How The D-day Invasion Would Be Reported By Today's Press - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

mikemover · #1 06-29-2005, 10:03 AM

(I found this earlier today, and thought it was interesting. Also probably very close to the mark, judging from the lopsided coverage Iraq and Afghanistan have gotten...)
_________________________________________________

NORMANDY, FRANCE (June 6, 1944) Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more were wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated, and that reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason, "said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."

The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops, tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, thus threatening the species with extinction. A representative of Greenpeace said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a year, was appalled at the destruction, but not surprised. "This is just another example of how the military destroys the environment without a second thought," said Christine Moanmore. "And it's all about corporate greed."

Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French government-in-exile who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded, said the invasion was based solely on American financial interests. "Everyone knows that President Roosevelt has ties to 'big beer'," said Pierre LeWimp. "Once the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will control the world market and make a fortune."

Administration supporters said America's aggressive actions were based in part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who sent a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were developing a secret weapon -- a so-called "atomic bomb". Such a weapon could produce casualties on a scale never seen before, and cause environmental damage that could last for thousands of years. Hitler has denied having such a weapon and international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after spending two long weekends in Germany. Shortly after the invasion began, reports surfaced that German prisoners had been abused by American soldiers. Mistreatment of Jews by Germans at their so-called "concentration camps" has been rumored, but so far this remains unproven.

Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion, and French officials are concerned that the uncollected corpses will pose a public-health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in advance," they said. "It's their mess, and we don't intend to help clean it up."

___________________________________________

boneheaddoctor · #2 06-29-2005, 10:09 AM

How true............thank god the liberals weren't running the show back then....but they were in France at the time...

Honus · #3 06-29-2005, 11:24 AM

What standard do you use to determine whether coverage is lopsided? Without being there, how do you know the truth? Even reports from people who have been there can't give the full picture because one person can't be in all parts of Iraq and all parts of Afghanistan.

The coverage of Iraq tells me that we had a highly effective military invasion, followed by a difficult occupation. The coverage of the Iraqi election said that it was so successful that the Sunnis regret having boycotted. You don't complain about any of that coverage, I assume. Is your complaint that the media reported things like Rumsfeld's arrogant dismissal of anyone who says we should have had a plan for what would happen after the invasion?

I have no way of judging the objectivity or bias of the reporting on Iraq, but I can think of some discouraging news that the media continue to ignore. Remember the report that came out estimating the number of Iraqi casualties from the war? As usual, the administration succeeded in changing the subject by getting everyone talking about whether the study was based on a flawed methodology. Have any of you heard any other reports about the number of Iraqi casualties? Seems like an important issue, don't you think?

I haven't heard or read very much coverage, positive or negative, of our efforts in Afghanistan.

boneheaddoctor · #4 06-29-2005, 11:40 AM

A liberal reporter would not report anything positive if a conservative was in charge...and nothing negative if a liberal was in charge....and an antiwar reporter would be whining how we were hurting the poor Germans just like they are whining about how democracy is hurting the poor Iraqies and Afgans and how they were better off before we liberated them.

Botnst · #5 06-29-2005, 12:45 PM

Was Roosevelt a Conservative? daaayem!

boneheaddoctor · #6 06-29-2005, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Was Roosevelt a Conservative? daaayem!

Not all Democrats are whiny liberals....

Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman come to mind as recent examples.

#7 06-29-2005, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Was Roosevelt a Conservative? daaayem!

Dude, you stole my EXACT post. well almost exact I was going to say Daaym, Roosevelt was a conservative?

.

mikemover · #8 06-29-2005, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

What standard do you use to determine whether coverage is lopsided? Without being there, how do you know the truth? Even reports from people who have been there can't give the full picture because one person can't be in all parts of Iraq and all parts of Afghanistan.

I know enough friends and family who have been there, and some that are STILL there, in various parts of Iraq, performing a wide variety of duties. They ALL tell me that there's PLENTY of positive progress and GOOD news that is not making it to the airwaves here at all. Several of them have come home and have been quite shocked by how slanted and negative the coverage actually is here.

Mike

Honus · #9 06-29-2005, 03:48 PM

One's opinion about how we are doing in Iraq probably depends on that person's expectations at the time of the invasion. To me, the task that W dumped on our armed forces is so difficult, that I don't see why anyone would have predicted a better outcome than we have had so far. So, viewed from my perspective, the news from Iraq doesn't seem that bad. In fact, we are doing quite well, given the impossible conditions created by the Bush administration's incompetent "leadership."

The coverage would probably seem less negative if the adminisration had any credibility. When Dick Cheney said the insurgency was in its "last throes." I assumed it was a bald faced lie. Subsequent comments by Cheney and Rumsfeld support that conclusion. I am an avowed anti-Bush person, but would love to see us put the Iraq thing behind us. I would be receptive to good news. So isn't it a shame that my immediate reaction to anything uttered by our Vice President is to assume that he is lying? I am not alone in that view. There are plenty of lifelong Republicans who are tiring of this administration's dishonesty. In the face of that enormous disadvantage, it is unfair to expect the media to make everything seem all fine and dandy.

And another thing - trying putting yourself in the shoes of the White House press corps. They seem to be a bunch of worthless self-promoters, so I don't have much sympathy for them. On the other hand, can you imagine how bitter you would get if you had to deal with that nimrod Scott McClelland self-rightiouslessly spewing stuff that noone could ever mistake as sincere? I think it's remarkable that they have remained as supportive of the administration as they have. W owes them a debt of gratitude for their servile loyalty to him.

mikemover · #10 06-29-2005, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

One's opinion about how we are doing in Iraq probably depends on that person's expectations at the time of the invasion. To me, the task that W dumped on our armed forces is so difficult, that I don't see why anyone would have predicted a better outcome than we have had so far. So, viewed from my perspective, the news from Iraq doesn't seem that bad. In fact, we are doing quite well, given the impossible conditions created by the Bush administration's incompetent "leadership."

The coverage would probably seem less negative if the adminisration had any credibility. When Dick Cheney said the insurgency was in its "last throes." I assumed it was a bald faced lie. Subsequent comments by Cheney and Rumsfeld support that conclusion. I am an avowed anti-Bush person, but would love to see us put the Iraq thing behind us. I would be receptive to good news. So isn't it a shame that my immediate reaction to anything uttered by our Vice President is to assume that he is lying? I am not alone in that view. There are plenty of lifelong Republicans who are tiring of this administration's dishonesty. In the face of that enormous disadvantage, it is unfair to expect the media to make everything seem all fine and dandy.

And another thing - trying putting yourself in the shoes of the White House press corps. They seem to be a bunch of worthless self-promoters, so I don't have much sympathy for them. On the other hand, can you imagine how bitter you would get if you had to deal with that nimrod Scott McClelland self-rightiouslessly spewing stuff that noone could ever mistake as sincere? I think it's remarkable that they have remained as supportive of the administration as they have. W owes them a debt of gratitude for their servile loyalty to him.

I don't really care how bitter the white house press corps might be, and I don't want them to make anything "seem" to be anything (as you put it).

I want them to report HONESTLY, without BIAS, and without slanting the story one way or another politically.

That is their JOB. Nothing more, nothing less.

If they can no longer do that job effectively, for whatever reason, they should be fired and replaced.

Blaming their incompetence and bias on what they might believe to be a "dishonest administration" is no excuse. The current administration is FAR from being the first "dishonest administraion" this nation has endured.

Mike

Honus · #11 06-29-2005, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

...

I want them to report HONESTLY, without BIAS, and without slanting the story one way or another politically.

That is their JOB. Nothing more, nothing less...

Their employers apparently don't see it that way. It becomes more obvious all the time that it is all about $$$ to the big time media types.

Quote:

...Blaming their incompetence and bias on what they might believe to be a "dishonest administration" is no excuse...

You got it backwards. The administration's dishonesty, IMHO, is a big reason why Americans are losing faith in them. The media treats them as if they are honest, because that approach gets them continued access. That's how they get the $$$.

Quote:

...The current administration is FAR from being the first "dishonest administraion" this nation has endured...

It's not the first, but it might be the worst (look, I made a rhyme). Dishonesty is a core value with these people, and not just with respect to Iraq. Take any subject related to our government, and I will bet I can find reliable documentation of deception by the Bush administration. I believe nothing anyone from the administration says. Nothing. They have been caught lying too many times.

chazola · #12 06-29-2005, 05:47 PM

Come on, we know CNN would get there before the American, British and Canadian troops now...

Anyone remember the troops coming ashore in Somalia and CNN were already on the beach with lights and cameras? That was halarious...

boneheaddoctor · #13 06-29-2005, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chazola

Come on, we know CNN would get there before the American, British and Canadian troops now...

Anyone remember the troops coming ashore in Somalia and CNN were already on the beach with lights and cameras? That was halarious...

It was.....and they were ready to report on things just they way the wantd them to happen too....which many times bears little resemlance to what really is happening.

Nothing like watching an initial landing on TV as its happening...

HomeRunPark · #14 06-30-2005, 12:27 AM

I'm raising the

this thread sucks.

mikemover · #15 06-30-2005, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomeRunPark

I'm raising the

this thread sucks.

Thank you for your eloquent and informative contribution.

Mike

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1986 300SDL Question	Marcb	Diesel Discussion	21	02-17-2010 07:17 PM
Your Child's First Lesson In Socialism	mikemover	Off-Topic Discussion	31	02-09-2004 11:19 PM