It sparked mixed feelings when I noted that a "progressive" "news" website had linked to one of our stories, as evidence of wrongdoing by Our Troops. The site boasts 1.5 million viewers a month and 7.5 million hits, but offers no proof of this great readership. As the day went on, I noted the exact same story posted to other "progressive" sites, again listing our article as evidencethat Our Troops and General McChrystal himself were involved in a coverup.
I sat back, anticipating a tirade of comments preceded by a host of hits from the exact type of story that our newsite was created to counter. The article, its author, and the sites involved ignore the fact that the enemy we fight intentionally murders unarmed civilians, as a matter of standard policy. They focus instead on a few incidents where the fog of war, the actions of the enemy, or the actions of the dead caused Our Troops to fire upon persons later found to be without weapons, or without many weapons.
As the hits trickled in from the link to the "evidence," I pondered what would cause these huge sites with incredible readership to be unable to influence their readers to check out the sites they had found to be so important to their argument. Were the numbers claimed inflated? Were the readers such blind believers that evidence wasn't required to be checked?
It turns out that the site does have huge numbers, but not what they claim. They get 16% of the visitors they claim viewing 10% of the pages they claim. And it seems that of those 246,000 global visitors to their site each month, three actually check the evidence they present.
The story was published by the same author across multiple sites with similar focus and similar credibility . It was on Michael Moore's site, on the HuffingPost site, and on the Alternate Reality site but it was the latter where it started.
Let's look at what they say about themselves. And I'm just looking at the original site(from their about page):
"AlterNet’s aim is to inspire action and advocacy ...serving as a reliable filter, ... Our aim is to ..instigate." (That's not journalism and it's not objective.)
"readers comprise a strong base, who help virally spreadAlterNet content to their networks by forwarding stories and emailing links."
"More than 40 percent of our annual operating budget is self-generated through our advertising program and online donor program, both ... and our budget has grown consistently over the past decade" (60% of their budget comes from sources not part of their site?!?)
"AlterNet believes that media must have a higher purpose beyond the essential goal of keeping people informed. We insist on playing an active role."
"all with the broader goal of .. changing policies"
But why do I bring all of this up? It's not so that I can send readers to their site. It's not because I think they need attention. It's against my normal policies of focusing on the positive sites out there actually writing about the things they know.
I bring it up because it is an example of the type of purposely false information based on kernels of fact being used to undermine truth and the Honor of Our Troops. I bring it up to demonstrate that their readers don't check the "evidence" presented to see if it is real proof, much less related at all to the argument. I bring it up because while I don't agree with everything General McChrystal does, he is being personally attacked by those on the left and not exactly defended by those on the right.
I bring it up because Our Troops go to great lengths to avoid "collateral damage." They risk their own lives to try to prevent civilian deaths while the enemy purposely hides behind civilians, purposely murders civilians, and attempts to use our own rules of Honor against us.
I bring it up because Our Citizens deserve to know the truth: Our Troops are Honorable though the enemies we battle are neither honorable nor honest. And that extends not only on the physical battlefield but also onto the broader battlefield of information. It is the reason why newsites like this one are so important. It is why it is so important that citizens are presented the information needed to see the facts. And it is why I had hoped that their readers would not only visit the story they linked to, but be curious enough to see what else is reported here about Afghanistan and Iraq, about our enemies, and Our Troops. Unfortunately, they don't care enough to check the evidence presented them.
Stumble It!
