Skip to main content

Media jumps on “low recruitment rate” of Army, other services

This week we have heard that the Armed Services are missing their recruitment quotas. However, one point missed in nearly every article I have read misses one important point:

“How has the reporting of the press played a part in lowering recruiting?”

If I can be blunt I don’t think I would be stretching it to say that the press’s reporting on the War in Iraq and Afghanistan has been a little negative. In fact I have really tried to find stories that paint a positive side to what is going on over there with our men and women, but they are hard to find

To be fair there is a lot of bad stuff happening there. Car bombs going off just about every day. Soldiers dying every day. Yet if there was some balance placed into some of the reporting, the ratio of causality to soldiers deployed is fractional compared to other armed conflicts. In fact people are dying on our nation’s highways at a much higher rate than in Iraq. Seriously, we have over 100,000 troops there. To lose one is bad, but realistically, being a 13 year Army Veteran I’ll tell you this: To lose two or three a day on a war of this scale is incredible success.

Kids back home read the paper, look at the news and see “bad, bad, and more bad”. Most of this simply because by and large the MSM is biased against the war and doesn’t want to say anything good about it. Flash back to Vietnam and look at the reports back then and you have pretty much the same picture being painted by MSM on a daily basis. It’s as if they put up a banner: “We’re losing the war, don’t come here – you’ll get killed!”

No, the MSM shouldn't be a cheerleader for the military – but it had better take the responsibility to be BALANCED and UNBIASED in it’s reporting about the war. As with Mr. Isikoff at Newsweek and his 'hackery', the cost can be great. My word to him:

“Bud, if you have an axe to grind against our men and women, take it to France! You are a disgrace to America”.

But “hacks” aside, the MSM is losing credibility and if they ever want to see their “glory” days return they had better get back to Journalism 101 – “Report the news; be fair and balanced; tell the truth.”


Joe said…
They are what they are -- they're a company selling a product.

The military, too, is selling a product, in a way -- they want you to decide that the benefits of joining the military outweigh the costs.

It's natural, and they're just two of many options competing in a vast marketplace for people's time and energy.

If people don't like news reporting, they're welcome to turn elsewhere (Many are - look at Fox News' viewership numbers). This isn't the Soviet Union, and the MSM ain't Pravda.

Which is why your attempt to downplay the significance of the Army not meeting its recruiting goals makes no sense. The fact that a negative portrayal of the war in the media lowers recruiting makes no difference -- they have no responsibility to boost recruitment, as it's not their job.

The army is selling a job that they want people to accept -- that's the whole idea with having a volunteer army, as opposed to a draft (Every military study has shown that a volunteer army is more effective).

If people aren't volunteering, perhaps the Army should offer them significantly more money. More people will consider military service if it pays six figures.

Would that cost significantly more money? It would.

Since the military is providing services to the country, perhaps taxes should be raised to pay for that.

The lesson here: If you're going to fight a war, don't fight it on the cheap.
MacRanger said…
I would agree that the Army (of which I am retired from); should do more to make it more attractive. But there is a history of connection between the media and recruitment.

For example in both WWI and WWII the media was instrumental in "pumping up patriotism" and motivating a nation to serve. This began to wane in Korea and was nearly non-existant during Vietnam.

Initially, 9/11 fostered the "go get 'em" that fueled recruitment - but again, becuase of the now mostly negative reporting of the MSM it IS having an affect.

There ARE very positive things taking place in Iraq and believe it or not our victories far outweigh our defeats. We are making a difference.

Yet even after WWII some of the same negativity that came out during our occupations of Germany and Japan, are similiar to what we see today.

In the end I believe you are right in saying that "The Army should do more", because they are definitely in a PR battle with the left of the MSM.

Popular posts from this blog

Calling Mr. Fitzgerald?


As I told you about in this post yesterday as a source confirmed to me that the Justice Department has launched a probe into the NSA leak. Mr. Risen, you are in trouble - prepare your defense. I told you so.

The White House will be announcing the probe at about 12:30pm. My source tells me that this probe will most likely result in another prosecutor being assigned as of course Fitzgerald is still busy/dizzy on the Plame/Game No-Leak. Additionally, other probes into other recent leaks such as the CIA 'prisons'leak is in the works as well. As I said, this is the NEW Bush - on the attack - it's no more Mr. Nice Guy!

About time! Also covering Michelle Malkin

*****End Update*********

UPDATE II: Looks like I owe my source big time as yet another tip comes true as the Washington Post is on the target list as well for the CIA Prison leak.

****End Update II*************************************

Update III: Via Fox: "The government has no legal right to…

Is the lid about to be blown off Able Danger?

Those who have been wishing for a full blown Able Danger investigation are about to get their wish. The "gate" has been unlocked.

9/11 Iraqi Connection

With Democrats calling for yet more investigations into pre-war intelligence, and Republicans like myself pushing back to help their 'sudden amnesia”, the growing stories of Able Danger and even China Gate, are beginning to make news.

The three main theories about why Able Danger hasn't gotten out of the "blog stage", are 1) To hide Clinton era responsibility for stopping the 9/11 attacks, and/or 2) To hide the truth behind China-Gate, or 3) The facts show that there in fact was a direct link between Iraq and 9/11.

Taking either one you can see why the Clinton worshipping MSM for the most part hasn't touched the story. Of the later point, Democrats, the MSM and even some of our investigations state that there was no 'direct' link between Iraq and 9/11. Say otherwise and the MSM will slice and di…

Monday Morning Intelligence with Kool Aid and the NY Times - UPDATE

Followup to previous post.

NY Times: 9/11 Commission's Staff Rejected Report on Early Identification of Chief Hijacker

Ok, I've been on the phone now for...oh, about three days, to some old chums in Tampa, checking this story out, asking questions,...etc. So far what I've heard is that IF this story is true, then those who are really in the know in the Intel world are feeling like a bunch of little red-hair step-childred.

Ed. Morissey is ready to hang the 911 Commission out to dry......mmm,

Ed, not so fast my friend.

Again, I am amazed at the vercacity the NY Times and AP is getting on this story, and from the same conservative bloggers who are normally parsing every "dot and tittle" the Times puts out. Who would think?...

Yeah, there is a lot of "anger" because of "Gorelick" fever where the blogshere and conservative media rightfully called attention to her conflict of interest while serving on the commission. But we can't let the "gotc…