Spinning the event

CLONMEL -- We have an on-going discussion pertaining to the tendency of both the government and the press to spin things as they explain things. The discussion also relates to events in Iraq. In the case of Donald Rumsfeld meeting a question from a deployed soldier that asked why the armor plating was inadequate, many American press sources make up an event instead of exploring the issue.

The issue actually is that the US military is better-equipped and better-prepared than any other time in its history. If the Army wanted more armor plating, it would happen. But the Army wants visibility and speed, so some armour plating stays behind.

---

PR331 -- "Spin of the Day"
Russell Pettie -- "The Rumsfeld, Humvee Armor Dust-up"
x_ref125pr

Comments

[Karen]

I feel that the PR spin put on the invasion and destruction of Iraq is not about leaving or taking equipment, but the leaving and taking of lives. According to research done by Michael Moore not even the American public were/are aware of everything going on over there.

(Movie in question: Fahrenheit 911
Home page:www.MichaelMoore.com)

They were co-erced into joining the army, they were out of touch with the reality of the war they were fighting, they were mostly young men and women of college age, who were fighting an enemy they didn't even know was an enemy. The 9/11 attacks were blamed on Bin Laden, so why did the US go after Sadam Hussein? That is a question that has never been answered.

The spin put on the horrific treatment of the Iraqi people and Iraq itself was essentially "We are seeking out weapons of mass destruction. We believe they have them and intend to use them. We are defending you from the enemy."

The main public reaction, and indeed my own reaction to that is: "Weapons of mass destruction"???.... Where exactly were they? Why did you think you they were there, let alone a threat to you- indeed us? How does what you did to them in any way justify the claim that you were "protecting us"?

The PR guys for the US and Britain must be doing a good job...because as of yet they haven't gone before the court of human rights. Which is where they should be. I think the reason that bad feelings about the "war" in Iraq (lets be honest here, what chance did Iraq have against two of the biggest war-mongering giants of the world?) have not been more evident, is because any e-mails etc sent via or to hotmail and other
English/American based accounts were monitored. The offending sender being locked out of their e-mail account. How do I know this? It happened to my mother...

Anyway, my feeling about the "war" aside, it was a very good PR spin- I doubt there is really much information out there about what really happened, and what really pushed them to attack Iraq. In fact most of the information about it is the positive PR spin. The rest of the information is contained in items blogs, and chat-rooms. It's all opinion, with very little fact to back it up. I bet there's a lot of politicians who would hire the PR guys that Blair and Bush have.... if they can make those two look like relatively good guys, imagine what they could do for regular politicians?