdom -- barely one in three service members approve of the way the president is handling the war; a majority believe it was wrong to go into Iraq in the first place; and a plurality reject the notion of sending additional troops into the war.

For reasons that are unclear, the media seems to have missed the poll entirely.

Greg Sargent noted on Saturday the dearth of news coverage of this story, and I followed up this morning by doing a Nexis search to see just how many outlets reported on the story. Given the results of the poll and the importance of the troops' opinions, I was surprised at just how little coverage the Military Times survey received.

In terms of newspapers, the San Jose Mercury News and the Seattle Times were the only U.S. papers to run stories of their own. Reuters and UPI mentioned the poll in wire stories, which were not widely picked up. That's it. That's all the print coverage the poll received.

Broadcast outlets were a bit better, with CNN and ABC mentioning the poll on the air, but that's still not exactly widespread coverage.

It's common for outlets to downplay poll results from rival news sources; papers and networks don't want to give free publicity to competing news organizations. I get that. But the Military Times newspapers aren't rivals to the major dailies. So why not mention a poll that highlights the fact that many troops disapprove of Bush, don't support an escalation, don't see Iraq as part of the war on terror, and don't believe that success in Iraq is likely?

It sounds kind of newsworthy.

Steve Benen 10:12 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (54)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Because big-Media has a vested interest in keeping the (bad)news from the Bush/McCain war coming. Murder sells. That's what we're seeing.

Posted by: bigcat on January 2, 2007 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry, I'm a bit grouchy this morning 'cause it's back to work I go. It could be worse. I could be in Iraq (were I not way too old)...

Posted by: bigcat on January 2, 2007 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

I was unable to follow the link to the Mil Times poll, but agree with it's claims. I will say that for many years the fact that the military personnel supported the war and were optimistic was not considered newsworthy, so no big surprise that their shift in opinion isn't either. In short, the military's opinion has not been considered newsworthy.

Posted by: Red State Mike on January 2, 2007 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

Really, RSM? I saw all sorts of 'Check out how pumped up the troops are!' articles back in the day.

Posted by: TheDeadlyShoe on January 2, 2007 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

The poll results run counter to the established media narrative, so it's almost impossible for the results to be processed. If the results were reversed, and showed strong support for the President, they would fit right in and be added as the additional proof that Bush is still somewhat popular and steadfast.

Posted by: jimbo on January 2, 2007 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

Listening to the military is the first step on the long slippery slope toward a military dictatorship.

Posted by: Al's parrot on January 2, 2007 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

I saw all sorts of 'Check out how pumped up the troops are!' articles back in the day

Or Bush speaking in front of applauding military audiences?

(Although the televised speech at the War College was pretty funny - those colonels didn't look like they enjoyed being used as props at 7 pm when they could be at home with the wife and kids. And they weren't clapping very enthusiastically - three claps and stop. I assumed they were only doing that because a general in the front of the room was holding up a "Applaud" sign.)

Posted by: Wapiti on January 2, 2007 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

did hear this on NPR (pretty good coverage) but it was new year's morning -- who's listening?

Posted by: dcgiants on January 2, 2007 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

I will say that for many years the fact that the military personnel supported the war and were optimistic was not considered newsworthy, so no big surprise that their shift in opinion isn't either.

RSM, for crying out loud, let's just repeat this one more time. Military supports war: dog bites man. Military opposed to war: man bites dog. Military supports conservative Republican President: dog bites man. Military opposes conservative Republican President: man bites dog. Are you getting the picture, here?

The reason the paper didn't pick it up, incidentally, was probably just general New Year's fogginess. Not an ideal time to release a poll, if they wanted major coverage.

Posted by: brooksfoe on January 2, 2007 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Well, Steve: besides the reasons mentioned above,you may have missed an obvious factor in the "MSM"'s general ignoring of the Military Times poll: The Administration and its apologists (deluded and ever-dwindling fringe though they may be) have spent so many years pushing the "everything-is-going-swell-in-Iraq-but-the-Evil-Liberal-Media-is-stabbing-us-in-the-back" line - with the supposed opinion of "the troops" as the main backup for this meme -that the Press in general is reflexively leery (spineless toadies to Power that they are) of highlighting any contradictions to this scenario.
One would think that after all this time, mass-market publications and broadcasters would have lost their fear of the Mighty Wurlizter, and not bury bad news about Bush's war lest they be tarred as terror-loving-Bush-deranged-peacenik-loser/defeatists by some rightwing talking head or crank blogger. Yeah, one would think....

Posted by: Jay C on January 2, 2007 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, RSM: You enlisted yet?

I am trying to figger out how a supporter of Bush and the Repukeliscum is sitting here, safe, in the US, and has not yet enlisted.

How is that possible?

Could it be that you are a chicken-shit coward?

Posted by: POed Lib on January 2, 2007 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

More evidence that Bush is a liar ("I will listen to the people on the ground" - my ass) and that he is pathologically insane. God, I pray impeachment is coming soon. That is our only hope.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on January 2, 2007 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, RSM: You enlisted yet?
Posted by: POed Lib/dataguy/sockpuppet

Nope. Officer. Already fought in two wars. Been there, done that, been shot at. Moron.

Posted by: Red State Mike on January 2, 2007 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

Could not find it in the Oregonian -

But, in really "so what" news, there was a story the other day that made it all the way up to Page 7. It had to do with something about 3,000 lives - have to recheck and see what it was all about.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 2, 2007 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

Soldiers complaining goes back to the dawn of time when the wealthy elite first started sending the poor into battle for personal enrichment.

It's no biggie.

Posted by: ChrisS on January 2, 2007 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

13 percent of military personnel say we should not be in Iraq at all. Does that mean 87 percent believe we should be in Iraq?

the MSM doesn't care about the opinion of soldiers - only the body count.

Posted by: Orwell on January 2, 2007 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

It's not the "liberal" media, it's the "elite" media. Big difference. What's going on here isn't ideological in nature.

The New York Times and Washington Post don't want to admit it when less prestigious news sources come up with stuff like this, even when it's not a directly competing daily. (Remember a few years back when the Toledo Blade got some updated info on a Vietnam massacre, and it got the cold shoulder from the media establishment?) But that's human nature, I guess; it's what you expect when something of note comes from a source that isn't one of "the usual suspects," e.g., a medical breakthrough that isn't first reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Posted by: Vincent on January 2, 2007 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

I was able to follow the link to the poll, although I was about to hit the back arrow due the message about the site wanting to download the Apple thingy, when suddenly the article came up.

This sentence caught my eye: Nearly three-quarters of the respondents think today’s military is stretched too thin to be effective.

That’s not good for morale.

Also, I wonder if moderate and left-leaning political activists still have a lot to learn from the right-wing noise machine. I wonder what would be done with a poll like this if we had a President Kerry, Gore or Clinton.

But there’s truth in both Red State Mike’s and TheDeadlyShoe’s comments. I saw the articles about the troops being pumped and behind Bush, but does the general public really care that much about the military? I think as long as we have an all-volunteer military the public will never be anywhere near fully engaged.

But the poll is very interesting and should be given attention every year (regardless of the results) if the following claim by the article is true:

"The poll has come to be viewed by some as a barometer of the professional career military," the Military Times wrote on Friday. "It is the only independent poll done on an annual basis."

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on January 2, 2007 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

"Soldiers complaining goes back to the dawn of time when the wealthy elite first started sending the poor into battle for personal enrichment. It's no biggie."

A massive shift in the opinion of the military rank-and-file is, in fact, a "biggie."

Posted by: PaulB on January 2, 2007 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

Often it is said that the mainstream media is too large and diversified to properly engage in collusion in order to bring about a unified manipulation of public opinion. It may be true there is no single conspirator exploiting the gullibility of the public, but there is a group think, a platititude, a shared idea about what information can and cannot be discussed or disseminated. The dissenting opinions of soldiers is one of those things that publishers and editors of monopolist opinion making newspapers understand, without direction, is not to be publicized. They will have this understanding until the time when a new collective wisdom informs them not to have it.

Posted by: Brojo on January 2, 2007 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know why Steve Benen touts a massive new poll, and then doesn't bother to actually link to it. Here's the actual poll results:

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/

Posted by: Red State Mike on January 2, 2007 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

"Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor"

I never really thought that Black Sabbath would be relevant to political discussion, but, there you have it: The poor continue to have no voice worthy of news coverage.

"War Pigs" ought to be someone's campaign song.

Posted by: Jim on January 2, 2007 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Sarcasm, PaulB.

Posted by: ChrisS on January 2, 2007 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

I did see the poll mentioned on CNN last night but as dcgiants has pointed out, who's paying attention when there's so much football on, and a hangover to nurse?

And BTW, let's all resolve to leave the namecalling back in last year. We can disagree without insulting each others' manhood / patriotism / intelligence, can we not?
Yeah, I'm wasting my breath.

Posted by: thersites on January 2, 2007 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Poll available via clickable link.

Posted by: Red State Mike on January 2, 2007 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

BTW, I'm an Air Force vet with two pre-2000 deployments to the middle east under my belt.

I saw the writing on the wall and had no intention of spending any more time essentially fighting a 1,200 year old culture war for control of wealth.

Life is too short as it is, I don't need any more time taken from it so that someone else can buy a fourth house in Vail.

Posted by: ChrisS on January 2, 2007 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

Nope. Officer. Already fought in two wars. Been there, done that, been shot at. Moron.

OK, you get a pass. Unlike the vast majority of the Repukeliscum Party, which is today the Party of ChickenShit Cowardly Morons.

Posted by: POed Lib on January 2, 2007 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

It would be interesting to see a poll on whether military personnel still believed that Saddam was was involved in 9/11.

A Zogby poll of troops in Iraq last February showed 85% of troops thought their main mission was "to retaliate for Saddam's role in 9/11".

Greg Cochran had an outstanding comment on that at the time--
"I think this is pretty easy to understand: the alternative for the average Joe is to conclude that we did it for no reason that he can understand at all: i.e. that the government is insane. So, many people make up a reason. because the alternative is too disturbing..."
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/03/why-are-we-in-iraq.html

Posted by: beowulf on January 2, 2007 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

POed Lib asks:

Hey, RSM: You enlisted yet?

RSM responds:

Nope. Officer. Already fought in two wars. Been there, done that, been shot at. Moron.

Shorter RSM:

"This shit scares me. Let better men fight it."

Posted by: Disputo on January 2, 2007 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

My humble thoughts directed at Washington DC to include both pathetic, lazy, dishonest, corrupt, parties. Your reign of terror will end soon somehow.

I am an American mother
Protective of all I hold dear
My rights, privacy, and even my children
Being taken for reasons unclear

You’ve sold your souls to the devil
No longer willing to do what’s right
To hell with me and the land of the free
Special voting held late at night

Tell me what price my son brought
For the year that he spent in Iraq
Invading at will, orders to kill and
Ignoring him when he came back

Illegal wars with no end in sight
Bills lining your pockets the norm
No oversights, screw human rights
With Katrina, you killed – not the storm

My safety ignored at the borders
And you’re selling away my land
Crime after crime, I believe it’s time
For this mother to take a stand

Lady Liberty has joined beside me
Two mothers with children in need
We see through the lies and your corporate ties
What a shameless depth of greed

We are ready to take to the streets
Informed and within our right
We won’t be alone, our numbers have grown
We The People, will bring forth the fight

Posted by: An American Mother on January 2, 2007 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

This shit scares me. Let better men fight it.

I'm not Red State Mike's buddy - but wtf?

People criticize him as if he hasn't served. When they are disabused of that notion, they criticize him for not currently being in Iraq. If he was in Iraq, I imagine someone would criticize him for staying in the Green Zone. And if he was outside the Green Zone, they'd criticize him for something, maybe lack of empathy for the enlisted soldiers.

Focus on the issues, people. Attack the conservative ideas and memes - no need to make everything a personal attack.

Posted by: Wapiti on January 2, 2007 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

RSM was lucky he got to fight under Bill Clinton.Get in get the job done get out.Lucky RSM served under a real leader.

Posted by: Thomas3.6 1/2 on January 2, 2007 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

People criticize him as if he hasn't served. When they are disabused of that notion, they criticize him for not currently being in Iraq...
Focus on the issues, people. Attack the conservative ideas and memes - no need to make everything a personal attack.
Posted by: Wapiti

Well said Wapiti.

Posted by: cyntax on January 2, 2007 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

Focus on the issues, people. Attack the conservative ideas and memes - no need to make everything a personal attack.

I don't attack those who have served. I gave RSM a pass, and he gets to make pronouncements of whatever sort he wishes on the war. It is the majority of the Repukeliscum Party which I have grave problems with.

Posted by: POed Lib on January 2, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

MSM: Military Times Poll? Not invented here. Sorry.

For those of us ancient enough to remember, press coverage of Iraq is trailing public opinion in the same way and following the same path it followed during Vietnam. Just hope things don't get to the point of troops fragging their leaders before the press catches on.

Posted by: Sam Thornton on January 2, 2007 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

There was a Military Times poll a few years back that had a more positive outlook, and it was largely dismissed in places like this because the Military Times was supposedly mostly read by retired personnel and desk jockeys. In other words, it wasn't what the active military was thinking.

Has this readership changed, or is the poll valid now that it says something you want to hear?

Posted by: elmendorf on January 2, 2007 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

The poll is a poll of active duty subscribers to the various military times publications so it shouldn't include retired people, but is not necessarily well representative of the military as a whole because it is not a random sample of the military, it is a random sample of subscribers to these publications. That article you linked mentions that subscribers are evenly split between officers and enlisted and are more career oriented than the general military. Officers are known to be much more heavily right leaning than the general population, while enlisted personal are more typical.

The result is more interesting now because it can be compared to results from previous years. The general trend of military opinion is probably reflected: eg the military is far less supportive of bush's iraq adventure than they were before experiencing it. The particular level of support found in this poll should not be relied upon as being so accurate due to its sampling method, however as before the bias is aparrantly in the pro-bush pro-war direction.

By the way, I don't find that previous poll to be all that positive.

52% of the army responders approved of Bush's handling of Iraq in 2003? Thats it? Just barely over half? Two thirds of responders identified as republicans too... so despite being doubly as republican as the general population they were just a little more supportive of the war than the general population. Sound to me like even then the part of the military of which some small fraction actually sees conditions in Iraq face to face were starting to overcome thier pro-bush and pro-war predelictions, and doing it faster than civillian republicans.

The military lives in a wierd kind of bubble where political speech in one direction (pro-president, pro-war) is largely allowed, while speech in the other direction (anti-president, anti-war) is largely discouraged. However they clearly aren't seeing some miraculously different Iraq as the wingnuts like to claim. Even heavily republican pro-military groups like the active duty subscribers of military times publications are seeing bush's war as a mistake and failure and thats big news.

Posted by: jefff on January 2, 2007 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

OK, you get a pass. Unlike the vast majority of the Repukeliscum Party, which is today the Party of ChickenShit Cowardly Morons.
Posted by: POed Lib

Gracias.

Posted by: Red State Mike on January 2, 2007 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

Hi Mike. I seem to be feeling a wind blowing that I have never felt before. The officers in my social and family circle are grumbling louder than I have ever heard them grumble before. Are you feeling the same ill wind I'm feeling?

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 2, 2007 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

There is definitely an openness and a seriousness to the criticism in the wardroom. Not that anyone ever felt they couldn't criticize, it's that people are changing their opinions,and they're very thoughtful in doing so.

Posted by: Red State Mike on January 2, 2007 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

There's a deja' vu quality for the senior officers who started their careers between 1967 and 1974. The thing is, senior officers are politicians too. In fact, Colonels who are not politicians...are Majors.

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 2, 2007 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

The print media continue with the fiction that if it doesn't report a story, few if anyone will know about it.

I don't subscribe to a newspaper nor news magazine; instead, I get my news from the Net.

And I got all I wanted about the military poll . . . thanks to the Net.

I don't need print newspapers or print news magazines anymore.

Posted by: bill w. on January 2, 2007 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

I have a subscription to the Air Force Times and I subscribe to the New York Times on the weekend, because I like the magazine and I get access to Times Select. Otherwise, I get my news off the net.

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 2, 2007 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

As much as I don't care for Keith Olberman, he seems to be the only media personality that I am aware of...and that one other tall, balding fellow that gets a word in on CNN occassionaly, that tells the TRUTH!! What is wrong with this chicken-shit media mob we have? They could have been performing in Nazy Germany, the way they censor information to the people. What a sick shame!!

Posted by: Hulk on January 2, 2007 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

Unlike the vast majority of the Repukeliscum Party, which is today the Party of ChickenShit Cowardly Morons.

A profile of the respondents from the poll under discussion:

37 percent conservative
37 percent moderate
9 percent liberal

46 percent Republican
16 percent Democrat
22 percent Independent

High School: 6 percent
Some college: 20 percent
Associate degree: 13 percent
B.A./B.S.: 25 percent
M.A./M.S.: 27 percent
Beyond masters: 8 percent

Anybody want to review their stereotypes?

Posted by: elmendorf on January 2, 2007 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

I've said this so many times I'm sounding like a broken record (simultaneous translation for anyone under 30: archaic sound storage medium that when "broken" would reply the same second or two forever) but I'll say it again:
media ownership is now concentrated into the very same corporatocracy that benefits the most from both Republican administrations and war expenditures.
The only reason that they are not literally a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican party is that BOTH are now quite literally now wholly-owned subsidiaries of the corporations, operating in symbiotic mutual support.
They are not on our side, nor are they even seriously pretending to be neutral any more; they have not been for some time, and very likely will never be again. They are the enemy.
Nor is it highly likely that NPR will return to its former self -- which was never actually leftist anyway, though they were easy to caricature as such.
The internet, though highly valuable, isn't -- yet -- in a position to fill the same niches as TV networks and major newspapers, and may never be so.
The only viable solution is our own media -- our own Fox, our own Washington Post corp (which now makes a disproportionate amount of their profit from the non-media, Kaplan side of the firm), our own Gannett. Given the clear market need, such investments would not necessarily be money-losers (like the Wash Times, the Weekly Standard, etc, which survive only because of Scaife / Coors / Hunt / etc subsidy) either; if done right they should actually be pretty profitable.
And it's not as if there aren't talented researchers, reporters, writers, broadcasters out there who would probably love the chance to be REAL journalists again. It's a win/win/win; I don't understand why it hasn't happened already.

Posted by: smartalek on January 2, 2007 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

"46 percent Republican"

Interestingly this is way way down from the 2003 poll, where 67% of responders were republicans. The democrat number is up a just a bit.

Posted by: jefff on January 2, 2007 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINK

btw the following is inaccurate:
37 percent conservative
37 percent moderate
9 percent liberal

the article really says:
8 percent very conservative
37 percent conservative
37 percent moderate
7 percent liberal
2 percent very liberal
9 percent decline to answer

which would condense down to:
45% conservative
37% moderate
9% liberal

BTW you have to be pretty laughably detatched from reality to think the media hate the military. They spend hours and hours on fawning feel good stories about military and it's associates on both local and national news programs. They are probably about number 3 on the list of professions the media like to glorify after teachers and firemen, and tied with police officers. Just how much ass kissing do these people expect?

This goes along pretty well with half thier responders being officers, i'm not suprised:
B.A./B.S.: 25 percent
M.A./M.S.: 27 percent
Beyond masters: 8 percent

Posted by: jefff on January 2, 2007 at 11:30 PM | PERMALINK

jefff - I had posted on this topic earlier today, and I have a contrarian troll who posted cherry-picked data in response to my post. You had shot him down perfectly with a post here, so I imported it and gave you credit. Essentially you got two posts for one mouse click, but I would never do such a thing without informing the original author. (I would have emailed you but...)

Thanks, GC

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 2, 2007 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

***It's not the "liberal" media, it's the "elite" media. Big difference.

***but does the general public really care that much about the military? I think as long as we have an all-volunteer military the public will never be anywhere near fully engaged.

***Life is too short as it is, I don't need any more time taken from it so that someone else can buy a fourth house in Vail.

***Focus on the issues, people. Attack the conservative ideas and memes - no need to make everything a personal attack.

***52% of the army responders approved of Bush's handling of Iraq in 2003? Thats it?

***The only viable solution is our own media --

What about an INC "Independent News Channel"?

Posted by: Pearls on January 2, 2007 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

Jefff:

Thanks for catching my typo.

They spend hours and hours on fawning feel good stories about military and its associates on both local and national news programs.

Really? I've seen some pro-military news in local news, but not a heck of a lot on the national level. Certainly not "hours and hours" of it. The anti-military bias of the journalism class has been around for a long time. I was hearing "quagmire" less than a week after our military crossed the border into Iraq. The media was not interested in victory, even then.

Posted by: elmendorf on January 3, 2007 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINK

first wapiti argues:

People criticize him as if he hasn't served. When they are disabused of that notion, they criticize him for not currently being in Iraq. If he was in Iraq, I imagine someone would criticize him for staying in the Green Zone. And if he was outside the Green Zone, they'd criticize him for something, maybe lack of empathy for the enlisted soldiers.

then he lectures:

Focus on the issues, people. Attack the conservative ideas and memes - no need to make everything a personal attack.

Your admonition to focus on issues instead of people would be a little more convincing if it wasn't preceded by a series of strawman attacks.

Someone who tries to justify his support of having others kill for him because he himself was once in uniform needs to be called out for his despicable hypocrisy and certainly does not deserve to be treated in a civil manner. This ain't bean bag. People are dying.

Posted by: Disputo on January 3, 2007 at 1:38 AM | PERMALINK

Really? I've seen some pro-military news in local news, but not a heck of a lot on the national level.
----

People watch local AND national news, so the huge number of "vet comes back" stories, along with plenty of "we're doin' good over there" pom-pom shaking, occur on our half-dozen local news networks practically every night, and this isn't even a military-base town.

And if you think there isn't a SINGLE newscaster who hasn't hugged a soldier--from Ed Bradley (RIP) to Christine Amanpour to Katie Couric--well, you ain't been watching much. Press in combat fatigues? Easy to visualize.

Not only that, we have shows like "The Unit" to make us love love love our soldier-boys and their gummint. Plus commercials for the Army National Guard and stuff. Station IDs that wave the flag and show you earnest soldier faces. "KSTP says Thank You To Our Troops."

It's all there. You're just not actively cognizant--so it all siphons in nice and clean, bypassing those critical faculties you think you don't need to use because you're not watching anyway.

Posted by: Vanna LaRoche on January 3, 2007 at 7:58 AM | PERMALINK

Slighty OT, but still relevant--wasn't there a big to-do about public lists of the names of American troops killed in Iraq? I seem to remember a concentrated effort to suppress anything like that that would make the public aware of the cost--can any of you confirm this, or the extent of this effort? The reason I ask is that when flipping through the recent "special double issue" of People (long line at the market--I swear I would never look at it otherwise!), there in the middle was that long list of names. I'm wondering if this is a change for them, an interesting reflection of the changing attitute towards this war in mainstream America. Any thoughts on this?

Posted by: Jess on January 4, 2007 at 3:08 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly