Kat-Missouri:
What, exactly, are you trying to say? I ask because there are several aspects of your comment that seem to me to be mischievous, or at the very least puzzling.
1. You describe various diagnoses and give a brief history of their development, employment and meanings. Why? The dispute here is over the way the suicide story was manipulated, whether meaningful comparisons were deliberately ignored, and whether the public has been propagandized.
2. You refer to “inflated numbers”. I confess I missed that accusation. I do recall that in 2004 the issue was that US troops in Iraq had a lower suicide rate than did the German army, which was stationed in Germany. That fact was ignored by the media both before and after it was reported by a few webloggers. My guess – CMIIAW — is that nobody ever faked any data then or now. Are you saying that someone has accused the media of generating incorrect statistics??
3. You place quotes around the words “all volunteer force.” Why? Whom are you quoting? Or are you implying that the volunteer status of the US military today is a hoax? If you are, whom do you accuse of deceit? Do you have documentation suggesting that people are being inducted?
4. You seem to me to insist that Crittenden has gone off the rails: you want him to write about medical and psychological help for veterans, not about “…some political disagreement with our media.” Aren’t you telling Crittendon to shut up when he sees propaganda that misleads the public, and talk about something else?
My view: this issue begins with the ethics of journalism, and ultimately returns to that fundament. My speculation regarding the media’s motives has to do with politics, true; musings of that sort are nothing new, and now that the suicide rate story has been exhumed and is being used to dupe the public, we do need to ponder the media’s reasons for resorting yet again to this deceitful tactic. Yes, I did use the word “lies” when I defined propaganda, but this story, the suicide rate ploy, is about one half of propaganda: censorship. My complaint regards the deliberate withholding of data that provide essential perspective.
Don’t these considerations introduce politics into the discussion, and legitimately so? Why should we avoid discussing the politics of the media? Don’t democracies have to depend on the veracity and principles of journalists?
We do have a serious problem with the disgraceful VA, and we should correct it (I am very upset with Bush over this). We can talk about that, and I believe you and I would agree on it.
We also have a problem with the media that goes to the heart of our nation’s values. You want Crittenden to shut up about that, and deal with with other matters.
Why?
