Agenda of the Media

[Gwizz]

Subject: The Agenda of the Media

>
> Military losses, 1980 through 2006
>
> These are some rather eye-opening facts.
>
> Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan,
> the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the
> invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through today, we have lost over
> 3,000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents.
>
> As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is,
> consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military
> members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980
> through 2006:
>
> 1980 .......... 2,392 (Carter Year)
> 1981 .......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
> 1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
> 1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
> 1989 .......... 1,636 (George HW Year)
> 1990 .......... 1,508 (George HW Year)
> 1991 .......... 1,787 (George HW Year)
> 1992 ......... 1,293 (George HW Year)
> 1993 .......... 1,213 (Clinton Year)
> 1994 ......... 1,075 (Clinton Year)
> 1995 .......... 2,465 (Clinton Year)
> 1996 ......... 2,318 (Clinton Year) Clinton years (1993-2000):
> 14,000 deaths
> 1997 ............. 817 (Clinton Year)
> 1998 .......... 2,252 (Clinton Year)
> 1999 ......... 1,984 (Clinton Year)
> 2000 .......... 1,983 (Clinton Year)
> 2001 ............ 890 (George W Year)
> 2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year)
> 2003 ......... 1,410 (George W Year)
> 2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year) George W years (2001-2006): 7,033 deaths
> 2005 ............. 919 (George W Year)
> 2006.............. 920 (George W Year)
>
> Military deaths during the Clinton years exceed those of the George W.
> Bush years.
>
> If you are confused when you look at these figures, so was I.
>
> Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts
> in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel
> during Mr. Clinton's presidency; when America wasn't even involved
> in a war? And, I was even more confused; when I read that in 1980,
> during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter,
> there were 2,392 US military fatalities!
>
> These figures indicate that many members of our Media and our
> politicians will pick and choose. They present only those 'facts'
> which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them
> march in lock-step to twist the truth? Where do so many of them get
> their marching-orders for their agenda?
>
> Here is more.
> The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of
> American citizens, by Race:
>
> European descent .......................... 69.12%
> Hispanic ........................................ 12.5%
> Black ............................................. 12.3%
> Asian .............................................. 3.7%
> Native American ............................. 1.0%
> Other .............................................. 2.6%
>
> Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years
> in Operation Iraqi Freedom:
>
> European descent (white) .............74.31%
> Hispanic .................................... 10.74%
> Black .......................................... 9.67%
> Asian .......................................... 1.81%
> Native American .......................... 1.09%
> Other ........................................... 0.33%
>
> Whites have died at a disproportionately higher rate than minorities.
>
>
> The point here is that our mainstream media continues to spin
> these figures (for liberal political gain). Nothing more...its all
> about politics of turning American against American for a vote.
>
> (These statistics are published by the Congressional Research
> Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone wishing to do so at:
>
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
>
> (or open the attached .pdf document which is the report you will
> find at the above link. It is 28 pages.)
>
> Now ask yourself two questions:
>
Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like
these? and Why do the mainstream media hate the (world wide)
web as much as they do?

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come
to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
.....President Ronald Reagan

[CeeBee]

What I'd like to know is what killed all those soldiers and how old they were when they died? When there's no war are they bad drivers, fliers, sailors and they get better when there's a war? Seems pretty weird to me, those statisitics, especially with no more data than one set of numbers.

[Gwizz]

This infor. was sent to me, at one of my busier times.
I didn't read the link provided but I felt since the link was attached the data was worth posting. It would be interesting to have more information. The data didn't make sense to me either.

I'm at the point that I no longer trust the newspapers or TV media.
If they say something is bad it is probably not so bad and if they say something is good it could be bad. Tough to have an understanding when this media lacks truth.

[CeeBee]

I'm at the point that I no longer trust the newspapers or TV media.
If they say something is bad it is probably not so bad and if they say something is good it could be bad. Tough to have an understanding when this media lacks truth.

Or when then selectively print or say what suits them... and that goes for politicians, CEO's and probably just about everyone else at one time or another. I pretty much take everything with a grain of salt and try to get as much information from all sides if it's a topic that seems worthwhile.

[Silverback]

if you look at table 5 on the link in the first post it breaks down the deaths by cause.
It also gives VERY different figure for some years (1995 and 1996 for example) from those quoted in the first post

[Wooly]

Yeah, the cause of death in table 5 of the secod link is rather eye opening. It looks like only a handful of soldiers died from hostile activity before the current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq started, something about 250 soldiers or less. The rest of those deaths, 95%? or more, came from accidents, self inflicted, and homicide (whatever that means). That is what shocked me. Are we really losing that many soldiers a year to accidents and such?

The other thing is that deaths due to accidents and such, went down a lot over the years, and that by the time the current conflicts broke out, they were only a few hundred a year. That means that if a similar number of soldiers died in the past few years they were much more due to actual hostile events than in the past. That affects people. They is not much of a news story when soldiers die due to accident. When an enemy shoots them people are riveted.
For example:
- In 1987 there were 1,983 deaths: 37 by hostile actions; 1919 due to accident, homicide, illness, and self inflicted; 27 other.
- In 2004 there were 1,874 deaths: 739 by hostile actions; 1108 due to accident, homicide, illness, and self inflicted; 27 other.

The deaths due to hostile action in 1987 were so minimal (37) that they didn't affect the public, even though a similar number of soldiers died overall. That makes a huge difference. But I agree that the media is selectively picks statistics and stories for their own interests.