Monday, September 1, 2008

Success in Anbar...

Smells like success to me:
Today in Iraq, responsibility for security in Anbar Province was transferred to Iraqi civilian authorities. Iraqi forces will now take the lead in security operations in Anbar, with American troops moving into an overwatch role. Not long ago, Anbar was one of the most dangerous provinces in Iraq. Al Qaeda was in control of almost every major population center, and its leaders intended to turn Anbar province into a safe haven from which to plan and launch further attacks against Iraqis and others in the region, as well as here at home.

Today, Anbar is no longer lost to al Qaeda - it is al Qaeda that lost Anbar. Iraqis - like countless other Muslims across the world - witnessed al Qaeda's brutality first-hand and rejected it. As a result, Anbar has been transformed and reclaimed by the Iraqi people. This achievement is a credit to the courage of our troops, the Iraqi Security Forces, and the brave tribes and other civilians from Anbar who worked alongside them.

Today's ceremony returns the 11th of 18 provinces to provincial Iraqi control. Al Qaeda and Iranian-backed Special Groups remain a threat, but the United States and the nations of Multi-National Forces-Iraq continue to stand with the Iraqis as they work to defeat these enemies and build a democracy in the heart of the Middle East. The success of Iraq will make the American people more secure and help yield the peace we all desire.
President Bush's statement today, lauding the Anbar handover.

Handovers like this (though perhaps not as significant, admittedly) have been occuring on a near-daily basis in Iraq for the past couple of months. The lamestream media's response is predictable, but very disappointing nonetheless. Their rules seem to be:
American casualties, rumors of quagmires, real or imagined atrocities, accusations by our enemies: front-page news, naturally.

American success in Iraq: not so much – ignore it or bury it.
And they keep bleating about their declining readership or viewership. You'd think that after getting bludgeoned over the head enough times with the facts, they'd wise up and start more balanced coverage of the news. There are even a few success stories out there to guide them: the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and USA Today, all of which are doing well.

But instead we see precipitous declines in the numbers for nearly all major news outlets. The New York Times numbers are falling at a rate that must be terrifying its Board of Directors. Ditto the Los Angeles Times. Right here in San Diego, the Union-Tribute (known locally as the “Union-Buffoon”) is in disaster territory, announcing multiple waves of layoffs within the past year and publicly putting themselves up for sale – and no interested buyers have appeared yet.

In any industry I'm familiar with, the Board of Directors of each such company would long ago have taken some concrete action to staunch the bleeding. When I see nearly an entire industry headed into the toilet like this, with no mystery whatsoever about the solution to their financial woes, I can only think of one explanation: liberal ideologues must hold majorities on those Boards. They are deliberately making bad business choices in order to keep pumping out the liberal viewpoints, talking points, and narratives. How sad for all those shareholders...

If you think I'm spouting stuff and nonsense, consider talk radio. There are a few liberal talk radio shows, not a single one of which is making much money. There are hundreds of conservative and libertarian talk radio shows, many of which are making good money, and some of which are raking in the big bucks (think Limbaugh). Do you think it's an accident that more people want to listen to conservative viewpoints? Given how few television or print news outlets have a neutral perspective (much less a conservative perspective), doesn't it strike you as significant that they are the only such outlets that are growing and profitable?

1 comment:

  1. You wrote: >> If you think I'm spouting stuff and nonsense, consider talk radio. There are a few liberal talk radio shows, not a single one of which is making much money. There are hundreds of conservative and libertarian talk radio shows, many of which are making good money, and some of which are raking in the big bucks (think Limbaugh). Do you think it's an accident that more people want to listen to conservative viewpoints? <<<

    No. It's no accident, and yes you are spouting nonsensical "stuff", and here's why.

    The reason there are less progressive/liberal talk radio shows is simple. It has to do with the bell curve on human intelligence. There are way more humans on the "average" part of the intelligence curve so you can more easily manipulate, and control this larger group versus the smaller, more intelligent group that easily bored with the lack of mental stimulation and illogical nonsense spouted by these ratings driven idiots. Examples of large "dumb" turnouts? NASCAR versus Formula One; American's think racing around in an oval and only turning left is motor racing. They've no clue. Unless they've had the unbelievable thrill of masterful driver Michael Schumacher's Ferrari whipping by at 200+ MPH while negotiating the turns at the Nurburgring. World Wide Wrestling does well here too. So does "reality TV", People Magazine, and all the rest of that drivel. As for me and those of us on the other end of the curve? I read Harpers, Free Inquiry, The Nation, and things that require one to actually think and not be blinded by the corporate propaganda. Free Speech TV can be interesting sometimes. But Dish Network keeps that channel safely away from the masses and all the way up at channel 9415. I wonder why? Oh...they don't have corporate sponsors, so there is always the danger that something might be "said". (and it often is)
    I do however, from time to time, indulge the likes of your philosophy by tuning into Fox News---though only for comic relief after a stressful day... They are pretty funny at times.
    By the way, Fox News has a very large viewership. Where do you suppose their viewers fit on the bell curve?

    ReplyDelete