Rummy on the defensive with troops' questions

[Terry Tate]

How should they try and pierce the well crafted veils of these pseudo events?  I'm stumped.

154825[/snapback]

In that particular case, you can't. That's why it was set up the way it was. It appears to have been a pep rally sort of thing.

 

But that in itself is not necessarily a bad thing - not in this instance, anyway. Having personally met a number of senators, congressmen, a Director of Central Intelligence, and various foreign dignitaries including a president while I was on duty, I can only say pep rallies with troops are tightly staged events, and I understood it when I attended them, and I still appreciated them to some extent. I also had opportunities on many occasions to speak personally with some of these individuals while at my duty position, and neither at a "rally" or while at work did it ever occur to me to confront them with something to complain about.

 

They have commander's calls (unit meetings) on a regular basis for those types of things. It feel it was inappropriate.

[UConn James]

As long as he didn't lie about anything, I see no issues regarding integrity involved.  If someone asked him if he talked to the soldier beforehand and he lied, that is a problem.  It seems like it was a valid issue based on the spontaneous reaction of the troops so I am not too cocerned with the source of the otherwise valid question.  What bothers me is that the soldiers might have brought this up on their own and now we will never know.  Reporters are not supposed to be part of the story and in that sense, this guy screwed up.  It was bad reporting but not in a moral sense where I call in to question his integrity.

154756[/snapback]

 

Excuse me for poking a hole in the whole "reporters should not be/create the news" issue that people are concentrating on rather than the pertinency of the question. And this might help all of you in your future of reading the news and reactions to it.

 

Let's look at some reporters who have "been" the news for what they did to report a story.

--- "Ten Days in the Mad-House" by Nellie Bly exposed brutal mistreatment in NYC asylums. The only way she could do this was by pretending to be a patient.

--- One Stephen Crane (he was mostly a journalist throughout his career, did you know that?) put himself in just about every story he wrote. Competing newspapers often titled stories "Journalist Crane ..." and his method of reporting so they could try to capitalize on his popularity.

--- George Orwell. The famous drop-out narrator.

--- "The Death of Captain Wascow" by Ernie Pyle.

--- "The Bronx Slave Market" (1950) by Marvel Cooke, who became a housecleaner and reported the conditions, the backbreaking work they had to do, and the crap wages they were paid and often cheated out of by white families.

--- "Black Like Me" (1960) by John Howard Griffin, who over the course of a year traveled to Northern and Southern states, going b/w being white and black (he got a pigment from a doctor to change his skin color). Really one of the first stories that started to change opinions b/c it was written by a white man who was brave enough and crazy (for the chance he took) enough to "make the news."

--- "Tiananmen Square" by John Simpson, who was there when it all went down. Supported the students but helped save a few people's, including a govt policeman's, lives and made what happened there, before the Chinese put up black drapes around the entire square so what they did couldn't be seen, known.

 

These among many more who, when they see something they don't agree with or an issue that's being disregarded by people in charge, DO something about it rather than wait for the "right time" or the "proper source," like that's going to happen. Don't get me wrong, there are times when it can go too far. A reasonable effort should be made to get the story by the conventional methods. The conventional reporter-official was not allowed in this case. I can see where people might not appreciate the method this reporter used to get attention to the issue. If it's an issue you and the 2,300 soldiers you travel with care about deeply enough to want to get it asked of their superior.... If 2,300 people (and I'm sure many more soldiers wanted it asked too) call your newspaper and say there's a question on their minds that they want asked, you ask it or you hand in your reporter's notebook.

 

Reporters aren't supposed to be part of the story? Where did you get this? Where did you get this? Is this like the one where lawyers aren't supposed to lie? Getting information out into the world is damned difficult as it is. Objectivity is a bunch of crap. By definition of being a human being and having your own eyes, there's no way for anyone to be objective. What matters is fact.

Edited December 10, 2004 by UConn James

[Mickey]

Excuse me for poking a hole in the whole "reporters should not be/create the news" issue that people are concentrating on rather than the pertinency of the question. And this might help all of you in your future of reading the news and reactions to it.

 

Let's look at some reporters who have "been" the news for what they did to report a story.

--- "Ten Days in the Mad-House" by Nellie Bly exposed brutal mistreatment in NYC asylums. The only way she could do this was by pretending to be a patient.

--- One Stephen Crane (he was mostly a journalist throughout his career, did you know that?) put himself in just about every story he wrote. Competing newspapers often titled stories "Journalist Crane ..." and his method of reporting so they could try to capitalize on his popularity.

--- George Orwell. The famous drop-out narrator.

--- "The Death of Captain Wascow" by Ernie Pyle.

--- "The Bronx Slave Market" (1950) by Marvel Cooke, who became a housecleaner and reported the conditions, the backbreaking work they had to do, and the crap wages they were paid and often cheated out of by white families.

--- "Black Like Me" (1960) by John Howard Griffin, who over the course of a year traveled to Northern and Southern states, going b/w being white and black (he got a pigment from a doctor to change his skin color). Really one of the first stories that started to change opinions b/c it was written by a white man who was brave enough and crazy (for the chance he took) enough to "make the news."

--- "Tiananmen Square" by John Simpson, who was there when it all went down. Supported the students but helped save a few people's, including a govt policeman's, lives and made what happened there, before the Chinese put up black drapes around the entire square so what they did couldn't be seen, known.

 

These among many more who, when they see something they don't agree with or an issue that's being disregarded by people in charge, DO something about it rather than wait for the "right time" or the "proper source," like that's going to happen.

 

Reporters aren't supposed to be part of the story? Where did you get this? Where did you get this? Is this like the one where lawyers aren't supposed to lie? Getting information out into the world is damned difficult as it is. Objectivity is a bunch of crap. By definition of being a human being and having your own eyes, there's no way for anyone to be objective. What matters is fact.

154927[/snapback]

There are few rules which make sense all the time. The incidents you mention are all valid but were stories that simply could not be obtained without the reporter going under cover or otherwise becoming central to the story. Certainly though, you do see that a reporter who is more concerned, for example, with his own fame and prestige, might be willing to present as true things that are not? These are the kinds of ethical dilemmas that are discussed in journalism school precisely because there is no "one size fits all" answer.

 

I am more than ready to admit that there are plenty of times where the reporter becoming part of the story is not only defensible but just what was needed in the situation. By the same token, there are plenty of situations where it is an obstacle to good journalism. This is more true now when so many so quickly disregard any report from a source they don't find credible even if the story reported is as tight as it can be. It would be nice if all stories were taken on their merits or lack thereof but for good or ill, that is not true anymore. The most important story can end up having no effect on public opinion if the reporter is perceived to have no credibility. Thanks for the list, that was instructive.

[Terry Tate]

Excuse me for poking a hole in the whole "reporters should not be/create the news" issue that people are concentrating on rather than the pertinency of the question. And this might help all of you in your future of reading the news and reactions to it.

 

Let's look at some reporters who have "been" the news for what they did to report a story.

--- "Ten Days in the Mad-House" by Nellie Bly exposed brutal mistreatment in NYC asylums. The only way she could do this was by pretending to be a patient.

--- One Stephen Crane (he was mostly a journalist throughout his career, did you know that?) put himself in just about every story he wrote. Competing newspapers often titled stories "Journalist Crane ..." and his method of reporting so they could try to capitalize on his popularity.

--- George Orwell. The famous drop-out narrator.

--- "The Death of Captain Wascow" by Ernie Pyle.

--- "The Bronx Slave Market" (1950) by Marvel Cooke, who became a housecleaner and reported the conditions, the backbreaking work they had to do, and the crap wages they were paid and often cheated out of by white families.

--- "Black Like Me" (1960) by John Howard Griffin, who over the course of a year traveled to Northern and Southern states, going b/w being white and black (he got a pigment from a doctor to change his skin color). Really one of the first stories that started to change opinions b/c it was written by a white man who was brave enough and crazy (for the chance he took) enough to "make the news."

--- "Tiananmen Square" by John Simpson, who was there when it all went down. Supported the students but helped save a few people's, including a govt policeman's, lives and made what happened there, before the Chinese put up black drapes around the entire square so what they did couldn't be seen, known.

 

These among many more who, when they see something they don't agree with or an issue that's being disregarded by people in charge, DO something about it rather than wait for the "right time" or the "proper source," like that's going to happen.

 

Reporters aren't supposed to be part of the story? Where did you get this? Where did you get this? Is this like the one where lawyers aren't supposed to lie? Getting information out into the world is damned difficult as it is. Objectivity is a bunch of crap. By definition of being a human being and having your own eyes, there's no way for anyone to be objective. What matters is fact.

154927[/snapback]

I think you are confusing investigative reporting with creating a story. Investigative reporting is posing as a patient, then reporting on your treatment. The other examples you outline that I recognize are also investigative reporting. What the reporter did through coaching and planting to create a story, is not the same thing. He had done plenty of reporting on the subject previously, as had others. He created the story of the SecDef being confronted by the troops at a "rally". That is not reporting. It really isn't that big of a deal, but it wasn't right to do.

[DC Tom]

I think you are confusing investigative reporting with creating a story. Investigative reporting is posing as a patient, then reporting on your treatment. The other examples you outline that I recognize are also investigative reporting. What the reporter did through coaching and planting to create a story, is not the same thing. He had done plenty of reporting on the subject previously, as had others. He created the story of the SecDef being confronted by the troops at a "rally". That is not reporting. It really isn't that big of a deal, but it wasn't right to do.

154962[/snapback]

 

Let's be clear on something, too...the reporter constructed the situation that put Rumsfeld at odds with the troops. He did not manufacture a story about the armor.

 

Personally, I think that's bad reporting. I also think it misrepresented the views of a lot of soldiers over there (I know a few people who were shot up in soft-topped Humvees, I haven't heard one complain about Rumsfeld or Bush sending them over there ill-equipped). But it doesn't change the issue of the armor either way.

[UConn James]

I think you are confusing investigative reporting with creating a story. Investigative reporting is posing as a patient, then reporting on your treatment. The other examples you outline that I recognize are also investigative reporting. What the reporter did through coaching and planting to create a story, is not the same thing. He had done plenty of reporting on the subject previously, as had others. He created the story of the SecDef being confronted by the troops at a "rally". That is not reporting. It really isn't that big of a deal, but it wasn't right to do.

154962[/snapback]

 

He didn't create a story. He "created" a question. The fact that it was a valid question made it a story. What would have happened if Rumsfeld had a valid answer? Instead, he reached into his bag of tricks.

 

The examples were in response to the false generalized maxim that "reporters shouldn't be or create the news." Rest assured, I'm not confusing the two.

[RkFast]

Im sorry...this whole story is such a non-story and combat vets like VA and BiB and Darin, and anyone who knows the first thing about the history of warfare is laughing in their boots over the "outrage" this issue is generating.

 

These types of combat situations, where forces werent properly armed at first to deal with a threat have been going on since someone picked up a stone and threw it at someone who couldnt find a stone to throw back. Just in modern history, I can think of a ton of situations right off my head.....

 

-B-17s dealing with superior Nazi fighters without proper air cover for YEARS, until

the P-51 was desgined, produced and shipped to Europe.

-U.S. aircraft that couldnt keep up with the Japanese Zero until the Corsair was deployed.

-F4s that didnt even have a GUN on it and was getting milked by superior MIG-21s until later versions of the F4 came into service and jocks were re-trained to deal with them and "missles only" dogfighting.

-Nazi tanks that turned our tanks into mince meat.

-The MIG-29 Interceptor and the SU-27 with thrust vectoring....aircraft the U.S. STILL doesnt have an answer to.

 

 

Anyone going on about the "travesty" and coming up with "outrage" about it might as well just say "I dont know sh-- about the military or warfare".

[_BiB_]

Armor

[UConn James]

Let's be clear on something, too...the reporter constructed the situation that put Rumsfeld at odds with the troops.  He did not manufacture a story about the armor. 

 

Personally, I think that's bad reporting.  I also think it misrepresented the views of a lot of soldiers over there (I know a few people who were shot up in soft-topped Humvees, I haven't heard one complain about Rumsfeld or Bush sending them over there ill-equipped).  But it doesn't change the issue of the armor either way.

154975[/snapback]

 

The fact that Rumsfeld wasn't prepared to answer a question that's obviously on the soldiers' minds might lead one to believe that situation was already in place independent of the reporter. He was a conduit that facilitated the question to go over the microphone in clear wording.

[Simon]

B-17s dealing with superior Nazi fighters without proper air cover for YEARS, until

the P-51 was desgined, produced and shipped to Europe.

-U.S. aircraft that couldnt keep up with the Japanese Zero until the Corsair was deployed.

-F4s that didnt even have a GUN on it and was getting milked by superior MIG-21s until later versions of the F4 came into service and jocks were re-trained to deal with them and "missles only" dogfighting.

-Nazi tanks that turned our tanks into mince meat.

-The MIG-29 Interceptor and the SU-27 with thrust vectoring....aircraft the U.S. STILL doesnt have an answer to.

 

In general I agree with you that this is mostly a non-issue. But one thing worth noting is that in all of your examples the problem was that we had no answer available. In this case, the technology is available, some feel it's just not being properly utilized.

Cya

[Alaska Darin]

Let's be clear on something, too...the reporter constructed the situation that put Rumsfeld at odds with the troops.  He did not manufacture a story about the armor. 

 

Personally, I think that's bad reporting.  I also think it misrepresented the views of a lot of soldiers over there (I know a few people who were shot up in soft-topped Humvees, I haven't heard one complain about Rumsfeld or Bush sending them over there ill-equipped).  But it doesn't change the issue of the armor either way.

154975[/snapback]

I think it's good reporting and I like it when politicians are put on the defensive. I'm sick of these guys being above reproach for such things when THEY have the power to fix them the fastest. "We're doing the best we can" is a giant crock of crap when you look at the money wasted in DoD.

 

I'm glad the question got asked.

[Berg]

No I had not heard that.  I was told they were going to more of a tigerstripe blue.  Instead of the initial woodland blue.  So it has now changed yet again????

 

What colors in the uni's now?  Pink and mauve?

154605[/snapback]

 

Here is an article about the uniform change. No new pictures, and not much discussion on the actual colors, but the hallway rumors are they will look a LOT like the Marines. Which is fine by me.

 

Berg

[VABills]

Here is an article about the uniform change.  No new pictures, and not much discussion on the actual colors, but the hallway rumors are they will look a LOT like the Marines.  Which is fine by me.

 

Berg

155138[/snapback]

Just a lot fatter and with longer hair.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

Did the reporter also plant the applause that greeted the question?

154568[/snapback]

 

No. It's an issue, apparently. But it was still a set up "gotcha," by a media member who wants to make this administration look bad no matter what. Last I knew, Rummy is not the guy who appropriates the funds, or decides where the resources are used or how.

[RkFast]

No.  It's an issue, apparently.  But it was still a set up "gotcha," by a media member who wants to make this administration look bad no matter what.  Last I knew, Rummy is not the guy who appropriates the funds, or decides where the resources are used or how.

155159[/snapback]

 

No...that would be people like......JOHN KERRY.

[DC Tom]

In general I agree with you that this is mostly a non-issue. But one thing worth noting is that in all of your examples the problem was that we had no answer available. In this case, the technology is available, some feel it's just not being properly utilized.

Cya

155055[/snapback]

 

Untrue. Completely untrue. Most of those examples were conscious omissions, not out of necessity.

[DC Tom]

...a question that's obviously on the soldiers' minds...

155044[/snapback]

 

If it wer so obviously on the soldiers' minds, why did the reporter in question have to specifically plant two soldiers in the audience to ask the question?

[_BiB_]

OK, I'll get somewhat crappy.

 

You can't fight a war where no one gets killed. This whole "armor the cargo trucks" is bullshidt. It's never happened in the history of modern warfare and it is the present day version of the 1968 protests to make it an issue now. We are now the only country since steam power got figured out to have to armored flatbeds in order to keep ABC and the NY Times happy. "Support the troops". Yellow ribbons. Funny how no one is clammoring for ceramic armor on the contract hired vehicles (Volvos, Chevy's, whatever) that actually haul a lot of the material required for war. It's all about Mom.

 

Every single sound decision made about anything can be ripped to pieces through the media with an agenda very easily because it can be spun. Because the truth of risk versus reward doesn't sound good. As a matter of fact, it sounds real bad, if not taken in context. But no one takes things in context.

 

Anyone remember why we needed more firetrucks? Senator Kerry told us it was important. So did Hillary and Tom Daschel and JohnKerry.com. The cold truth of the matter is that more fire trucks mean nothing, other than more firetrucks. More money. More nothing, as far as making things wonderful go.

 

I think we should once and for all, abolish Christmas. That will make us a better people.

[Simon]

Untrue. Completely untrue. Most of those examples were conscious omissions, not out of necessity.

 

Are you suggesting that the main production model of the P-51 was available in Europe early in the war? From what I understand it didn't go into mass production until '43 and wasn't widely available in Europe until the spring of '44.

 

Regarding the Corsair, I thought it didn't become available until after we'd already been at war with Japan for a year or so. Am I in need of some correction here?

 

As for the German tanks, the Panzers were obviously far superior and we had no answer for them. The only way we could compete with them was to pour far greater numbers of Shermans on them, which we eventually did, but not until we were capable of doing so.

 

The difference in the current situation is that while these kids spent an awful lot of time buzzing around on patrol in Iraq, vulnerable to small-arms fire in Humvees with inadequate armor, there was technology available to supplement the equipment, as opposed to the earlier years of WWII when I don't think that technology was available. Given that the Army even admitted it was too slow to fortify its Humvees, I think it makes this situation somewhat different.

Cya

[VABills]

The difference in the current situation is that while these kids spent an awful lot of time buzzing around on patrol in Iraq, vulnerable to small-arms fire in Humvees with inadequate armor, there was technology available to supplement the equipment, as opposed to the earlier years of WWII when I don't think that technology was available. Given that the Army even admitted it was too slow to fortify its Humvees, I think it makes this situation somewhat different.

Cya

155680[/snapback]

This statement is not entirely correct. I can't speak to the vehicle armor but the "body armor" that everyone was clammoring for in the media was not available at the beginning of the war. In fact the testing for it was only completed last December at the local Army base (Fort Belvoir). The military in order to get it to the troops as quickly as possible actually awarded the manufacturing contract last October before the tests were complete. They expected it to pass , and it did, so they started making it early. While "families" were buying it early, they were getting "police" versions and untested versions to send over. The military was roilling it out quickly starting last December, but it takes time to make, and deliver several hundred thousand.

 

BTW, those ones the family members bought are illegal for a civilian to own, so not only were they sending family member possibly poor equipment, but illegal equipment as well.