Response to Bill Bright

Bill Bright, one of my regular readers recently asked some questions in a comment to one of my earlier posts. Since Haloscan limits comment length, I'm answering in a post, because I think Bill asks some important questions that deserve answers.

Here's Bill's questions.

thanks for the link.

I don't know that I understand the conclusion, but that doesn't really matter.

First, 2Slick says "Once in Iraq, armored vehicles are used for driving off post, and unarmored vehicles are used for driving around on post." then he says "I logged well over 1,500 miles driving around Iraq, and I never even saw an "armored" humvee."

Does this mean he spent his whole time on post? And that does seem like a lot of driving on post. And who keeps track of their miles on post driving?

I don't want to get into an argument about armor, I don't have the accurant information. One thing I would like to ask you is what do you think of the fact that a lot of your sources are other blogs? And I notice that for you being so "anti media" you quote a lot of "media" especially the Dallas Morning News.

I guess generally, at what point do you feel your sources are accurate and how do you draw that conclusion?

Semper Fi
Bill Bright

Good questions.

I think 2slick is referring to an earlier period of time when he talks about not seeing armored humvees in Iraq. He served in Iraq last year and is based in Kuwait this year. The policy he refers to, of trucking in unarmored Humvees and only using them on base appears to be more recent than his tour. (Knowing the military I'm also certain it's not adhered to 100% of the time.)

Yes, I quote a lot of media. That, after all, is the primary focus of my blog. The Dallas Morning News is my home newspaper, so they naturally get more of my attention.

As to deciding when a source is accurate, I'm not sure that's the right question. I don't think, in most cases, the media outright lies about the facts. What happens is they place the focus of their story on the part that emphasizes what they think is important, which is usually negative and frequently liberal. (Cori Dauber had a great post about that today. Here's the link - It's All a Matter of Choice.)

Many times the headline doesn't match the facts in the story itself - or the lead paragraphs don't match the context of the whole story. Sometimes I'm aware of facts from other sources that either contradict or alter the conclusions the reporter makes. Sometimes I just don't believe what's being written so I do my own research to see if there are alternative explanations.

Frequently the use of "inflammatory" adjectives is what catches my eye and makes me suspect bias or an agenda. Sometimes a comparison of the same story from different outlets reveals details that are left out. Sometimes they merely quote a "spokesman" rather than getting the "real" story which you find in other places.

But I hope that my writing is also revealing how I do this. Obviously I'm biased like everyone else. I don't talk about it much, but I don't hide it either. I'm a libertarian/conservative depending upon how you define those terms and what particular issue you're referring to.

Hope this helps.