Friday, July 07, 2006

Typically impeccable media coverage

This is just one small example of the news media showing off its limited faculties. There is a report from a Japanese newspaper that North Korea aimed its ill-fated missile at Hawaii. Aside from the wider implications of that decision, the question arises, why would North Korea target Hawaii? After noting real reasons like North Korea wanting to show up the United States by landing a missile next to its main Pacific naval base, this Reuters story goes on to say,

“An alternative explanation might be that a missile could accidentally hit land if fired towards Alaska”

Really!!?? So this reporter is completely unaware that there are thousands of miles of empty ocean between Alaska and Hawaii where the missile wouldn't "accidentally" hit anything (assuming it could make it past the Sea of Japan of course)? That should be instantly obvious to anyone, especially a college educated reporter. Or is this the only map reporters have seen? The other problem with that statement is the tone it sets. It takes an extremely hostile action by the North Koreans and changes it to the North Koreans doing us a favor. It’s as if we should thank them for doing us a solid by targeting small Hawaii and not big Alaska. This is complete idiocy. At least a map can be purchased, common sense cannot.

15 comments:

  1. Jarod,

    I live in Brasil, for me this question is very complicated, seems me that North Korea is a uncontrol treat that was ignored for a many years under the complacent eyes of a international comunity, sum: is a bomb about blowup...arrive in there walking in a blogesfere, sorry my poor English OK

    ReplyDelete
  2. Marcos, no problem on the English, I am sure your English is far better than my Portugese. Basically I agree. As much as we would like to deal with the North Korean problem, the Chinese, Russians, and South Koreans don't want it dealt with so we can't do anything (except not make the it worse like we did in the 1990's). Thats why I think we should step back so when the situation does explode, it is the Chinese and South Koreans who pay the price, not us.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bravo!
    I was worried that only ignorant leftist commies blogged. This is realy refreshing.I think i'm gonna put your blog on my list of favorite links.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So ... hazmatt likes the Vigilantes of Love. Cool.

    Good post, Jarod. Journalism is a major focus for me at the moment, so you comment about the Reuters analysis was appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks a lot, as you can see I don't get many comments so good to hear you like the blog. I can promise you won't see any ignorant, lefty, or commie views here(actually, probably just ignorant would have covered all three of them).

    ReplyDelete
  6. lol

    I like reading lefty blogs; I just don't agree with what they say.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks Bryan, though I'm not sure about the "hazmatt likes the Vigilantes of Love" thing. As far as the media, if you are interested I also compare their role (along with the left's) in the revealing of anti-terrorism secrets to the costly behavior of the French press in 1870 here: http://s-p-q-a.blogspot.com/2006/06/defeat-la-france.html and also criticize their inability to tell the difference between not good and evil here: http://s-p-q-a.blogspot.com/2006/06/equivalency-game.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well the links didn't work, they're both from June 23rd in the archives (all 2 months of them).

    ReplyDelete
  9. the map link worked; i think you can purchase common sense too - I think it sells for a 1000000 a kilo.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You're amazed that the map link worked and I'm the one who needs common sense? (the links I am referring to are the ones from the prior comment not the ones from the post)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hazmatt's profile indicated that V.O.L. is one of his favorite music artists. I just happened to know what it stands for.
    :)

    I can't guarantee I'll delve into the archives much, but I'll fit your blog into a rotation heavy on Powerline, Captain's Quarters, SteynOnline, and Michelle Malkin (not to exhaust the list).

    ReplyDelete
  12. When one considers that many reporters have degrees in communications rather than geo-politics, journalism, or even general studies (assumably it would have a geography lesson in there somewhere) then I guess it should come ss no surprise to me (or you) that we get bumbling, stupid questions from reporters so inane they often defy the subjects' ability to answer them intelligibly.

    Oh yeah, interesting blog.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks. Yeah I know journalists don't have the best of degrees, and that you learn little of value in BA programs anymore these days (though a geography class was required for my BS program). Nevertheless, I think that's one of the media's major problems, they don't have the knowledge to understand what they're reporting (even something as simple as Pacific Ocean = big).

    ReplyDelete
  14. For what its worth, I would find it hard to believe North Korea was aiming that missile at Hawaii. Why would it? Plopping a missile in the region of Hawaii would invite a counter-strike from the US, no questions asked, and would basically be inviting their instant destruction! Its just rubbish to think that the North Korean leadership is that stupid, similarly, firing their missiles anywhere but the East Sea would likely bring the same sort of result, so basically the only place they could fire their missiles without raising the ire of Japan, USA and others to extremely heated levels would be into the East Sea - which is what they did. In fact, I seriously doubt the missile test was a failure because I can't come up with a good reason they would have wanted the missile to fly any further than it did? (Scratching my head????) Anyway, good blog mate.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Firstly, thanks. Secondly, I don't know if they targeted Hawaii, that's just what the Japanese and American militaries are saying according to a Japanese new story. Which assuming we said that then its true. My job in the army was tracking ballistic missiles; we know very quickly where they are aimed. It’s possible they command detonated it but they’ve launched a missile beyond the Sea of Japan before, in 1998. It was aimed towards Alaska though I’m not sure where it landed. At any rate, my primary point is media incompetence not necessarily where the missile was aimed. Thirdly, why would we attack North Korea for landing a missile 300 miles off of Pearl Harbor? We won't even attack Iran and they are not only the center of Islamic terrorism and trying to acquire nukes but also responsible for the deaths of at least dozens of Americans and Brits in Iraq and hundreds elsewhere over the years. I don't think we would risk Seoul and possibly millions of deaths over a missile landing 300 miles (or however far) from Hawaii. So the reason they would do it is the massive propaganda coup that carried (again I think, who really knows) little risk. The idea would then be implanted, we can nuke the US, pay up. Lastly, even the best of countries have unreliable missiles. Russia recently went 0 for 3 in missile launches during a military exercise. There was also an incident (2002 or 2003) where North Korean missiles were caught by Spanish soldiers being shipped to Yemen. We allowed it to go through which surprised many, but it was due to their poor quality. We wanted potential buyers to know they weren't getting what they paid for with N Korean missiles. Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete