March 24, 2006

• Haven't posted an FPP in a while, so I thought I'd give it a try. Dang if I couldn't resist this one...
• ugh...preview is your friend.
• The article from the San Jose Mercury is here. Looks to me like they wanted a story with one pro and one anti, and decided to use Martinez instead. Not really seeing your point here f8x.
• Then what does "They said that because I had just lost my son, that I couldn't be impartial about my feelings toward the war" mean? I was merely observing what seems to be a casual disregard for the woman's opinions, stating, in effect, that what she thought had no bearing on the war. Yet other people, who lost sons and were against the war, or who had lost sons and were ambivalent about the war, were profiled. Why the disinclination to publish her comments? Beyond outright obscenity, I can't imagine a good reason.
• Because, having read the actual article, it looks to me like they chose another woman to provide their pro-war point of view. From the actual published article, right at the top Nadia McCaffrey lost Patrick. ``I support the troops, but I want them home,'' she says. ``I want the killing to stop.'' Jan Martinez lost Jesse. ``We need to be more aggressive and fight for what we believe,'' she says. ``We can't just walk away.'' Looks to me like a note perfect modern media she said/she said article. Martinez sure doesn't sound ambivalent to me.
• Just to clarify - the first FP link is to a TracyPress article where Conover complains about not being quoted in a San Jose Mercury article. I link to the actual SJ Mercury article where it is apparent that they decided to use a different pro war mother.
• Oh my god - a nation declares war and a towns children get killed! Which part of war is not obvious..... Given the statistics, is this a town, (city, maybe sorry about my lack of USA knowledge) where there is an army/navy/airforce/ base which allows the local press to skew the statistics - dont laugh (cry maybe?) apparently 90% of the medal winners in the commonwealth games have come from within 5 feet of where i live because they once breathed the air.....
• From the article, it sounds to me like opinion in this town, like everywhere else, is divided. The woman GUESSES that the reporter didn't like her opinions, but it's just as likely she didn't say anything as articulate or eloquent as the other people interviewed. I don't recall Sheehan ever claiming "absolute moral authority." I'm not sure why this is news, either.
• Desperation!
• Apologies for the derail, but Fly, what the heck are you going on about? It's like reading a telegram from Charlie Callas.
• Everything I'd like to point out has already been said a couple times by polychrome.
• I see the point f8x is making: Sheehan's anti-war views are given credence because she lost a son in the war, but a woman in the same situation who supports the war is dismissed as just trying to justify her son's death. I don't doubt that that's the slant many people - and some reporters - are taking. I would tend to listen less to both mothers, because they're both acting with more emotion than reason. Neither is an expert on the war, and neither's views are any more valid than yours or mine.
• But rocket, if polychrome is correct the woman in question wasn't dismissed - she simply wasn't the "pro-war-mother" they profiled. If polychrome is not correct, then I'd have to RTFA, and we all know that can only spell trouble. It's like reading a telegram from Charlie Callas. BWAhaAHhAHaa! *moves LLL up in the standings*
• but a woman in the same situation who supports the war is dismissed as just trying to justify her son's death. Ah, but yet another woman in the same situation who supports the war is has those views "given credence" by the very same reporter who supposedly rejected the other woman because of having that stance. The real point is that a woman that has had her son killed in war has the right to be upset at the man responsible. But just because one woman has waived that right, all other women are expected to do the same.
• What rocket88 said. Mothers of soldiers are all well and good for propaganda purposes (for boths sides, clearly), but ultimately cloud the issue with ever more confusing cadres of people all trying to tug your heartstrings in different directions. I understand and sympathize with both mothers, but I will not be manipulated by either.
• It's funny how Cindy Sheehan is being attacked on multiple fronts at the same time. You'd think it was some kind of coordinated attack. Nah, that never happens.
• It is the shame of both sides that they feel it appropriate to manipulate the grief of bereft mothers for political gain. It is like squeezing the pulp of sorrow to render vitriol and offer it like nectar to all too eager drinkers.
• "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children." --Jimmy Carter
• From the article, re: Martinez - "Still, tucked into her pro-war commentary are hints of a deeper fatigue." Okay, maybe not ambivalence. Just a press that makes its own interpretations. The woman GUESSES that the reporter didn't like her opinions, but it's just as likely she didn't say anything as articulate or eloquent as the other people interviewed. Perhaps, but she says THEY TOLD HER her opinions would be clouded. That's not guessing. All I'm complaining about is the stage the press gives some people. It comes across as slant, whether or not it's intentional.
• Is this the same liberal media which has rolled over time and time again in the face of many obvious lies and criminal activity from this administration? The one that continues to obediently write down whatever Scott McClellan quacks out, the one that acts as a free propaganda blowtorch for the far right? That liberal slant? 'Cause if it is, conservatives should be lovin' that slant. Candy from babies, that's what that slant delivers. Allright, allright, I'll RTFA.
• f8xmulder: I think you're making mountains out of molehills (like so many of my lefter-than-thou brethren). Without proof that the reporter specifically ignored the quote, I don't see that you can claim intentional slant. It may be unintentionally slanted, but that's the case with most news that isn't glaring propaganda. Furthermore, even if it was slanted, so what? It's one reporter. I may be misconstruing your motives, but you seem to be pushing to use this one incident to illustrate some sort of overall bias in the media. It doesn't work that way. You have to amass proof, dude. It would be meaningful if you have several instances of someone doing the same thing, but you got one. That's it. Nice try.
• drivingmenuts, I may ascertain media bias, but I'm not using this FPP here to push that. I was just curious at the woman's quote, which I've pasted in a number of times, and using Sheehan as a counterpoint to show that it's ridiculous that grieving mothers are somehow considered to be the gold standard of opinion. Where are the fathers with opinions? Or perhaps the better question should be: Why does it matter?
• Something about "A Mother's Love" (tm) or "Mother and Child" or living 9 months in them or something.
• Why does it matter Twenty years from now when a group of marines knock at your door with the news of your childs death. Then you'll know why it "matters".
• Oh. I see. *cough* yes, well let's get to what must be the pertinent point of the FPP here. San Jose reporters spoke with her, she said, but didn’t use her comments. “They didn’t like what I had to say,” she figured. “They said that because I had just lost my son, that I couldn’t be impartial about my feelings toward the war.” Okay let's look at the first sentence: "San Jose reporters spoke with her, she said, but didn’t use her comments." Well, that seems pretty well like a statement of fact on Ms. Conover's part. So admitted into record. *bam!* Second sentence: "'They didn’t like what I had to say,' she figured." Okay, that's a direct quote, and the "she figured" part means it's Ms. Conover's opinion that they didn't use her quote because they "didn't like what I had to say." Okay, now the money sentence (that'd be the third here): "'They said that because I had just lost my son, that I couldn’t be impartial about my feelings toward the war.'" They said, because she had just lost her son, she couldn't be impartial. Now that's different from "just because she lost her son". So I'm reading that as; the reporter(s) felt that grief may have kept her from being as objective as she may have been. I don't see that as proof of bias. But f8x, I gotta call bullshit on this post. Lookit, the only link (besides an old jobs link) is to a freeper article entitled "MSM says Gold Star Mom Not Qualified to Speak About War on Terror". I'm gonna make the leap that perhaps that's where you saw it, unless you live in Tracy, CA. The Gold Star parents formed specifically to counter Cindy Sheehan. The title is pretty clear what the "slant" of the article is. So your comment that this FPP is to show that it's ridiculous that grieving mothers are somehow considered to be the gold standard of opinion. Where are the fathers with opinions? I - I'm just not buyin' it. It seems disingenuous and frankly below the usual seemingly heartfelt (if seriously-flawed-IMMO) comments elsewhere.
• pete, I didn't troll the article from FreeRP, never go there, am not a member, etc. etc. Found this the same way anyone finds links, through just surfing and reading other sites. It's probably astonishing to you that I don't visit Freep on a daily basis, but there you go. Now, given the fact that this isn't even the first time I've heard of the "grieving mother makes public opinion on war" syndrome in the news, I'm not sure I see how you can say this FPP is bullshit. What's your meter say? That I'm disingenuous? Why, because I secretly hate the press and am working to expose their slant-less reporting as biased? Look, it's no secret I think the media's biased. Moreover, I think it should be. Bias is healthy, when it's out in the open. But if there's a secret, it's that what I find excessive is 1) the use of grieving mothers in the media to prove some kind of point that war sucks. No freakin' duh. 2) the seemingly overwhelming attention paid to one mother who made her loss so public as to be obscene. If we're going to be fair, at least give some equal time to someone on the other side. But ultimately, biology does not make morality. Just because you're a mother doesn't make you some kind of moral weight superstar. And, I never implied or explicitly wrote "just because she lost her son". You're putting words in me mouth, boyo.
• At the very least, the press is guilty of this, with regard to Ms. Sheehan.
• I didn't imply - or rather mean to imply that you wrote "just because she lost her son" - I was saying that had one read it that way, yeah it would have read as "the newspaper wouldn't quote her because she lost a son and was for the war". So where did you run across the article? I usually get lots and lots of hits on a "popular" article, and Google pulled up one in this case: the original, and two under a "Web" search: eight under freerepublic and the original. I'm not saying you don't have a secret right-wing BBS somewhere in the ice caves of Alaska where you get updates, but I'd be interested to see where it came from. the seemingly overwhelming attention paid to one mother who made her loss so public as to be obscene. If we're going to be fair, at least give some equal time to someone on the other side. While Sheehan was always introduced as having lost her son, I don't think the groups of people who did something because of her were doing it because she lost her son. They found her particular opposition to the war the right voice for them. I remember it as "Hey look, somebody's calling bullshit on Bush's reasons for Iraq" in the middle of all major news outlets parroting the administration with a weak "could that be true?" approach. I think Sheehan was the start of major news reporting on actual, call-it-for-what-it-is bullshit, not second-guessing and timid postulation. Agreed on the "appeal to pity" angle. The Carter quote above adresses that on some level I think.
• Sorry, I read that as you thinking or assuming I had said what you quoted. Oddly enough, I was doing some research on the Muslim-turned Christian Abdul Rahman when I found some stuff linked on timblair.net (Tim Blair is Australian), which I have linked on my site but never really visit. I checked out the rest of the site and found the Tracy article.
• I see - yes, very interesting stuff. http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/non_cindy_not_quoted/ A search of Google.com.au gets 18 hits. Hmm.
• Ugh, Tim Blair. Ask him about the AWB.
• What's the AWB?
• Well f8x, I thought you had only pulled this from freerepublic presenting it as a wire story or something. (I'm not sure timblair didn't do that, but that's neither here nor there). And with the clarification above to make 2 points instead of one (about women), I retract my call of bullshit - apologies for the gun-jumping. To that point, I think the mother-of-soldier angle is just to bring the war home. Mom. Home. War-angle. Like that. Do mothers have more moral authority to comment on a war than, say, the guy working the gas station? Yeah, probably. Having a baby. Raising them. They are killed in war. That's got more emotional clout in terms of war commentary than some jerk like me bitching on AnyFilter. I may know more about the war, but I can't express more of the experience. $0.02
• I guess I still don't get how this shows anything. If the same article chose to quote another pro-war mom, then it's not like they were trying to slant the thing. For all we know, she was raving like a madwoman in her grief, and the reporter was trying to politely put her off. For all we know, she's a moose in disguise. I just don't know what this is intended to prove.
• I guess I still don't get how this shows anything. If the same article chose to quote another pro-war mom, then it's not like they were trying to slant the thing. For all we know, she was raving like a madwoman in her grief, and the reporter was trying to politely put her off. For all we know, she's a moose in disguise. I just don't know what this is intended to prove.
• Whoops!
• Well, if I understand by now: the post is intended to show that (1) the mainstream media is biased to the left but won't admit it and (2) Mothers are given an inordinate amount of currency in terms of commentary on the Iraq war. I could be wrong - I am not a mother. Hey hey! Just pipe down there, Mr. angry man!
• Neither am I a mother, which makes it difficult for me to offer any observations or opinions that come close to matching what a mother with a child in war may feel. While I can grant a mother may have more emotional currency than others, that doesn't mean that your gas station attendant's emotional currency has less value. Or more, for that matter. But I guess it's the ones with the funds who get the airtime. Doesn't make it the right or only way to go about "bringing it home". My dos pesos. Also, no offense taken, pete. I seem to be perennially guilty of putting up FPPs that come across as one thing when my intentions are anything but. I will try to be more clear next time.
• /punches f8x.
• While I can grant a mother may have more emotional currency than others, that doesn't mean that your gas station attendant's emotional currency has less value. For the sake of the FPP's argument, it does. It means that the opinion of any Mother of a serviceperson, especially a serviceperson who is killed in the line of duty - outweighs the gas station attendant's. With the exception of those gas station attendants what are mothers of servicepersons.
• 
• This just in, everybody (liberals too) are hypocrites. Doesn't make it right. Doesn't mean the conservatives are correct, or moral. Cindy Sheehan also made her own publicity, I wonder how much effort this Mom has put in. There were plenty of places Sheehan went that the press didn't cover.