Soldiers Not Happy With News Coverage
by Big Dog on Feb 1, 2006 at 07:45 Political
Many soldiers have questioned why there was so much coverage about the injuries. They contend that the media folks are paid much more money and can pick and choose where they go as opposed to the troops who must go into harm’s way no matter what. In an email an officer wrote:
“Why do you think this is such a huge story?” wrote an officer stationed in Baqubah, Iraq, Monday via e-mail. “It’s a bit stunning to us over here how absolutely dominant the story is on every network and front page. I mean, you’d think we lost the entire 1st Marine Division or something.
“There’s a lot of grumbling from guys at all ranks about it. That’s a really impolite and impolitic thing to say … but it’s what you would hear over here.”
I agree with the troops on this one. It was tragic that these two guys were hurt but they are no more important than the men and women executing the missions in Iraq (I would say not as important). The only time the media presents detailed stories about our soldier’s injuries or deaths is when they can use these items to display their anti-war, liberal bias. It is amazing that the liberal media who salivates over troop casualty numbers by continually marking “milestones” sensationalizes the injuries to these reporters as if they should be immune to harm. Or, as the article puts it:
The unavoidable consequence of war is this: People are savagely wounded and killed. Soldiers in Iraq watching the coverage on satellite television and reading the news on the Internet are getting the impression that the press has only just discovered this fact.
Source: UPI
Tags: Political