WASHINGTON — Media analysts sounded an increasingly gloomy
note today following news that a full-scale outbreak of civil war in
Iraq had been averted. “The prospects for regime change in Washington
seem increasingly remote,” said one senior White House reporter who
spoke on condition of anonymity.
“We gave the insurgent Democrats millions of dollars worth of air
time, fake-but-accurate reporting, and the deadliest editorials we
could write,” he continued, “but their popular support in-country just wasn’t what we expected.”
Efforts to isolate and discredit the rogue theocratic regime of
George “Chimpy” Bush in the international arena have been more
successful, the press spokesman said. “The U.N. is completely with
our program on that one,” he said, also citing moves by lawmakers
in Belgium and elsewhere to have Bush arrested and charged with
war crimes should he enter their jurisdiction.
While there is some resistance to the regime in the urbanized
Northeast, the Bushites’ strong base of support in the tribal
provinces of the South and Midwest has been sufficient to keep them in
power. “Despite frequent overflights,” the spokesman admitted “we
know almost nothing about conditions there.”
Faulty intelligence has been a continuing theme in the press’s
failure to achieve its policy goals. Critics charge that expert
evaluations have been routinely distorted or suppressed to further a
preconceived agenda, reading to major embarrassments like the
Rathergate scandal, false allegations of Koran-flushing at Guantanamo,
and erroneous reports of cannibalism in the New Orleans Superdome.
In the wake of these failures, a rising tide of anti-press
sentiment is making its choices more difficult. Fearing to venture
from its limousines and air-conditioned hotels in the Blue State Zone,
the press seems increasingly prone to live in a bubble, with wishful
thinking substituting for a clear grasp of facts on the ground.
In this atmosphere, outright fabrications like those at the heart
of the the Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair scandals have become all
too common, and led to the tragic downfall of at least one major editor.
Despite this, calls for “reality-based” reporting have gone largely
unheeded by a media establishment insistent on its ideological vision
of a better future.
Media planners have pinned most of their remaining hopes on the
2006 elections despite the disappointments of 2000 and 2004. “Those
elections didn’t come out the way we wanted,” a former CBS staffer
observed, “so they must have been rigged by at least the 15% swing we can deliver.
We’ll try harder next time.”
Dave: Apparently Eric is a little fuzzy on the difference between not blindly supporting the opposition party and actual treason. But he’s not the only one.
Hm. Maybe I need to make my satire less subtle next time. Neither of you got it.
I see the point that you’re trying to make. I’ve wasted plenty of breath on DailyKos trying to make the point that facts matter. Maybe I’ve read too many froth-mouthed calls for Democrats to be publically executed to assume that your comparison of the opposition party and a bunch of crazy-ass headchoppers is nothing more than a random jest. And maybe I think your satire is wobbly and unfocused–t the beginning, the Democratic party is the insurgency, because they’re the bad guys. But by the end, they’re the Americans, walled up in their “Blue State Zone”. Does that mean they’re fighting for freedom, and winning now, by your lights?
And hell, need I remind you that the term “reality-based community” was coined by an administration aide, and used as a pejorative against those who didn’t think that geopolitical wishing made it so?
I almost expected to see “Guest Commentator Jonathon Swift” on the signature line.
No, grendelkhan, you still haven’t gotten it. Hint: I’m not comparing the Democrats to the insurgents you think I have in mind.
So… I thought you meant insurgent jihadist head-choppers, but you really meant insurgent secularist Baathist dead-enders? Is that it?
Sigh. No, grendelkhan. Slow on the uptake today, I see. Here’s another hint: Ahmed Chalabi.
Maybe Iâ€™ve read too many froth-mouthed calls for Democrats to be publically executed
I call bs on this one.
Good read, but I’m no fan of either the Demmicans or the Republocrats; both conferences of the National Political Football League deserve to be ignored, for all we can’t afford to do so.
So the fundamentalist mullah Al-Bush McChimpy is leading an increasingly successful insurgency in the great hinterlands against the minions of Al-Gore? Suicide bloggers have detonated themselves to horrific effect against Lamestream Media targets without any effective response from the elites. Civil war isn’t just threatening, it’s almost over and the forces of government-regulated broadcasting seem ready to throw in the towel and submit to Insty, Powerline and the other PJ-wearing rebels.
Uh, that’s Chimpy McBushitlerburton-al-Saud to you, bub…
Well, I thought it was funny. Especially considering the riots in France lasted far longer than the most recent Iraqi civil war, but got far less airtime.
The first thing we must do is oust all the University Presidents.
“Especially considering the riots in France lasted far longer than the most recent Iraqi civil war, but got far less airtime. ”
That is exactly the point.
grendelkhan, he isn’t comparing the Dems to the Iraqi insurgents. The “Iraqi Civil War” is just the latest example of “manufactured press” that has failed to take root. He mentioned the canabalism in New Orleans, Koran Flushing, etc. What do they all have in common? Where they true? “Fake but Accurateâ„¢?”
The amount of time for each is decreasing. Soon the “news of the day” will break in the morning edition and be debunked by noon. Not only are they not gaining traction, they are less effective with each manufactured event.
“They came at us in the same old way, and we defeated them in the same old way.”
The media has repeatedly waddled up to the table and found each child they delivered was stillborn.
It shouldn’t be lost on people that Eric’s recent postings contained a heavy dose of Soviet style meme warfare. Core to that was a disinformation campaign. The USSR may be gone but their bastard stepchildren continue the legacy. The MSM has adopted the disinformation campaign wholesale. If you dispute that you can come on over and we’ll cover the endless stream of “news” that they’ve produced. Heck, I’ll even treat you to a session of typing up more National Guard memos as we dine on a nice slice of plastic Turkey. Maybe Cheney can join us if he isn’t out shooting friends while drunk.
>It shouldnâ€™t be lost on people that Ericâ€™s recent postings contained a heavy dose of Soviet style meme warfare.
No, because I only say things I believe to be true.
Sorry, my bad on wording. What I meant is you have been discussing soviet style disinformation; not using it.
So the media is the American presence, Democrats are the Chalabi regime that failed to materialize, and the Bush administration is the insurgency?
>So the media is the American presence, Democrats are the Chalabi regime that failed to materialize, and the Bush administration is the insurgency?
Two out of three right this time. Don’t make me spoil it for other readers.
There’s been a civil war in Iraq for a couple years now.
There’s been a civil war in Iraq since 750 AD. It’s only been marginally suppressed by strong-arms like Hussein from time to time.
We didn’t create the worms in the can; we simply took the lid off for all to see.
Remember, esr: You know you’re close to the target when you start getting flak…
My understanding of “civil war” is effectively a widespread rebellion in progress. From what I can see, that simply doesn’t apply to Iraq. Time recently ran an issue talking about how *Sunnis* are now attacking the *foreign* *insurgents* because the insurgents have been trying to prevent the Sunnis from joining up (to avoid getting left out in the cold). That’s not a civil war.
There are Sunnis joined with the insurgents. But they aren’t truly widespread. We also aren’t seeing many counterattacks from Kurds or Shi’ites (aside from last week, but again, France’s riots lasted longer than that, was France a victim of a civil war this summer?). Do you have another definition for civil war?
Jeez, was it that hard to figger out?
Nice job, esr, next time mebbe a little more 2X4 between the eyes, in deference to the ‘nuance challenged’.
You know Eric, you seem to come off too often as a Republican and GWB fanboi, and I know you’re not. You might want to get out of the blogospheric echo-chamber from time to time and keep your alliance with the neo-cons in perspective. There’s a grain of sand in every oyster.
>You know Eric, you seem to come off too often as a Republican and GWB fanboi, and I know youâ€™re not.
That’s not my problem, it’s yours. As long as Democrats equate disgust at the media’s sloppy and biased reporting with Republican partisanship, they’ll continue losing elections because they don’t understand what most potential voters want.
What is going on in Iraq is a civil war. Everyday Shiites and Sunnis are killing each other. The only thing preventing a full scale civil war is the US military. If large Shia and Sunni armies marched against each other they would easily be taken out by US air power.