Hoot
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2004
- Messages
- 1,686
- Reaction score
- 18
- Location
- State of Confusion
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Comrade Brian said:Capitalist media is biased to increase their profits, thay don't care if the news is real or not just as long as they get more ratings, .
A sad fact, but the worst month in Vietnam was 640 dead, and about 210 dead a month on average, there was little or no reason to be there. 1400 american dead on D-Day, every reason to fight that one. You are basically saying that this war isn't going as badly as others, so what's your complaint.Hoot said:Sept-Mar of this past year, more than 500 US soldiers were killed in Iraq.
If you'd study more war history you would find that the ugliest times in most war come at the end of major combat.This was one of the most violent periods of the war...and all this coming after the elections in Iraq.
Is that what you really want to see? First you speak of the 500 soldiers dead and then you ask for the paper to show it to you, make up your mind.Yet, the Los Angeles Times reports ( I can hear the neo-cons now..."Oh no, not that rag the LA Times) but during those 6 months, not a single photo of an American killed in action appeared in 6 of the largest U.S. newspapers, and Time and Newsweek also ran no photos of Americans killed in action.
I am a broadcasting major and have to study all media forms, it does NOT sell papers.The "right' is always accusing the media of being too negative on the war in Iraq, then why the self-censorship in this area?
Speculation on your part. besides, whats wrong with Bshowing a little class and giving these brave men some dignity?I'm sure if you asked the editors of these publications, they'd say..."Well, photos of dead GI's is just too sensitive a subject and is not in good taste."
I saw very little graphic photos of the dead, and it is a completely different subject.Yet...during the recent Tsunami disaster...we had photos of dead all over the media!
Now you're just rambling.I guess that's ok, as long as they're not American GI's?
No, it would upset ALL patriotic americans on all sides, and would thin out readership.The real truth is, publishing photos of dead GI's would bring out the rabid right wing who would scream "liberal bias" etc..etc...blah blah blah.
At least you are being honest about your own bias when you make statements like thisThat's why these photos aren't published...fear of being accussed by the right wing of having some sort of "secret political agenda."
It comes from all decent people who want fair, complete, and truthful reporting, as is a journalists duty.There's bias in the media, allright, only the pressure isn't coming from the left, it's coming from the right.
Hoot said:Sept-Mar of this past year, more than 500 US soldiers were killed in Iraq.
This was one of the most violent periods of the war...and all this coming after the elections in Iraq.
Yet, the Los Angeles Times reports ( I can hear the neo-cons now..."Oh no, not that rag the LA Times) but during those 6 months, not a single photo of an American killed in action appeared in 6 of the largest U.S. newspapers, and Time and Newsweek also ran no photos of Americans killed in action.
The "right' is always accusing the media of being too negative on the war in Iraq, then why the self-censorship in this area?
I'm sure if you asked the editors of these publications, they'd say..."Well, photos of dead GI's is just too sensitive a subject and is not in good taste."
Yet...during the recent Tsunami disaster...we had photos of dead all over the media!
I guess that's ok, as long as they're not American GI's?
The real truth is, publishing photos of dead GI's would bring out the rabid right wing who would scream "liberal bias" etc..etc...blah blah blah.
That's why these photos aren't published...fear of being accussed by the right wing of having some sort of "secret political agenda."
There's bias in the media, allright, only the pressure isn't coming from the left, it's coming from the right.
Hoot said:I placed my previous post, not because I want to see photos of our dead soldiers in the press, but to ask those of you who so strongly believe in the myth of a 'liberal media' why they're not taking advantage?
Once again, you point back to your agenda. 1: Turn people against the war in Iraq, 2: Turn people against Bush, 3: and hopefully use "Media" to exploit dead soldiers, to somehow sell "Right Wing" modivation to censor the media that you say isnt "Left Wing = Liberal". Personally I dont think you agenda has anything to do with Bush. I think it has to do with your backround. You disliked your service in the Military Service, so this is your only way to lash out. Once again, you put your self in the military service. You are suppose to follow all orders and not commit "Treason" by Blasphemy your fellow soldiers.Can anyone in here honestly say that seeing photos of our dead soldiers in the press would do two things....
1) Create a backlash against the publication that would be devasting to their "bottom line."
2) Turn more people against the war, and the policies of Bush.
Wow, you must live in the 1700's. What do you think us Americans dont weap everyday, when our mothers, fathers, and sons, daughers, serve over seas. How Narrow Minded Are You? We cant wait for them to come home, but if there not done, we shouldnt think selfishly about them keeping them here and ignoring a problem you dont think exists.It's easy for most of us to sit in our quiet little suburbia's with our nice little spot of tea, and not think about death and destruction half-way across the globe.
You love Media, yet you say its not "Liberal." You have no respect for the families by displaying their relatives on front of newspapers, and top of headlines on "popular Media outlets". What horror are you talking about? Yes people die in war, but it should not be a public spectical. What century do you live in, public hangings. It is not of your "Patriotic" duty to sell pictures of dead people to promote your Pesimistic values. You are no better than your enemy!With all respect to the families of the deceased, if we hit complacent people in the face with grahic photos, wouldn't that bring the true horrors of war closer to home? Wouldn't this help end the war? Wouldn't this help expose the flimsy reasons we were given for this undertaking? ( No pun meant on the word 'undertaking')
Yes sure I may have not "spent one day in boot camp", nor do you clarify your own experience. So what are you ranting about. Somehow, you think because you come from a "Military Family" that somehow makes you more supierior to the people who post on this forum. Yet you still call Americans war-mongers and, yet you are trained to kill people with your bare hands. So who's really the War-Monger, "the Anonmous Forum Poster", or "a Trained Mercenary"? When you can get real, feel free to post a response.Again...I'm just asking...I'm not saying this is something we should do. I come from a military family and I've served myself...most of you war-mongers have never spent one day in boot camp.
stsburns said:So stop it with your left wing agenda. People like you destroy the moral, of the soldiers you bravely serve with. I think it has to do with your backround. You disliked your service in the Military Service, so this is your only way to lash out. Wow, you must live in the 1700's. How Narrow Minded Are You? You love Media, yet you say its not "Liberal." When you can get real, feel free to post a response.
torch said:I agree the media is about "ratings" I hardly watch news because it has become "Michael Jackson, the pope, terry shavio, robert blake, scott peterson" 24/7...how are these issues "news" There is actually bad and good things going on in the world and our news media focuses on tabloids..I am very disappointed in the news media anymore
JOHNYJ said:What are they afraid of ?
LaMidRighter said:More people have died in the first two years of this conflict than in the first two years of Nam. Nam lasted 17 years so there is plenty of time to catch up.A sad fact, but the worst month in Vietnam was 640 dead, and about 210 dead a month on average, there was little or no reason to be there. 1400 american dead on D-Day, every reason to fight that one. You are basically saying that this war isn't going as badly as others, so what's your complaint.
Hoot said:I placed my previous post, not because I want to see photos of our dead soldiers in the press, but to ask those of you who so strongly believe in the myth of a 'liberal media' why they're not taking advantage?
Can anyone in here honestly say that seeing photos of our dead soldiers in the press would do two things....
1) Create a backlash against the publication that would be devasting to their "bottom line."
2) Turn more people against the war, and the policies of Bush.
It's easy for most of us to sit in our quiet little suburbia's with our nice little spot of tea, and not think about death and destruction half-way across the globe.
With all respect to the families of the deceased, if we hit complacent people in the face with grahic photos, wouldn't that bring the true horrors of war closer to home? Wouldn't this help end the war? Wouldn't this help expose the flimsy reasons we were given for this undertaking? ( No pun meant on the word 'undertaking')
Again...I'm just asking...I'm not saying this is something we should do. I come from a military family and I've served myself...most of you war-mongers have never spent one day in boot camp.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?