Public confidence in the news about the military is waning:
Similarly, the public grew increasingly skeptical of the news media’s efforts, with 61 percent of Americans saying that the media keep them well informed on military and national security issues, down from 79 percent in 1999. More than three-quarters of Americans also believe that the military occasionally provides false or inaccurate information to the media, according to the poll, which surveyed 1,016 adults during the first two weeks of June.
Media and military experts said the data are troubling at a time when Americans are becoming more savvy about the information they receive and are seeking their news from an increasing number of sources.
Retired Maj. Gen. David L. Grange, executive vice president of the McCormick Tribune Foundation, said he believes the round-the-clock news cycle and perceived biases within media organizations have hurt public confidence in their information.
“The mass media gets negative points from the people because they think that the big media is taking a position and shaping stories to fit their agenda,” said Grange, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division. “The military gets negative points because they come across sometimes as being deceptive or using [operational security] as an excuse.”
Hardly surprising, when the two narratives we seem to get are ‘Everything is ok’ from the military and ‘VIETNAM! VIETNAM! QUAGMIRE! QUAGMIRE!’ from the media. Cori Dauber, who is also featured in the article, comments.
Also see this GALLUP poll regarding comparisons between Iraq and, you guessed it, Vietnam. Cori Dauber also has some thoughts on this.
Gary Farber
Trivial usage note: the Gallup Poll is named after George Gallup. It’s not an acronym; it doesn’t make any sense to put it in all caps unless you also want people to write that Balloon Juice is written by John COLE. :-)
ppGaz
Just about everything is wrong with this post.
First of all, I watch as much “media” as the next person, and I am not seeing and hearing this barrage of negativism. I challenge those who pimp that meme to produce evidence to support it. My impression of the media these days is that there has been a subtle, but hardly overwhelming, shift away from blind repetition of government and Pentagon press releases, to a more balanced and questioning approach to them. That’s hardly a barrage of “negativism.”
Second, this blog seems to have taken the tack that the public mood over the war is souring because the public isn’t getting enough …. what? cheerleading? happy news? That is just a dishonest and bullshit assertion. The very material cited belies it:
The public is expressing doubt in BOTH the official information, and in the media’s reporting. In other words, the public is saying that there is a disconnect between what they see and hear being said, and what they believe is actually happening.
Lastly, this (post’s) kind of commentary is grounded in the assumption that the people aren’t smart enough to eventually figure out what the truth is about anything. As if the people were just a bunch of sheep who will bleat according to some “media” tune. If that were true, then why does the relentless manipulation by the government and Pentagon spinners fall more and more upon deaf ears? Are the people just too stupid to know that they should listen to the suits and swallow what they say, hook line and sinker?
This line of commentary pays no respect to the instincts and common sense of the people. That’s just one of many reasons why I think you are wrong, and not only wrong, but that you’ve thrown in the towel on any pretense of independence from the “talking points” approach to this.
I stand on my comments of the other day. I think this commentary is shoddy work, and in case you haven’t figured it out yet, I consider myself compelled to say that precisely because you are capable of better work. If I didn’t think that, I wouldn’t waste my time.
Joe Albanese
Well, thats not all we get from the military, we have also gotten outright lies from the military on a quite regular basis. Right from the very beginning we heard of the heroic exploits of Private Lynch. We were treated to the “story” of how Tilman died fighting the enemy. Biden exposed the lies of Rummy regarding the number or Iraq troops that had been trained. The military’s explanation of who is responsible for the Abu Garib abuses is patently absurd. General Miller bold faced lied to congress about that very same issue. We have seen military press releases with identical quotes from supposed Iraq citizens from two different parts of the country and at different times. And lets not forget all those letters to the editors that individual soldiers has supposedly written praising the war effort that were indentical.
So, its not just putting a positive spin we’re talking about here, the Pentagon is engaged in a conscious propoganda campaign aimed at the American public. Its gratifying to see that the American public isn’t buying it. The Pentagon has destroyed its own credibilty with their inabilty to be straight with us. Congratulations Rummy, another legacy that will be attached to your name in history.
Oh, is that why the American public doesn’t buy what the MSB is selling? Its because the MSM is too ANTI WAR? Lol.. right John, thats it. It couldn’t possibly have been their absolute acquiesence of the adminstration’s position on WMD. It has nothing to do with reporters like Judith Miller carrying Chalabi’s water. Please John give me a break, the MSB has been too ANTI WAR ?
John Cole
ppGaz- My general policy is to avoide responding to trolls, something you have become recently, but since you have chosen to mark the start of each day by posating a heaping of bullshit on me, I will make an exception.
A.) Did you even read the fucking links before responding?
B.) Where did I state the problem is the public isn’t getting enough cheerleading?
C.) There is plenty of negativism in the media. Googles news offers the folowing for IRAQ + VIETNAM. For exztra fun, here is IRAQ + QUAGMIRE.
D.) The problem, as the study states, is that both polar extremes seem to get the most play, and people neither believe that everything is ok (which seems to be the military narrative), or that everything is lost (which does appear to be a dominant theme in some quarters).
E.) This line of commentary, contrary to your deep ‘thoughts,’ pays total respect to the instincts and common sense of people, as people recognize that neither of the two offerred narratives are wholly accurate.
F.) If an example of shoddy commentary is required, I will merely offer up the tendentious crap you have been piling on me for a few weeks now.
John Cole
Joe Albanese-
See above. You independent thinkers on the left have as doctrinal a viewpoint of the world as Pat Robertson.
Marcus Wellby
I don’t think the comparison to Vietnam is meant to say “all is lost”. I think the big similiarity people see with Vietnam is the “everything is OK” mantra coming from the admin. The administration reenfornces the Vietnam comparison almost every time any of them speak about the war.
Joe Albanese
Chicken or the egg. There is a bit of the Viet Nam / Iraq comparison going on NOW. But is it the media foisting this unholy comparison? or is the media reporting what is being said more and more.
Check the link you posted John regarding Viet Nam and Iraq. Most have to do with a REPUBLICAN Senator’s statements on the subject. Should they not have reported that? Yes, the coverage of the war has turned somewhat negative lately but that is not causing public opinion to be negative but rather reflecting public opinion. You have it backwards John.
The coverage of this war was initially very very supportive. Narry a word was said against it or against the specious reasons given for going in. But at some point reality does intrude. There were NO WMD. No Nuke program. No links to 911. No terror connection. If all had gone well with the war probably nobody would have cared. But they didn’t go well, did they. They went horribly wrong. Not the “cakewalk” envisioned. The Iraq Oil did not pay the bills. We were NOT greeted as liberators. The Middle East is NOT more stable. We DID lose credibility around the world. We do look WEAKER not STRONGER as a result. And there is no good outcome that readily comes to mind. The best most can seem to hope for now is a relatively stable Islamic Republic closely alligned with IRAN. Good work. I dont’ know how a policy could possibly be more ill conceived and damaging to US interests than the decision to go to war with a country that was contained, weaponless, and no threat to anybody.
And to compare me to Reverand Robertson is just a cheap shot from someone that can’t give it up on Iraq. You were WRONG about Iraq John. Perhaps someday you’ll be able to admit it and stop blaming the media or Cindy Sheehan for the mood of the country. The better place to look is to the naive adminstraion that was not only incredibly wrong on EVERYTHING but also incredibly incompetent.
Tim F
I like to think I’m more like Oral Roberts. Just the cash please.
Tim F
Carpetbagger has another essential post highlighting one reason why people might think that the military is run by a bunch or propagandistic nincompoops.
Classy.
TallDave
It’s fun watching the left try to reconcile “THE MILITARY IS LYING, IRAQ IS A MESS!!” with “WE SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!” Usually, the resultant muddle is either something like “It’s Bush’s fault the military is lying,” or they claim all the lies came from the admin, not the military, which is pretty hilarious since Myers, Petraeus, Abizaid, etc., are all over TV.
Of course, if you want to see what the Pentagon says, you can read for yourself all the news that the media feels is not fit to print, or check some of our fine milbloggers for a first-hand look at the situation.
Of course, supporting a heavily Repubican military is a natural dilemma for leftists anyway. At least this time around, they’re not comparing them to Ghenghis Khan. I suppose we should be thankful for what pretensions of support they do offer our troops, even if they don’t really believe it.
TallDave
Ooops, this is the Pentagon news link.
BinkyBoy
Yes Dave, we all know your penis grows by 8″ when you sit down at the computer.
Just remember when you are in public and you start spewing such denigrating BS that not all liberals are pacifists and you’re going to eat every bit of your words.
Blue Neponset
John Cole wrote:
It seems that ignoring trolls* isn’t working for you. If you don’t want ppgaz, Joe Albanese and others to challenge your posts in the fashion that they do maybe it would be best if you just came out and asked them not to participate here anymore?
*I dont’ believe ppgaz and Joe Albanese are trolls which might mean I am one.
TallDave
For the record, I agree with John: The truth is found somewhere in between the two propaganda camps.
BinkyBoy
TallDave,
can you at least admit that we are lied to on a regular basis by the military? There is a pretty decent list above that outlines some of the biggest lies from the military in the last 2 years. Do you enjoy being lied to at a fairly constant rate? Are you ever suspicious of stories coming out of the military, or do you just suck them up with a grin and wipe off your chin?
Otto Man
Almost as much fun as it is watching those on the right try to reconcile “We Support the Troops!” with a belief that the troops don’t need more men, material, body armor or allies; or the administration’s policy that has severely cut the health care and pay of veterans; or the president’s insistence that we need to keep the troops on their ill-conceived and poorly-executed mission simply because so many troops have already died on that ill-conceived and poorly-executed mission.
Just because you slap a “Support the Troops” sticker on your SUV doesn’t mean you really do.
John Cole
I don’ mind them commenting or participating, but simply dismissing a post and telling me it is ‘shoddy commentary’ is hardly useful.
Tim F
Poll for us independent thinkers on the left:
If you could be a televangelist, which one would you be?
I already picked Oral Roberts. ppGaz and Joe Albanese can’t vote because the Voice of Cole has already spoken and they’re Pat Robertson.
Another Jeff
“Poll for us independant thinkers on the left:”
That should be interesting. Hopefully all two of them respond.
sean
can i be Benny Hinn?
Otto Man
Damn, I wanted to be Benny Hinn.
I guess I’ll take Tim LaHaye. He is not only insane, but married to someone equally nuts.
TallDave
can you at least admit that we are lied to on a regular basis by the military?
Absolutely. Will you admit we’re lied on a fairly regular basis by the press?
a belief that the troops don’t need more men, material, body armor or allies
Generally, that’s a been a leftist argument too (check the Congressional voting record for defense bills). I seem to recall the GOP Congress authorizing money for body armor as soon as the problem became apparent, and I don’t recall anyone saying the troops didn’t need it.
poorly-executed mission
Sigh. There you go, supporting the troops again. Their execution of a difficult mission has been heroic, and we can see the progress every day.
TallDave
the president’s insistence that we need to keep the troops on their… mission
When you ask the troops themselves, they generally say by large majorities they want to see the mission through, though they too have their complaints about the planning.
Now, you may feel your “we need to lose the war so our soldiers don’t get hurt” statement is supportive, but I can tell you the soldiers generally find it patronizing and insulting.
jg
Then where is the armor? (Don’t even try to blame Kerry)Why wasn’t it given to them before the war?
Calling a mission poorly executed isn’t hating the troops. Thats just the conclusion you jump to when you hear the statement. They couldn’t possibly succeed at this mission, they were hamstrung from the beginning. If we had committed to this thing there’s no way we would be where we are now. Its the planners that people are speaking out against, not the people carrying out the orders. We know they rock.
jg
Of course they do, they want to win. Seeing the mission through doesn’t mean they wouldn’t want to change the way in which they attain the goal. We can shift strategies and still complete the mission. The mission is noble, its the methods that aren’t working and should be revisited. They won’t as long as we have someone in charge who doesn’t stand for questioning.
BinkyBoy
And once again it comes back to:
What is the mission? ME Democracy? Ooops, failed at that. ME Stability? New Persia could be more stable once all the minor civil wars are ended by broad sweeping genocides by the ruling clan. Find WMDs? Ooops, we accidently lied about that, but don’t let that effect troop moral. Capture Saddam? Done. Can they go home now?
Do you think your moving mission target has helped the troops?
Otto Man
Well, duh. My friends in the service complain about the brass and Rumsfeld all the time. And that’s what I meant by “poorly executed” — at the top levels.
You know what I find patronizing and insulting? Your willingness to put words in my mouth. Where did I ever say “we need to lose the war so our soldiers don’t get hurt”? Where did I even come close?
What my complaints focused on was the administration’s belief that if we just keep things as they are — same troop levels, same shitty plans, same vaguely-defined goals — then somehow everything will magically work out fine.
I’d like to see increased troop levels, new (competent) leadership in the war, and a call for sacrifice here at home so civilians understand that we are, in fact, at war.
Please feel free to address these actual points of mine, or else continue to have fun with the straw men you excel at creating.
Geoduck
Something that people on both sides of this debate seem to forget is that “the military” is not some giant homogeneous bloc. The grunt grimly dodging IEDs on a Baghdad street is not the same person as the guy cheerfully torturing innocent prisoners in some dark cell, and neither of them is the general sitting in a cushy office located in the depths of the Pentagon. So, yeah, I support the first guy on that list. He’s trapped in horrific situation, and I hope he eventually gets out of it alive and intact, mentally and physically. The second can go rot in hell. The third? That depends on his actions. If he’s doing the best he can for the people under his command and trying to keep them alive, than good. I support him. If he spends all of his time in front of microphones lying about how great things are going, or worse, authorizing the actions of the second guy, then he can join him.
Joe Albanese
If I were to be a televangelist I would pick Jimmy Swaggert. He at least had a great act. The crying mea culpa after getting caught with his pants down was quite entertaining. And I always strive to be entertaining.
Just a few more points. This support the troops garbage that the right likes to throw up in our face all the time really gets me going. The Bush adminstration’s “support of the troops” consisted of sending too few troops (as per the Army Chief of Staff who might know a thing or two about the issue), going in without a real post invasion plan (as has been recently documented by State Dept memos), sending troops into battle without the proper equipment (body armor and armored humvees STILL a problem) but they SUPPORT the troops and us LIBERALS well, we just hate the troops, tight?
My comments about the military lying to us has nothing to do with the “troops” but with the civilian leadership of the Pentagon. Lets not mix that up. I have nothing but praise for the way our troops are doing their job. They are both brave and professional and they make me very proud to be an American. The fact that Iraq is such a mess has nothing to do with the job the troops are doing. I do not blame the troops for Abu Garib, or the misinformation that we are fed on a daily basis. Once again those are the result of policy decisions made by the civilian leadership in Washington. So stop using the “you’re not supporting the troops” argument against those that are against the war. Oh, and by the way, can anyone name me one Combat vet in the Bush adminstraion presently? One? Amazing how all the tough talking hawks the predominate the neocon side of the argument all managed to avoid fighting for their nation. Just an observation on the “support the troops” side of the argument.
TallDave
Otto, you said
the president’s insistence that we need to keep the troops on their…mission
which obviously implies you don’t feel they need to be kept on their mission. If you meant something other than you what you said, you can’t blame me for not reading your mind.
TallDave
Ahhh, the parsing has begun. Now it’s “we support the grunts, but not the officers.”
of sending too few troops (as per the Army Chief of Staff who might know a thing or two about the issue)
As opposed to Generals Franks, Abizaid, etc., who said they had what they needed?
ending troops into battle without the proper equipment (body armor and armored humvees STILL a problem)
It wasn’t known they would need that much armor. I didn’t see anyone on the Left saying “WAIT!! Don’t invade till they get more armor!” Monday-morning quarterbacking is easier but less helpful than the Sunday variety.
the misinformation that we are fed on a daily basis. Once again those are the result of policy decisions made by the civilian leadership in Washington.
I guess you didn’t read the links I posted from actual soldiers.
Tim F
The best way to support the troops is to ensure that the leadership sends them into harm’s way only when America’s safety is on the line, and when it is to ensure that they win.
Republicans did neither. They supported a war, which is not the same thing.
TallDave
He’s trapped in horrific situation, and I hope he eventually gets out of it alive and intact, mentally and physically.
What if, like most of our soldiers, he’s not “trapped” but believes in the mission and wants to see it through? Do you still support him?
Tim F
Shinseki declares that we need more troops and gets fired. Franks declares that we have what we need and gets Shinseki’s job. For the life of me I can’t imagine what incentives might have driven Franks to say that.
capelza
I don’t know…the MSM pushing the Vietnam=Iraq meme (I just used a word I promised myself I’d never use..I have become blogged :( )? I think there is validity to the comment above that to some extent the MSM is picking up on an undercurrent that is running through the country. Whether it is correct or not I do not know, though some comparisons are valid.
There are a whole lot of us that were alive and kicking during the Vietnam era. I grew up watching the war on the nightly news (cliche, but it was true). On both sides of the political ditch, and yeah, the rest of the poor souls caught in the middle, there are echos that reverberate, especially for folks who aren’t super political or blogged. They may not know the deatails, but they remember the big soundbites of the past few years and say to themselves…”Where have I heard THAT before”?
Tim F
You are being intentionally blockheaded. If the commanders make the mistakes then they deserve the blame.
Tim F
The blockquote in my post above was meant to be:
TallDave
only when America’s safety is on the line
Well, both sides are guilty of failing that test, unless you can tell me how Somalia and Serbia involved America’s safety.
and when it is to ensure that they win.
We are winning, and will win.
TallDave
Shinseki declares that we need more troops and gets fired.
Sorry, Shinseki was already retiring.
Otto Man
Gee, with that ellipsis there, it sort of looks like you excised something from what I originally wrote.
And, golly, when you present the entire quote as I wrote it, you can see that I placed some emphasis on the “ill-conceived and poorly-executed” aspect of the plan — precisely the part you felt the need to chop out.
How intellectually honest of you. First you put words in my mouth, and then you remove other ones that I actually said. You should go by the name Tall Tale instead.
Again — and read this slowly — my complaint was with the fact that “stay the course” doesn’t make a lot of sense when the course is so ill-conceived and poorly-executed by incompetent leaders.
This started as a discussion of which side truly “supports the troops” — a discussion begun with your snide comment, by the way. But it seems your test-case of loyalty isn’t whether or not we “support the troops” but instead whether or not we “support the mission” as it was originally crafted in the mind of Dear Leader.
Joe Albanese
Back on topic for a moment. John Cole suggested that much of the dissatisfaction we see with the media has something to do with:
but this article doesn’t quite agree that is the reason. A snippet from the article in the Chicago Tribune:
So, perhaps it was the absence of the media asking the hard questions before the war that has soured the public on the job the media is doing. The job of the media is not to be cheerleaders for the administration. I know that, in the fervor of patriotism that swept this country after 911, many journalists were reluctant to be seen as challenging the administration’s claims. But patriotism is not about love of a President its about love of the country and the country was ill served by their unquestioning acceptance of everything Bush said.
Otto Man
From Wikipedia:
Tim F
Time for a pop quiz. Which committed US troops to Somalia? Using the same logic I can blame Nixon for Vietnam.
About Kosovo, “wars” are a lot easier to justify when you don’t lose any Americans. The whole reason why you’re hearing monday-morning quarterbacking today is that your line,
, rings hollow even to Republicans. It’s a bumper sticker. The rhetorical equivalent of sucking your thumb.
Tim F
“Which president committed US troops to Somalia?”
geh.
John S.
John C.-
I am struck by the irony of your post:
Weren’t you dismissive of their posts and basically stating that they made ‘shoddy commentary’ when you said:
and
I agree with you that such behavior is hardly useful, but I can’t imagine why you would embrace this practice yourself when you decry it in others.
Joe Albanese
That would be Bush the elder right?
John Cole
It is called returning fire, John S.
Tim F
Joe, you’re not supposed to help. It was already an open-google quiz ;^)
Luddite
I like to think I’m more like Oral Roberts. Just the cash please.
Tim F:
Just a reminder. You HAD to take that cash or God was going to “call you home” (e.g. kill your ass). So please don’t feel guilty about cashing in on God’s extortion threat.
Regards,
Luddite
Nate
At least we think, AJ. All you can do know is throw insults, because what is happening in Iraq is too obviosu for even you to ignore.
Joe Albanese
John Cole –
Sorry you feel under fire John but I, for one,don’t “shoot” at you for the sake of shooting at you. I have tremedous respect for your opinions. Admittedly I am fairly new to your blog but what I have read generally tells me that you are not one of the kool-aid kids. Your opinions are not partisan. You shoot down stupidity whether it be on the right or left. And that is a breath of fresh air that is often absent in political discussion these days. So kudos for that. But, on Iraq, you seem to be very defensive for some reason and your posts, especially regarding Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war movment, have of late been closer to the shrill rantings of the right wing nut brigade than I would normally expect from you.
The consequences of this war are immense. The stakes are high. As a result passions run deep on both sides. Saying I have a “as doctrinal a viewpoint of the world as Pat Robertson” simply because I don’t happen to agree with you on this point is doing exactly what you acuse others of doing to you.
Cheer up John, your coeds are back in town.
PotVsKtl
Seriously? You’re just going to leave this up there without pointing out that it is, in fact, false? That takes heart.
PotVsKtl
Sorry, clearly this is the wrong thread.
Davebo
Tall Dave
Shinseki’s replacement was named a year prior to his scheduled departure. I think your timeline is a little skewed.
Of course I suppose you could claim that every recruit leaving boot camp was getting ready to retire.
Davebo
And by the way, Iraq is absolutely nothing like Vietnam.
In Vietnam US Service Members could walk throughout Saigon in relative safety.
Phil Smith
Davebo, TallDave didn’t make that claim, Tim F did.
At any rate, Shinseki was Chief of Staff, not CINC-CENTCOM. Franks was appointed CINC-CENTCOM in 2000, prior to any of the events that could even remotely be considered relevant to this discussion. Prior, in fact, to the the election of 2000, so Tim F really goes well out of his way to slander his integrity.
Phil Smith
You’ve got to be shitting me. Roughly 10% of the deaths our forces suffered were in Saigon and its surrounding province.
jg
You think 10% refutes the words ‘relative safety’? Compare Saigon to Baghdad. Soldiers don’t leave the green zone without an armored convoy.
Once your successor is named your effectively done. people will report to the successor on all issues.
Phil Smith
Relative to what? 5,730 Americans died in Saigon and its surrounding province. 450 Americans in Baghdad (which would be 24%). I tossed out the 10% merely to point out that Saigon was far from “safe”, relative or otherwise.
ppGaz
A. Yes, so what?
B. I’ll take that question as an assertion by you that I’m misinterpreting you. Fine. What is your position on why public support is waning?
C. You can’t be serious. Are you really going to try to paint the American public as a bunch of sheep who sit in front of their tv’s and just let themselves be brainwashed — by that crowd of IDIOTS ON TV? C’mon, man. Get real. The very material you cited says that that same public doesn’t think the media is giving them good information. Which is true? They are swayed by all this “negativism”, or they have just stopped believing in the shit that pours out of their tv set NO MATTER WHO IS PUSHING IT? I say the latter, and I say it’s obvious.
D. Yes, but who said that slipping support for the war or the media or anything …. means “all is lost?” I don’t see but a few lefty loudmouths saying all is lost. I am not saying all is lost. I am saying we damn well better not pull and give it up as lost. So what is this “all is lost” crap about? If you are going to decry the extremist grip on the bandwidth, then why focus on the extremist view? Focus on the moderate view. You can start with me, Mister No Pullout. How do the potatoheads earn my trust? They haven’t been right about anything yet in this situation, why should I suddenly start buying the Rovian nonsense I heard from Bush today? And if I don’t, what’s to be the basis for my support for the next two years of this?
E. Uh, if you say so. All I see on the right is “too much negativism.” As if the public would be having war pep rallies if it weren’t for those darned pundits? Again, I misread your position on this? All I can say is, I have as many hours in front of a classroom as you do, John, probably more, and if my class doesn’t understand my position, I don’t yell at them, I try harder to explain it. It’s not my goddam fault if you are misunderstood.
F. Whatever. Your silly exxaggeration of my awfulness toward you doesn’t serve you well. I’ve launched a few torpedoes at you lately, so what? Argue that I’m wrong, all day and all night, I look forward to it. But the whining is really annoying.
Mike
“E. Uh, if you say so. All I see on the right is “too much negativism.” As if the public would be having war pep rallies if it weren’t for those darned pundits? Again, I misread your position on this? All I can say is, I have as many hours in front of a classroom as you do, John, probably more, and if my class doesn’t understand my position, I don’t yell at them, I try harder to explain it. It’s not my goddam fault if you are misunderstood.”
You’re an EDUCATOR??!??!!
Oh god, no wonder our youth are being indoctrinated vice being taught anything.
ppGaz
I’m sorry, I’m a little busy today. If you could rearrange those words into a sentence, it would help me out.
Thx, PG
PS — Running a classroom doesn’t necessarily make me an “educator”. It might make me a “teacher” or “instructor”, though. The students are adults, and they are paying for my services. In some cases, if they didn’t learn, they got killed, so there is a rather direct feedback loop.
Mike
“I’m sorry, I’m a little busy today. If you could rearrange those words into a sentence, it would help me out.
Thx, PG
PS —Running a classroom doesn’t necessarily make me an “educator”. It might make me a “teacher” or “instructor”, though. The students are adults, and they are paying for my services. In some cases, if they didn’t learn, they got killed, so there is a rather direct feedback loop.”
I’m sure they adore your understanding, biting wit and willingness to listen to other points of view. Not to mention the non-snarky way you have about responding to folks. Glad to hear no children are involved though, that’s good news at least.
ppGaz
Actually, they do, thanks for asking.