Associated Press: Tone Deaf, but Calls U.S. Soldiers Deaf

Under headaing, "AP IMPACT:  U.S. Troops Losing Hearing":

"Soldiers and Marines caught in roadside bombings and firefights in Iraq and Afghanistan are coming home in epidemic numbers with permanent hearing loss and ringing in their ears, prompting the military to redouble its efforts to protect the troops from noise."

The story goes on, as hysterically as possible, to talk about soliders receiving "disability", and how this is a "staggering" problem (although the AP does say, seemingly reluctantly, that it is a problem battlefield troops have faced since gunpowder was invented (the last four words being my--accurate--time frame over which the problem has existed).

The headline alone tells you everything you need to know about the despicable Associated Press, which would not know how to report the "news" straight and factually even if they were forced to take a remedial course in the subject.

"U.S. Troops Losing Hearing"!!!! Give me a break. That is NOT supported by the story (at all). Accurate headline: "Many U.S. Troops Have Problem With Hearing Loss".

I have "hearing loss". I had "hearing loss" when I ENTERED the U.S. army in 1969. I have it now. But I am hardly deaf. I have not "lost my hearing". This is obviously a problem, of varying severity=, facing people in varying occupations--including combat soldiers (and boom blasting teenagers). You could do a non-hysterical story on this. The despicable AP simply does not know how.

The Associated Press really is despicable.  It is not this story that is terrible, but the HYSTERIA of it.  Is anyone surprised taht our soldiers have a hearing risk from fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq?  Is there any doubt at all (I have none) that we have gotten much better at DIANOSING hearing problems now than in the past? 

So soldiers get "partial disability" for hearing problems.  Fine.  I have no problem with that.  But they are NOT "disabled" in the sense of being unable to function.   We are (rightly) pretty liberal in assessing disability for service related health problmes. 

These AP "impact" stories are almost alwasy hysterical (both reflecting hysteria and FUNNY in the sheer amount of hysteria that they try to generate).   This is hardly the same as a lost leg or arm (without minimizing the angony SOME soldiers may suffer).  Many CIVILIANShave hearing loss (including from listenting to loud music). 

The despicable AP should just fold their tent and steal away in the night.  They  are terrible.

Illustrative AOL comment, and my reply:

"Skip, even shooting an M16 rifle will give you some hearing loss and ringing in the ears after a while."

Of course you are right. I suffered ringing in the ears after sessions on the rifle range in basic training (where, of course, we also threw grenades and were exppsed to various other kinds of military "noise"). I was never in combat, but mere TRAINING in the military causes a risk to your hearing (I don't think mine was worse when I went out than when I went in--1969-1971). I did, however, have a number of trining exercises where I was right next to a 20 mm aircraft type cannon (gatling gun, rotating type barrel), which shot 3000 rounds a minute (in short bursts). I was not issued ear plulgs. I am sure other soldiers in training were exposed to much more noise. I was a Vulcan system repairman (rotating cannon on an APC supposed to shoot down airplanes).

I can't tell you how stupid the hysterical tone of this AP story is.

Typical LEFTIST (clear target of story) comment under the same story, and my reply:

"Skip ,if you read the complete story you will see the story is quoting some military sources. That is the america Military. Problem with republicans is that anything that even questions bush, military or government is a lie "

Did I say that the story is a "lie". No, I said that the HEADLINE is a LIE (as it is). I said taht the HYSTERIA of the story is a LLIE (as it is). I said that the Associated Press, and I would add AOL to that, cannot be relied upon to tell a factual story neutrally (as they cannot).

The AP got SELECTIVE quotes from "military sources", and quoted them to support hysterical overstatement. The difference between conservatives and leftists: Most conservatives respect the WHOLE MILITARY, and don't just look to USE selected "military sources" to support an anti-military agenda.