I just started John Stossel’s book Give Me A Break and noticed he figured out at the start of his career that TV news is essentially high frequency noise – and he wanted to present the low frequency signal. Those of course aren’t his words, but mine as an engineer. And that brings up my attempt to bring you some posts that are all signal.
First up is a sensible look by Into The Sunset at how we are doing in Iraq that measures success and failure against 6 goals.
Wretchard continues his excellent analysis at Belmont Club by taking a sober look at “News Coverage As A Weapon.”
And Cronaca covers the intersection between Art and Politics in two posts in response to a response to the Israeli Ambassador’s response to a despicable work in a Stockholm gallery.
#1 by Sean Murphy on May 18, 2004 - 6:47 pm
Quote
The Belmont Club’s “News Coverage as a Weapon” was highlighted in the May 18 OpinionJournal’s Best of the Web It’s crucial for President Bush to make a more forceful case for American victory in the war against terrorists, including in Iraq. As the Belmont Club blog notes, the enemy is using the news media as a front in the war:
It was during the Vietnam War that the Left first discovered the potential war-winning ability of media coverage. The concept itself is merely an extension of the blitzkrieg notion that the enemy command structure, not his troop masses, are the true center of gravity on the battlefield. During the campaign of 1940, Heinz Guderian’s panzers bypassed many French formations, leaving them unfought, knowing that if their command structure were severed, the whole musclebound mass would fall to the ground headless. What the Left gradually discovered during the course of the Vietnam war was that Guderian had not been bold enough. Guderian still felt it necessary to win on the battlefield. He had not realized that it was possible to ignore the battlefield altogether because it was the enemy political structure, not his military capability, that was the true center of gravity of an entire campaign.