Terrorists

[FJ_MD]

WE ARE STILL NOT SCARED

[Atrocities]

One thing bothers me about this whole terrorist thing. Why is it when they cut off some inocents persons head, blow up police stations, and slaughter women and children no one seems to care or even get upset in the slightest. Yet some poor dumb GI accidently pees on a Qoran and OH MY GOD! its a world crisis and a media feeding frenzy! Call out the investigators and hang the poor sap from the nearest flag pole! What a horrible unforgiveable thing to pee on a Qoran! Yet they behead another inocent person and nothing is said. I mean What The [censored]?

[Ed Kolis]

Because we EXPECT them to do that sort of thing...

[Leslie]

The Media is about "selling" the news, not making it.

They only "sell" news that sells, and I often think they will ignore anything if it is limited in potential to "sell".

That said, I think it depends on your audience.

In addition, it depends on where it lies on the PC meter.
Because PC is a major factor in what will or will not "sell".

[Atrocities]

So our media is selling the negative war pill while costing US troops their lives? Personally I think it is high time to pass new laws that call for intergerty and honesty in the news. Force the media into abiding by ethics laws.

[Jack Simth]

Atrocities said:
So our media is selling the negative war pill while costing US troops their lives? Personally I think it is high time to pass new laws that call for intergerty and honesty in the news. Force the media into abiding by ethics laws.

One problem is that pesky little "freedom of the press" ammendment.... and that it would be almost impossible to pass any such law (after all, the press is the ones that would be reporting on it.... what kind of a spin do you think they would put on something that could seriously hurt them, financially?).... and that they are already pretty much required to not lie (defamation of character laws, slander laws; and seriously, what you gonna do - require them to cover the stories the government wants them covering, in the way the government wants them covering it? Really, really bad idea, that).

[Atrocities]

It just pisses me off that people are exploiting the news to spew their own personal political and idological views as if that is the only point of view that I should listen too.

[Jack Simth]

And I find it quite worrysome when someone's first response to something they don't like is that it should be illeagle. Sometimes they are correct - it should be illeagle to randomly shoot people on the street, to name a fairly obvious example - but the vast majority of those are already covered, and more often than not such reactions are a step towards a totalitarian state.

It's surprisingly difficult to not do so when attempting to advance a viewpoint (of whatever sort), and trying will usually water-down the presented viewpoint to the point where people will complain that it is "wishy-washy" or that the presenter "isn't really trying to make his case", and will usually end up convincing fewer people. It is much easier and more effective (in most circumstances) to present only one side of an argument.

Sure, it's possible to get someone who espouses the opposing view on stage as well and have a debate, but again, with both sides present, not as many people will be convinced. Many who honestly believe that their position is correct will find that quite unpalatable.

If those signing a reporter's paycheck (by whatever method, with a rather loose definition of reporter - a buisiness advertising in a newspaper, say - the buisiness is signing the paycheck, the newspaper counts as the reporter) have a position to send forth and the reporter is harming the sending of that position, then they are unlikely to continue to sign that paycheck, if there is an option that would appear to work better.

If it's any consolation, the news was, at one point, balanced within reason. It's just that, over time, those news centers which were reasonably balanced didn't get quite the funding that those news centers which were not quite so balanced did. So now, the massive news outlets are almost exclusively slanted to the same side. It's even gotten to the point where something that is reasonably balanced appears to be horribly slanted the other direction.

You can still find some reasonably balanced news sources - the only problem is they don't have much in the way of recources to gather news....

[Leslie]

There's an old saying "the truth hurts".

A lot of merit in that.

The only real problem I have with most news media, is they have a choice to print a story about something positive, or a story about something negative. So what do they choose?

They print what sells.

People, its not their fault entirely. It is also partly the fault of the people that willingly support the media by buying the media.

Now, when the news is being spin doctored, that I have a problem with, because then it isn't news, its opinion.

Take for instance the London Bombing.
How many were killed how many were injured, who they were, gender, age, etc all just information details.
Where it happened, how it happened, when it happened. All just information details.

Now, the second people start explaioning reasons, and what should be done about it, that's opinion not news.
Who was suspected, who had claimed responsibility. All just information.

[Atrocities]

Who would have imagined back in 98 that seven years later we would be talking about the wholesale slaughter of an entire culture because of the actions of a few sick and twisted psychopaths with bombs and the knowledge and desire to use them? What�s worse is that our own media operations have sold us down the drain for nothing more than to sell us the news the way they want us to believe, and by extension the world, that American soldiers are evil and terrorists are good.

Case in point, the terrorist behead innocent people, blow up police stations, assassinate people, and kill innocent men, women, and children and our media, and the world, seem to careless about it. Yet one private accidentally farts near a Quran, and OMFG let loose the media storm! I ask you what is worse, accidentally peeing on a Quran or beheading an American with a two-inch pocketknife? What gets more new coverage? Yup, the Quran story. I ask you what in the hell is our news media doing? They are actively taking an anti win position and deliberately undermining any chance we might have at successfully winning the peace with their incessant addiction to reporting minor little infractions that US troops might happen to make thus blowing them hopelessly out of proportion while ignoring the true heinous crimes of the very people who are responsible for the war in the first place. In my humble yet honest opinion, the US news media, say for FOX, is actively participating in the aiding of terrorist and offering comfort to the enemy while betraying the sovereign security of United States and other great peace loving and supporting Nations such as Great Brittan.

Enough is enough; it is time to make those in the media who are responsible for supporting terrorism pay the piper. I say start charging them with treason every time they report negatively about stupid [censored] that undermines the success of our troops and gets our boys and girls killed. Protect the first amendment but lets also protect the lives of our troops. Its way past high time that we make those in the media pay for what they have done!