Something you won't hear on the news or in the paper....

SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T MAKE THE NEWS

Maybe you?d like to hear about something other than idiot Reservists and naked Iraqis.

Maybe you?d like to hear about a real American, somebody who honored the uniform he wears.

Meet Brian Chontosh.

Churchville-Chili Central School class of 1991. Proud graduate of the Rochester Institute of Technology. Husband and about-to-be father. First lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps.

And a genuine hero.

The secretary of the Navy said so yesterday.

At 29 Palms in California Brian Chontosh was presented with the Navy Cross, the second highest award for combat bravery the United States can bestow.

That?s a big deal.

But you won?t see it on the network news tonight, and all you read in Brian?s hometown newspaper was two paragraphs of nothing. Instead, it was more blather about some mental defective MPs who acted like animals.

The odd fact about the American media in this war is that it?s not covering the American military. The most plugged-in nation in the world is receiving virtually no true information about what its warriors are doing.

Oh, sure, there?s a body count. We know how many Americans have fallen. And we see those same casket pictures day in and day out. And we?re almost on a first-name basis with the pukes who abused the Iraqi prisoners. And we know all about improvised explosive devices and how we lost Fallujah and what Arab public-opinion polls say about us and how the world hates us.

We get a non-stop feed of gloom and doom.

But we don?t hear about the heroes.

The incredibly brave GIs who honorably do their duty. The ones our grandparents would have carried on their shoulders down Fifth Avenue.

The ones we completely ignore.

Like Brian Chontosh.

It was a year ago on the march into Baghdad. Brian Chontosh was a platoon leader rolling up Highway 1 in a humvee.

When all hell broke loose.

Ambush city.

The young Marines were being cut to ribbons. Mortars, machine guns, rocket propelled grenades. And the kid out of Churchville was in charge. It was do or die and it was up to him.

So he moved to the side of his column, looking for a way to lead his men to safety. As he tried to poke a hole through the Iraqi line his humvee came under direct enemy machine gun fire.

It was fish in a barrel and the Marines were the fish.

And Brian Chontosh gave the order to attack. He told his driver to floor the humvee directly at the machine gun emplacement that was firing at them. And he had the guy on top with the .50 cal unload on them.

Within moments there were Iraqis slumped across the machine gun and Chontosh was still advancing, ordering his driver now to take the humvee directly into the Iraqi trench that was attacking his Marines. Over into the battlement the humvee went and out the door Brian Chontosh bailed, carrying an M16 and a Beretta and 228 years of Marine Corps pride.

And he ran down the trench.

With its mortars and riflemen, machineguns and grenadiers.

And he killed them all.

He fought with the M16 until it was out of ammo. Then he fought with the Beretta until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up a dead man?s AK47 and fought with that until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up another dead man?s AK47 and fought with that until it was out of ammo.

At one point he even fired a discarded Iraqi RPG into an enemy cluster, sending attackers flying with its grenade explosion.

When he was done Brian Chontosh had cleared 200 yards of entrenched Iraqis from his platoon?s flank. He had killed more than 20 and wounded at least as many more.

But that?s probably not how he would tell it.

He would probably merely say that his Marines were in trouble, and he got them out of trouble. Hoo-ah, and drive on.

?By his outstanding display of decisive leadership, unlimited courage in the face of heavy enemy fire, and utmost devotion to duty, 1st Lt. Chontosh reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.?

That?s what the citation says.

And that?s what nobody will hear.

That?s what doesn?t seem to be making the evening news. Accounts of American valor are dismissed by the press as propaganda, yet accounts of American difficulties are heralded as objectivity. It makes you wonder if the role of the media is to inform, or to depress ? to report or to deride. To tell the truth, or to feed us lies.

But I guess it doesn?t matter.

We?re going to turn out all right.

As long as men like Brian Chontosh wear our uniform.

Link

<font color="#000002" size="1">[ June 03, 2004 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Jumper69 ]</font>

see...it's stuff like that that really pisses me off.

I would lve to know what the rationale is behind NOT publicizing that.

Because, JDF, the media is anything but objective. In fact, most media have a liberal bias. Therefore you will rarely see newsworthy items the portray the current administration in a positive light make it to press.

Pay attention to the news the next few days. Watch it with an eye towards how they present the "news"

In other words, see how many times Abu Gharib is mentioned, or how often are setbacks in the war brought up versus how many Bush positive stories are read.

It's amazing the left wing slant we're force fed.

Whether you like Bush or not. Whether you agree with the war or not, you're being fed filtered news. The media does not want you to hear objective facts and form your own opinion.

Just watch for a week and tell me what you think.

Jumper...I don't even need to give you that week to make your point. I know you are correct, and it makes me very angry.

Don't they realize what a domino effect it has, all the negativity they portray, parlayed into no support for the troops, gives way to low morale, and makes a vicious cycle.

Just like positive press would = supprot for the troops = support from other countries = better "military performance"= shorter war.

I know, very simplistic, Polly Anna. but basically true.

Jumper

Regarding the "left wing" media. You are so off base on this. Take a look at who actually dominates the media and you'll be looking right into the beady eyes of the uber conservatives. The whole left wing media myth is just so much smoke. Take a look at who's on the air and in print, all of the media not just a few select examples, and you will see it dominated by the foaming at the mouth neo-conservatives that have effectively made the republican party little more than a front for christian fundamentalism and large corporate interests.

Fortunately this seems to be changing a bit. You should listen to Franken or Rhandi Rhodes sometime. Hell you could even call in. Rhodes would chew you up and spit you out and Franken, who is much nicer, would merely point out where you are so so wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jumper69:
Because, JDF, the media is anything but objective. In fact, most media have a liberal bias. Therefore you will rarely see newsworthy items the portray the current administration in a positive light make it to press.

Pay attention to the news the next few days. Watch it with an eye towards how they present the "news"

In other words, see how many times Abu Gharib is mentioned, or how often are setbacks in the war brought up versus how many Bush positive stories are read.

It's amazing the left wing slant we're force fed.

Whether you like Bush or not. Whether you agree with the war or not, you're being fed filtered news. The media does not want you to hear objective facts and form your own opinion.

Just watch for a week and tell me what you think.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There was an excellent editorial in the Wall Street Journal about that very same prison, and how the media has focused on pictures of Iraqis with underwear draped over their heads and has routinely ignored what happened there before the Americans arrived.

I don't condone what happened in that prison; however, I think the media has been opportunistically using this to do some Bush bashing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pi?a:
Fortunately this seems to be changing a bit. You should listen to Franken or Rhandi Rhodes sometime. Hell you could even call in. Rhodes would chew you up and spit you out and Franken, who is much nicer, would merely point out where you are so so wrong.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Better listen quick, Franken is now forfeting his pay to help keep airamerica solvent.

Radical liberals don't get it. Most people that vote democrat do so because their family is blue collar union or they're Catholic, Jewish or black. They do not support or agree with most of the crap on airamerica or your type of radical liberalism... Damn I'm doing it again.

Pina you don't have a fucking clue. Now I feel better.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by travelinman:
Better listen quick, Franken is now forfeting his pay to help keep airamerica solvent.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, maybe, but I'm thinking that they've got a pretty good shot. Considering that they're kicking Rush's ass in New York by about a three to one margin in the (I'm citing from memory so might be off a bit) 18 to 54 bracket.

Some people seem to be taking great delight in the problems they've been having while forgetting that this is still a start up in its infancy. They've weathered thier first major shake up and having learned from it will be the stronger for it.

The snip below is from the March 31 NY Times. Take note that Air America has to pay a small number of limited power stations to broadcast their programing, while Rush and Sean have over 600 mostly high power stations buying their shows. Even Babs doesn't have the cash to fund it for long.

But this liberal radio network faces numerous obstacles in capturing a substantial audience, in particular finding a critical mass of stations that will broadcast its voices. The network has already fallen behind in its initial goal, announced last year, of owning five stations by the time it went on the air. As of today it owns none.

Instead Air America has bought programming time on stations with moderately strong signals, but previously low ratings: WLIB-AM in New York, WNTD-AM in Chicago, KBLA-AM in Los Angeles, KCAA-AM in Riverside and San Bernadino, Calif., and KPOJ-AM in Portland, Ore. A San Francisco station is expected to be announced in early April.

By contrast Rush Limbaugh, whom Air America has identified as a chief competitor, is heard on more than 600 stations, including WABC in New York. Sean Hannity, another conservative talk-show host, has a similar reach.

<font color="#000002" size="1">[ June 07, 2004 11:14 AM: Message edited by: travelinman ]</font>

Pina-

I didn't think the liberal media idea was being debated anymore. And one of the reasons for that was a stock answer to the charge of liberal media bias was the one you employed, i.e. look at the big corporations who own the media outlets.

It's apples and oranges. People who claim media bias aren't discussion the parent corporation; they're claiming (and rightfully so) that the major, mainstream media in the U.S. project a liberal bias in their reporting of the news. What enters our homes directly, not what goes on in some corporate board room.

Is the media as biased as the hardcore rightwingers claim? Of course not. Just because a reporter asks a tough question of the President does not mean the reporter is a pimp for the ACLU.

Where the bias is really obvious is in the little things. One quick example- let's say a reporter is interviewing some big shot at the EPA. Invariably, the question will be asked "Is the EPA doing enough?" in regards to a certain area.

The reporter would never think to ask "Is the EPA doing too much?" And I don't think it's a concerted effort on the reporter's part, I think it's good old-fashioned ignorance. Most of your high-end journalists came out of liberal journalism schools (please tell me you don't think there is a liberal bias in our higher halls of learning). In that world, the only correct answer to government regulation of the environment would be more regulation.

Well, perhaps there are those who feel that environmental regulation (in some areas, anyway) has gone too far. Or should be changed in some way.

Alas, the reporter won't see it that way. He wasn't taught to see it that way.

Or like Bernard Goldberg commented in his book; the Supreme Court will issue a ruling that affects abortion rights, and almost out of reflex here come the reporters down the offices of NOW for the "response" of American women, never thinking once that they may also want to interview someone from a conservative women's group since NOW is a blatantly liberal one.

That's where the bias comes from, Pina, and it's so obvious and apparent that you become used to it after awhile. But I honestly don't think it can be debated, not if you're honest with yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lew:
That's where the bias comes from, Pina, and it's so obvious and apparent that you become used to it after awhile. But I honestly don't think it can be debated, not if you're honest with yourself.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Come on Lew, I know you try to be the voice of reason (no not that reason) but when has a real liberal ever been honest with themselves. If they were, we wouldn't have any.

Well, it never hurts to try, huh?

Of course, let's not kid ourselves, Trav, a lot of it isn't "liberal" bias so much as stupidity. One would think that only the sharpest knives should be journalists, and maybe there was a time when that was the case, but not now. If you go to mrc.org, a lot of the reporting they take issue with is less ideological and more idiot-logical.

Although, again, when you have a generation of reporters who were basically taught "norms" like pro-affirmative action, pro-abortion, anti-religion, etc. And you add to it the fact that they are incapable of thinking critically or questioning dogma, that they are incapable of independent, rational thought.....well, I mean, therein comes the bias.