Coverage will vary.
Even I don't know what to believe anymore, and I'm pretty media-savvy. I try to get as many sources as I can before buying something, preferably classified briefings, which while they arrive much later than the unclassified news (generally speaking) are also composed of heavily-verified facts. (also generally speaking)
Single-source news tends to be bullshit, or at least distortion. Easy example: the rumor started by one South Korean diplomat that Kim was about to collapse in Pyongyang. Sure, I heard it from a half-dozen different places, but it was all sourced to the exact same guy. A rumor.
Multi-source news tends to be reliably biased, which is to say, news from Fox or SkyNEWS is reliably biased toward the "conservative," and news from CBS, ABC, and CNN is reliably biased toward the "liberal." I know my "spin" words, and I listen attentively for facts and editorializing, and try to get as many possible "spins" as I can before accepting the "facts."
But who knows what reality is? The general who seems to speak in a no-shit manner may be listening to a bunch of yesmen in his aides-de-camp. The diplomat who speaks in glowing terms of an intervention here, or a negotiation there, may simply be trying to take an easy bargaining position with the other side, so he can gain a concession of some kind. (diplomats only lie when their lips are moving) The politician who pronounces doom from above or below may simply be trying to wring a concession from his political enemies, or pay lip service to his political friends. (politicians lie even when their lips don't move)
The truth of the war is, as long as Americans keep coming back to Dover, DE in caskets we stand in danger of "losing." No matter how many battles we "win," and no matter how few "offensive" actions on the part of the enemy there are (seriously, we've lost fewer people in this three-year war than in the first two hours of Normandy, with nearly as many people fighting -- more if you count the fact that many of them have been back more than once) as long as they keep the government of Iraq weak and disunited (not a difficult task) our belief that it is possible to "win" will certainly fade, and we will then lose by default.
The only major difference between this war and Vietnam, this war and Somalia, is not the numbers of people involved; it is the existence of vital national-security interests. Yes, I mean oil. If we continue to not establish peace, not establish something resembling a united federal government, not establish something resembling a monopoly of violence on the part of that government, not prevent ethnic cleansing on the part of that government, then winters become harsh indeed, and not just for you and me: it will be a worldwide depression, and it will last a few years, and a whole lot of people will suffer for it, all due to our precipitous, poorly planned and dreadfully executed adventure in search of the Next Big Peace.
But you wouldn't know it from watching Fox. CNN doesn't seem bothered by the idea of losing, either. Indeed, they almost seem excited about it.
Coverage will vary by location.
Single-source news tends to be bullshit, or at least distortion. Easy example: the rumor started by one South Korean diplomat that Kim was about to collapse in Pyongyang. Sure, I heard it from a half-dozen different places, but it was all sourced to the exact same guy. A rumor.
Multi-source news tends to be reliably biased, which is to say, news from Fox or SkyNEWS is reliably biased toward the "conservative," and news from CBS, ABC, and CNN is reliably biased toward the "liberal." I know my "spin" words, and I listen attentively for facts and editorializing, and try to get as many possible "spins" as I can before accepting the "facts."
But who knows what reality is? The general who seems to speak in a no-shit manner may be listening to a bunch of yesmen in his aides-de-camp. The diplomat who speaks in glowing terms of an intervention here, or a negotiation there, may simply be trying to take an easy bargaining position with the other side, so he can gain a concession of some kind. (diplomats only lie when their lips are moving) The politician who pronounces doom from above or below may simply be trying to wring a concession from his political enemies, or pay lip service to his political friends. (politicians lie even when their lips don't move)
The truth of the war is, as long as Americans keep coming back to Dover, DE in caskets we stand in danger of "losing." No matter how many battles we "win," and no matter how few "offensive" actions on the part of the enemy there are (seriously, we've lost fewer people in this three-year war than in the first two hours of Normandy, with nearly as many people fighting -- more if you count the fact that many of them have been back more than once) as long as they keep the government of Iraq weak and disunited (not a difficult task) our belief that it is possible to "win" will certainly fade, and we will then lose by default.
The only major difference between this war and Vietnam, this war and Somalia, is not the numbers of people involved; it is the existence of vital national-security interests. Yes, I mean oil. If we continue to not establish peace, not establish something resembling a united federal government, not establish something resembling a monopoly of violence on the part of that government, not prevent ethnic cleansing on the part of that government, then winters become harsh indeed, and not just for you and me: it will be a worldwide depression, and it will last a few years, and a whole lot of people will suffer for it, all due to our precipitous, poorly planned and dreadfully executed adventure in search of the Next Big Peace.
But you wouldn't know it from watching Fox. CNN doesn't seem bothered by the idea of losing, either. Indeed, they almost seem excited about it.
Coverage will vary by location.