Juba
This is a crazy story about a sniper in Iraq. It always amazes me how much damage one person can do with a rifle, tactically and psychologically.
I have heard reports (but not verified myself) that this story is not reported anywhere in the U.S. - only in foreign channels. That would be about par for the course, but I’m curious if reporting it would really be as damaging to morale as everybody seems to imagine, and why it’s ok to suppress this type of story.
July 13th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Snipers. A single shot fired yeilds a success rate of much greater than 50%. They rarely leave collateral damage and civilian casualties. Compare this to traditional troop methods and outcomes and it is clear that the sniper is an ideal military combatant. The big downfall to fighting a sniper is that they are often unidentifiable as a militant, a result of adaquate training to assimilate and blend in. They almost always have a homefield advantage with a greater understanding of the geography and culture than an opposing force. They are very economical in their projected power and influence considering the small cost of a single sniper and related supplies. They do not spray costly bullets, use expensive missiles, motors etc. They operate in small teams that are relatively autonomous and light. What a miserable opponent.
I don’t believe that the story is suppressed. I am of the belief that many of our news mediums and outlets would find this information to fit very nicely with the war coverage packaging and policies that they have developed. I would not be surprised to see this or similar stories in the near future through different information sources. To this point I would draw attention to the detailed information that we have seen on a regular basis pertaining to the IED constuction techniques and tactics. I feel that this story could be seen as newsworthy to the standard sources as soon as the following criteria are established as follows:
1. Is this a story that could make people fearful?
2. Does this information allow for detailed reporting of number of dead US soldiers? … does it assist the rolling body count?
3. Could this information encourage a decision that the price is too high to pay?
4. Will this information get attention of target audiences for a little bit longer so that an advertisers message will be seen and their product purchased and a resulting new contract will be signed with said advertiser for a lot of money so we can make lots of moolah?
I feel this is a fair assessment and many of these values and principles are carried over into other industries as well regardless of political orientation.
-Nate
July 13th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Number 1 and Number 4, from a marketing standpoint, are undoubtedly, as you say “carried over into other industries as well regardless of political orientation.” Fear is a powerful (if not the most powerful) marketing ploy.
We probably won’t be able to resolve the debate about media bias. I tend to suspect it leans in one direction; you suspect it leans in another. There is enough inconsistency on either side that probably a little of both is going on.
I don’t think, however, that precludes the possibility that certain stories are supressed by the administration. In fact, I’m positive it happens. Was this particular story suppressed in the US? Like I said, I haven’t taken the time to investigate it myself, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
Regarding the general (perceived or otherwise) bias of the media, this story / graphic (http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html) is englightening. It’s a little old now, but I doubt that things have shifted all that much in the last five years.
July 14th, 2006 at 7:25 am
Hey I need some technical hookups and I can’t wait to read the article when I get some time. I got to go work soon and I am about to have breakfast with Bry and Irene.
p
July 17th, 2006 at 5:12 am
I find it interesting that you concluded that (1) this was suppressed and (2) it was suppressed by the US government. I didn\’t find the article of great interest. It may not have been widely published if that view is shared by others (or if it the facts cannot be corroborated).
Also, if I tried to make myself suspicious, I jumped to \”see, that\’s just like the liberal media … suppressing information that describes just the kind of war we are in and why we need to be there.\”
I\’m sure you will disagree with my conclusions but it seems that neither of us a basing our conclusion on the facts but rather on our assumptions of those involved.