If today's media were reporting on D-Day

[jrydberg]

Having worked at a local media outlet, I can say with considerable authority that the news media do, in fact, focus primarily on negative stories. It has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat in office. It has everything to do with ratings. Bad news is more compelling than good news.

 

[dmadman43]

3 - Yes, I want Bush out...I love my country, and I don't think we can stand four more years of incompetence at the top with all that is going on in the world....So sue me. Does that make ANYTHING I've said factually inaccurate ? My signature is a reference to the fact that this president will be the first since the depression to reside over a net loss of jobs, and that's the PLAIN truth, like it or not. Is it more complicated than that ? Certainly...but the signature can only be so long......hey, maybe you can get one of the Enron logo....Like you, they also were big supporters of the president

Not sure what Enron has to do with anything. They gave a lot to the previous administration, too. And their problems occured during the previous administration (not that it really matters, the President doesn't have oversight over corporations), they were just uncovered during the Bush administration. Or did you just simply overlook that?

As for "job loss".. Hmmmmm. I dunno... Let's not be too premature...

http://www.forbes.com/personalfinance/funds/newswire/2004/06/04/rtr1396227.html

 

[k&a&c'smom]

I hear a lot of people (mostly Republicans) talk about the "liberal media," and how the coverage is slanted against Bush. If the media is so determined to "get Bush," why haven't we heard more about Bush's financial ties to bin Laden's family, or his father's involvement with the Carlyle group? Why don't we see news stories about the U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, instead of a "crawl" on the bottom of the screen, "7 US soldiers killed today...etc." We heard daily for 8 years about a 20-yr.-old real estate deal of the Clinton's, and his sexual indiscretions, the media has never seemed very "liberal" to me.

 

[Dan Murphy]

I liked it, Heather, thanks.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Having worked at a local media outlet, I can say with considerable authority that the news media do, in fact, focus primarily on negative stories. It has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat in office. It has everything to do with ratings. Bad news is more compelling than good news.

I for one, am not looking at this in any sort of Rep or Dem way. It's more an agenda thing. And ratings do certainly play a part. If it was a party thing, then Clinton's foibles would have been pushed to the back page. They weren't because it got ratings.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by k&a&c'smom
I hear a lot of people (mostly Republicans) talk about the "liberal media," and how the coverage is slanted against Bush. If the media is so determined to "get Bush," why haven't we heard more about Bush's financial ties to bin Laden's family, or his father's involvement with the Carlyle group?

Uh...maybe because despite their viewpoints, they do want to report facts?

 

[JimB.]

but we should ALSO see the dead, maimed and homeless children. There are thousands of maimed and dead children since the war started. Children that are being killed by coaliation forces and "insurgents", maybe even every single day.

Thousands???

Are you sure???

I agree, ONE is too many. But methinks you overestimate the severity of the issue.





Oh, BTW, where is your concern for those who were murdered Prior to the fall of the Hussein regime.

The "left" views this entire situation in a vacuum. Nothing prior to the US involvement in Iraq counts. The HUNDREDS of thousands murdered by Hussein mean nothing to the Pope or the Protestors in Italy. Wy is that??

 

[Patch'sD]

I never compared it to the prison scandal. You brought up the poor maligned priests. I think The prision scandal is very wrong and the Defense Department needs to come clean and an investigation should be done. Enron, come on. The previous poster said enough about that. You picked Dan Rather, not me. Out of a Hat, Ha. I watch Fox News every night and they have stories about the tragedy of the death and wounding of American Soldiers. Fair and balanced sometimes not, but you know what it's a lot better than what I have seen on CNN and the networks. Say what you want about O'Rielly, I have seen him plenty of times critical of Bush and his administration. You won't see anything critcal of Kerry, He has no position except to be critical of the present administration. Kerry will self destruct just like Dean once he starts opening his mouth . At least you admit you're not presenting the whole story, but again just say anything to get your guy elected

 

[Saffron]

QUOTE]Originally posted by JimB.
Thousands???

Are you sure???

I agree, ONE is too many. But methinks you overestimate the severity of the issue.





Oh, BTW, where is your concern for those who were murdered Prior to the fall of the Hussein regime.

The "left" views this entire situation in a vacuum. Nothing prior to the US involvement in Iraq counts. The HUNDREDS of thousands murdered by Hussein mean nothing to the Pope or the Protestors in Italy. Wy is that?? [/QUOTE]

I don't think I over estimate anything. Yes, there are thousands of dead or maimed or homeless (sorry I left the word "homeless" out in the second sentence about the children in my original post, but you can see it right there in the first sentence you quoted) children in Iraq. I've only heard estimates of how many Iraqi people (children are part of the count) have been killed, the estimates range from 5,000 to 50,000 (so I'm thinking maybe somewhere in the middle of that estimate). We'll never know the exact count of Iraqis killed because the reports about the war coming into this country are filtered. We can hear the counts of dead American soldiers, one by one, but not the count of dead Iraqis. You can "thinks" anything you want, but that's what I think. Can you prove me wrong? I would stand corrected and apologize if you could. But ... you'd have to get your information from an unbiased source. LOL!

And I think you got that wrong about the "left". Isn't the "left" supposed to be the side that has the yellow bellied, sappy, hippy type of people who only care about love and peace for everybody, even at the expense of our own country and the "right" supposed to be the side that only cares about this nation and the people in this nation? Wouldn't your argument be wrong that the "left" didn't care about Iraq before the US involvement there, wouldn't that be the "right"?

By the way, where was your concern before "US involvement in Iraq"? Did you care about the people being killed? Did you care about the people in Iraq at all, in any way? Now be honest, did you?

Being a proud leftie, I can say with total and complete honesty that I did. I thought Saddam was an evil creature who needed to be taken out of control (of course with the backing of the hippy leftest extremist organization known as the United Nations *gasp* *horrors* ). Did you? Did you care? Or did you back the "right" administration that aligned themselves with him (remember Rumsfeld and Saddam's shaking hands picture)? The administration that thought he was so trustworthy during the Iran/Iraq war?

Oh wait, that's an entirely different topic. This topic is about biased news stories.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by dmadman43
You seem to be missing the point. This appears to be two-valued view of things. Why can't BOTH types of stories be reported?

Actually, I think you seem to be missing the point. It's called priorities.

I'm quite sure w and his administration would like nothing more than for the media to focus on such insignificant items as U.S. soldiers kicking balls around Iraq. I mean, that would indeed take airtime away from all of their inadequacies, deceptive maneuverings, and poor judgements, right? When the U.S. commits war crimes, w and his supporters want to shift attention away from this? Um, I say no. Let's hear it loud, clear, and long. Let's actually approach the problem and look for ways to solve it. Once the U.S. isn't engaged in such activities, when soldiers, civilians, and children are not being killed in the streets of Iraq, then, and only then, should we watch some solider kicking a ball around.

You see, priorities.

 

[JimB.]

By the way, where was your concern before "US involvement in Iraq"? Did you care about the people being killed? Did you care about the people in Iraq at all, in any way? Now be honest, did you?

Hell yea!

I had 2 friends wounded in Gulf War 1. I thought we should have solved the Hussein Problem then.

Do you remeber seeing film of Thousands (including children) murdered by Hussein's use of Chemical weapons?

Do you know that the under 5 mortality rate in Iraq in the 10 years prior to 2003? 136 (as stated by UNICEF). Twice what it was prior to Gulf War 1. By having Hussein remain in power, over 500,000 children needlessly died in Iraq. And since you are a "proud leftie", 6 of those years were when your President Clinton were in office.

BTW, Being deployed to the middle east on numerous occasions, I have had a pretty good knowledge of the geopolitical situation "over there" probably before you knew Iraq even existed. I was on station there when Hussein "accidentally" blew 2 exocet missiles into the USS Stark, killing dozens of my Navy colleagues.

We spent lots of hours training to defend ourselves against the possible deployement of his chemical weapons. Ever had to walf across a 90 degree + flight deck wearing an anti-exposure siut and gas mask?? Try it sometime. Lots of fun.

Wouldn't your argument be wrong that the "left" didn't care about Iraq before the US involvement there

Nope. That's exactly what I believe.

Oh, BTW, check out the following site

www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

It's not even CLOSE to being unbiased. It basically blames EVERY civilian death (including those caused by terrorist actions) on the good ole' US of A. They put the MAXIMUM death toll (including adults & children) at 11147. Far short of your "in the middle" of 5 - 50 thousand.



Every civilian death is regrettable. As a Naval Officer, I find it abhorrent. Any implication by yourself of anything else is in error.

Can you prove me wrong?

I dunno. Was the above good enough??

 

[CarolA]

Just to give you food for thought....

I belive MSNBC is going to try to "recreate" D Day coverage using today's technology this weekend.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles

Originally posted by dmadman43
You seem to be missing the point. This appears to be two-valued view of things. Why can't BOTH types of stories be reported?

Actually, I think you seem to be missing the point. It's called priorities.

I'm quite sure w and his administration would like nothing more than for the media to focus on such insignificant items as U.S. soldiers kicking balls around Iraq. I mean, that would indeed take airtime away from all of their inadequacies, deceptive maneuverings, and poor judgements, right? When the U.S. commits war crimes, w and his supporters want to shift attention away from this? Um, I say no. Let's hear it loud, clear, and long. Let's actually approach the problem and look for ways to solve it. Once the U.S. isn't engaged in such activities, when soldiers, civilians, and children are not being killed in the streets of Iraq, then, and only then, should we watch some solider kicking a ball around.

You see, priorities.

You have an interesting set of priorities there. This has nothing do with "the administration" as much as your paranoia would have you believe. Look, I understand any reporting of good news weakens your arguments against, Bush. I really do. But, I would think an open-minded liberal like yourself would welcome seeing both sides of an issue. Afterall, liberals are more "enlighted" are they not? If so, then seeing both sides certainly allows one to form more intelligent opinions. But, again, I understand how good news tends to undermine your crusade.

You're really full of hyperbole today, aren't you? James Carville's got nothing on you.

Care to provide documentation on all those "civilians and children" being killed by the US? Civilians and children that aren't being used as human shields? And the verified charges of war crimes from somebody other than some crazed anti-bush wacko? Something from a well recognized medial outlet would be what I'm looking for.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Well, that'd be because the Iraqi prison scandal is NEWS....Kids playing soccer with troops ? Give me a break

"I'm Dan Rather....In today's news...there was a 30 car pile-up on the interstate yesterday, but instead of reporting on that, take a look at these cute little bunnies !

Yeah...that's what the news should be...lol

As for the Daniel Berg thing....It was covered...what else is there to say ? The WHOLE story was told....while the military and white house have only let news dribble out about the prison scandal (leading to the dragging out of the story). Again, what should the press have done ?

Here's a question: There are THOUSANDS of child molestations that happen around the country every day...so how come the media only really focused on the ones done by priests ? Hmmm...could it be because the priests were SUPPOSED to be the GOOD guys, therefore the act was that much more shocking and people were that much more interested in finding out what happened ?

Nah....It must just be that the media hates the catholics....yeah, that must be it

I never said the media should report on "looking at bunnies". LOL (although I'd personally think it was pretty amusing if they did). But I DO think children in Iraq playing with American is news. I think so because it shows that not every Iraqi hates us and views us as evil. It's news because it gets morale up.

I agree the prison scandal should have been covered. But it was over covered and Berg was under covered. We also have a local paper here that seems to mostly print liberal opinion letters from readers. When it chooses to show the opposing view, it picks the most extreme right wing nutcases to print the letters of.

It never prints letters from moderate conservatives making valid points. Instead it prints raving lunatics who refer to their god as the reason for their thoughts. Now I'm SURE they get letters from non raving lunatics with opposing views, I know because I have sent some in. But they never print them.

I never said the news should not have covered the church scandal. I'm glad they went after those guys the way they did.
Please don't assume you know what I think about certain issues, or that you know my religion, because you do not.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by Son of the Morning
Simply brushing the prisoner abuse scandal under the rug here would be the worst thing we could do. Why? Because no one else is going to. The story is still causing a hell of a lot of anger in Iraq that is not going to go away any time soon, and that has nothing to do with our coverage of it.

'News' is not made by our reaction to it: The impact is there, the question is whether we know about it or not.

This is a good point S.O.M . No one ever said it SHOULD have been brushed under the rug. I'm just saying we need to show other things as well.

 

[Saffron]

Originally posted by JimB.
Hell yea!

I had 2 friends wounded in Gulf War 1. I thought we should have solved the Hussein Problem then.

Do you remeber seeing film of Thousands (including children) murdered by Hussein's use of Chemical weapons?

Do you know that the under 5 mortality rate in Iraq in the 10 years prior to 2003? 136 (as stated by UNICEF). Twice what it was prior to Gulf War 1. By having Hussein remain in power, over 500,000 children needlessly died in Iraq. And since you are a "proud leftie", 6 of those years were when your President Clinton were in office.

BTW, Being deployed to the middle east on numerous occasions, I have had a pretty good knowledge of the geopolitical situation "over there" probably before you knew Iraq even existed. I was on station there when Hussein "accidentally" blew 2 exocet missiles into the USS Stark, killing dozens of my Navy colleagues.

We spent lots of hours training to defend ourselves against the possible deployement of his chemical weapons. Ever had to walf across a 90 degree + flight deck wearing an anti-exposure siut and gas mask?? Try it sometime. Lots of fun.





Nope. That's exactly what I believe.

Oh, BTW, check out the following site

www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

It's not even CLOSE to being unbiased. It basically blames EVERY civilian death (including those caused by terrorist actions) on the good ole' US of A. They put the MAXIMUM death toll (including adults & children) at 11147. Far short of your "in the middle" of 5 - 50 thousand.



Every civilian death is regrettable. As a Naval Officer, I find it abhorrent. Any implication by yourself of anything else is in error.



I dunno. Was the above good enough??

I stand corrected and I do apologize to you for not knowing the exact count of the deaths in Iraq. I thought since I read estimates that ranged between 5,000 and 50,000, that the death toll would be closer to 25,000.

I would have never questioned your concern for the people of Iraq (I NEVER do that, but you don't know me, so how would you know), until you lobbed this statement:

Oh, BTW, where is your concern for those who were murdered Prior to the fall of the Hussein regime.

Pot - kettle - black. If you don't want people implying things about you, or asking you the same questions you ask them, maybe you shouldn't do that to others. Maybe you should learn to except people as individuals and not lump them and label them into neat little packages that you can dismiss because their views differ from yours? I get sick of hearing about the "left" and the "right" and the stereo-typing that goes on.

Where did those chemical weapons come from that Saddam could have used against you guys?

And no, I never had to, nor will I ever have to, walf across a 90 degree + flight deck wearing an anti-exposure suit and gas mask. Have you ever stroked the hair off the face of a child as they took their last breath, then try to keep their blood from seeping out of every pore in their body so their parents don't have that as the last memory of their child? DON'T try it sometime. It's NOT fun.

We can play this "my experience is better or worse than yours" game all night, but I'd rather not. I'd rather say that we will never see eye to eye. You have your opinions and I have mine. Neither one of our life experiences will change those for the other.

Again I apologize for being wrong about the death count.

Now I'm off to sign up for a pre-sale copy of Clinton's new book!

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Hmmm...

Let's see...

Individuals being humiliated and tortured at the hands of U.S. soliders... Soliders kicking a ball to Iraqi kids. Yeah, you're right! I can see which is more important!

Civilians and soliders being killed. (You know, DEAD. As in, DEAD.) Girls going to school. Ah, once again, I can see which is more important!

A world that is not ugly at all? I'd like to live in your world my friend.

I happen to think that showing that the soldiers are not baby killing monsters and that there are Iraqi's who like us IS very important news.

I also don't see how anyone could argue that girls getting to go to school and women being appointed to the governing council is NOT important.

No offense, but I wish you lived in my world too.

 

[emmagata]

Originally posted by wvrevy

Why am I not surprised at this.

 

[JimB.]

We can play this "my experience is better or worse than yours" game all night, but I'd rather not.

Agreed.

I can civilly agree that we won't see eye to eye on all issues, but hey, that's what being an American is about.

BTW, a couple of minor corrections on my part. That's "walk", not "walf" across the flight deck. I am repeatedly "typographically challenged". Also, I should have stated I am a RETIRED Naval Officer. Sorry. Hope that does not change the context too much.

And the "bloody child" issue? I'm now a practicing Firefighter/Paramedic. Been there, done that. And I also agree, it is not pleasant, fun or rewarding. Don't like it one bit. It's sad & unpleasant.

Have fun with Clinton's book. I read a review of it today, and it sounded interesting. Im NOT gonna' buy it, mind you, so you'll have to read for us both. An interesting quote from Mr. Clinton about his book: "all presidential memoirs are self serving. I only hope mine is self serving & interesting".

What can ya' say, the guy's got a sense of humor...........



What was the question again??? Oh yea, the D-Day thing. Agreed.

 

[cati]

I'm Dan Rather....

That would be enough for me to turn the channel.....


Actually, it is funny to watch him. You can tell by his expressions who he likes and who he does not like. I personally think that news media should be unbiased and when they are not then they should be fired. I personally will not watch CBS because of him. I think when I watch him I am only getting one sided info. JMHO