Yes, as a matter of fact they are, and have been for weeks. The story, as a story, was essentially out at least 2 weeks ago. Since then, it's been running very steadily. The fact that you didn't hit anything about it in one brief look is not relevant.Originally Posted by TrollKing
the berg story was out nearly as long ago and was essentially over when it happened. we're talking about 5 guys in an outlaw organization vs. soldiers in what is supposed to be the legitimate occupying force of a country.
again, it's a matter of what really happens vs. what you would expect to happen. you would expect "evil-doers" to kidnap and behead someone. you would not expect defenders of our freedom to do the shit that they did.
it's really a no-brainer to decide which would garner more attention. think about it: what would make a bigger story-- "Lex Luthor Kills Innocent" or "Superman Sodomizes Bank Robbers with Glo-Sticks"?
TK
I was walking down the street with my friend and he said "I hear music." As if there's any other way to take it in. I told him "you're not special.... that is the way I receive it, too". -- mitch hedberg, 1968-2005
The US media and the Australia media (outside public broadcasting) reflect the political views of the upper middle class (which journalists are a part of) in general. Basically socially liberal views and support in general of a liberalized free market economy.
There are two traditional 24 hour televised news sources one can really turn to in this country. Where I live it's Channel 25 (CNN) and Channel 26 (Fox).
Fox is unabashedly conservative, and O'Reilly is the king of that network, make no mistake about it. The big names on Fox are O'Reilly and Sean Hannity - they're the ones who write the best selling books.
Their equivolents on CNN - Tucker Carlson and Robert Novak get a quarter as much face time as those buffoons do, and the liberals - Carville and Begala - are just as sidelined to real news.
Watch a CNN morning show and you get public interest news stories about breast cancer or losing weight. Watch Fox' Morning Show and you get four angry people sitting around dismissing John Kerry and calling whomever they want "anti-American."
But the "balance" in the traditional media isn't limited to there. You can have your newspaper and read it too.
In Washington DC you can choose between the liberal Washington Post and the conservative Washington Times. In New York it's the opposite - liberals (most of the city itself) read The New York Times and conservatives (the suburbs) read The New York Post or Daily News.
The Boston Globe is hardly liberal, while the Philadelphia Inquirer is extremely conservative.
Sure, there are newspaper markets that are very liberal, while others conservative - but that represents their readership.
Therefore it's ok that the San Francisco Chronicle and Seattle Times aren't as fair and balanced as say, The Dallas Morning Star - but they just are catering to thier markets.
Likewise, the New York Times caters to its market. New York City, and especially Manhattan, the Bronx, and Brooklyn, are incredibly liberal places.
All the liberals (read free spirits) who can't get by in the red zones because they are harassed by that culture, find freedom on the streets of New York. In fact, if you dig a bit deeper, you'll find the ones posturing as New Yorkers really come from someplace like Indiana or Missouri. The real New Yorkers don't feel like they have to show off their city as much, except at a sporting event.
Republicans all over New York state are pissed off at the city because seven counties in upstate New York can go Republican, and a pitiful turnout at the polls in New York City will ensure that they will have two Democratic senators for the next six years.
So the New York Times caters to its public. I'm sorry that the Post and Daily News don't have as global a readership, but that's their fault, not mine. 8)
So where's this liberal media bogeyman?
You've got the house, the senate, the executive branch, much of the supreme court, half of the mainstream media - and yet you are unhappy that some of the big media outlets are being a little too hard on the president and his policies :?: :cry:
Give me a break.
No its isn't. How many photos exist or how bad the absue was is largely irrelevant. It that's what the story was about it would be long gone.
Why does one need to establish what the level of intensity the abuse was? This too is irrelevant. Are you saying that the US is in any way comparable to the regime of Saddam? If not, then why are you making this comparison?It's already been essentially established that they weren't to the level of true torture in most cases, certainly nothing like the level of what Hussein did routinely, yet our press simply buries that inconvenient fact to the degree they can
Yes that is the issue. Some of these actions are fairly specific interrogation tools used by special forces under special conditions. It strains credulity that a handful of reservists dreamed them up on their own. Somebody must have suggested these specific actions.Even now, they still keep striving to imply that it's a vast, systemic problem,
The US does employ torture in the interrogation of al Qaeda prisoners in Afghanistan. This is authorized. However, detainees in Iraq, many of whom simply were in the wrong place at the wrong time, are NOT al Qaeda prisoners in Afghanistan. It is NOT authorized to use these methods in Iraq. So how is it these methods were being employed in Iraq? A serious breakdown has occured.
This IS a story that should be pursued. It has a lot to say about how effectively this war is being prosecuted.
Re: reply to DA
A new Pew survey has confirmed its previous findings that American news outlets are dominated by "liberals". The situation is even more unbalanced than before, according to the new findings (in the sense that the balance at the newsrooms is quite different than the balance of American society in general.)
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1000517184
Re: reply to DA
From Pew no less. We can assume it is more unbalanced than they've reported. Interesting how Kerry's "training wheels" comment is off the record, but Bush's comment to Cheney in 2000 about Adam Clymer wasn't.A new Pew survey has confirmed its previous findings that American news outlets are dominated by "liberals". The situation is even more unbalanced than before, according to the new findings (in the sense that the balance at the newsrooms is quite different than the balance of American society in general.)
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1000517184
The most interesting findings are the large percentage of journalists who do not believe that the American public makes wise electoral decisions and the large number that believes the media has not been tough enough on Bush.
Bad, public, bad bad bad public. Left the "Holy Grail" light on again? First the spankings and then the .....
...comfy chair?
Oh, wait, that was the Spanish Inquisition. :wink:
Three minutes to identify the reference, without being explicit! Must be a record!
No doubt the longest "reference" indentification has to go to that little seadog fella. Several months ago he claimed that one "of the few honest statements Daddy Bush ever made in his entire life was: 'David Rockefeller has made me all that I am.'" Reading the words actually in quotes, I was a bit dumbfounded that a poster would have the nerve to talk about "honest statements" while engaging in sheer and blatant dishonesty, himself. Thus an attribution was requested of the poster.Three minutes to identify the reference, without being explicit! Must be a record!
The poster responded to my request by saying, "I just rolled my eyes at how stupid and petty it was," and casually cast the attribution request aside by demanding the requester "go to your local library and read through all the Bush biographies until you find reference to it. Over and out."
The little seadog's reputation hasn't suffered any as result of this little "identify the reference" confrontation. On the contrary, it appears that demanding honesty while being dishonest actually enhances one's standing among the anti-Bush folks.
Re: reply to DA
wait a second.... this just shows that journalists self-identify as liberal. so what? it doesn't demonstrate anything about a slant to the journalism itself.
also, i think tristan hit the nail on the head.
TK
I was walking down the street with my friend and he said "I hear music." As if there's any other way to take it in. I told him "you're not special.... that is the way I receive it, too". -- mitch hedberg, 1968-2005
Re: reply to DA
I didn't say that it did. It's possible that liberals in the news rooms are able to put aside their beliefs when deciding what spin to put on events.
It's also possible that I'm a Chinese jet pilot.
For we who dispair:
Rare white bison calf born in Arizona
May 24, 2004 | PHOENIX (AP) _ The owners of a small bison herd in northern Arizona were surprised to find one of their rare white buffaloes had given birth to something even rarer: a white calf.
It's a one-in-10 million occurrence, Keith Davis, a spokesman for Spirit Mountain Ranch, said of Saturday's birth.
"This is so rare specifically because she was born white," Davis said. "The others were born red (like normal buffaloes) and turned white."
The birth of a white bison is meaningful for many American Indian tribes who consider it a symbol of rebirth when the world's people are in troubled times.
jadams
"Can it be believed that the democracy that has overthrown the feudal system and vanquished kings will retreat before tradesmen and capitalists?" Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Re: reply to DA
are you saying that these probabilities are equal?
TK
I was walking down the street with my friend and he said "I hear music." As if there's any other way to take it in. I told him "you're not special.... that is the way I receive it, too". -- mitch hedberg, 1968-2005
There are actually two places with white bison in the U.S. The other is in Janesville, Wisconsin. It's quite the attraction.
FWIW, I'm not sure about what the First Nations will think of several of the beasts being alive at once.
"Dans cette epoque cybernetique
Pleine de gents informatique."
Since when did being liberal become something that enveloped ones whole identity as a human being?I didn't say that it did. It's possible that liberals in the news rooms are able to put aside their beliefs when deciding what spin to put on events.
It's also possible that I'm a Chinese jet pilot.
I've seen so many nasty dialogues like this that go back and forth - liberal-conservative-liberal-conservative.
How does a liberal write a news story about a girl getting kidnapped, or a vicious murder? How does a liberal write a story about obesity or breast cancer? How does a liberal eat spaghetti or tie her shoes?
If all it takes is asking difficult questions from authorities to be liberal, then I've got news for you, that's not being liberal - it's being a good journalist.
Presidents and corporations have press secretaries and PR people. They don't need to coopt independent media to get their messages across. The media is supposed to hold them accountable - which may be why Abu Ghraib is so important for them, because they are demonstrating - since they broke the story - the importance of free media in a democracy.
If Bush doesn't want you to see the photographs and comes off evasive, and therefore is reported terribly, then that's his problem.
If he makes grammatical errors and comes across as a fool, that's his problem. If the best policy advisors in the world can't brighten his vocabulary or teach him the difference between Slovakia and Slovenia, then again that's his problem.
Bill Clinton finessed the press. Bush hides from them, and he gets what he gives out.
If you want better coverage of the policies you support, maybe you should write to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and tell your head honcho that he should brush up on his delivery.
Amanda, you are ignoring a basic fact of human nature. It is impossible for human beings to be completely unbiased. That's why the determination of truth in our society is always a matter of competition between different sides.Since when did being liberal become something that enveloped ones whole identity as a human being?I didn't say that it did. It's possible that liberals in the news rooms are able to put aside their beliefs when deciding what spin to put on events.
It's also possible that I'm a Chinese jet pilot.
Would you want a courtroom where, instead of two competing sides, you had only one side that promised you it was "unbiased"?
Yes, the fact that our news media is dominated by liberals will definitely effect the news. How could it not? They're not robots.
He's not my head honcho, except in the sense that he's OUR head honcho. But, let's be honest, the bias in the media is transparent to practically everyone at this point.
well, at least to everyone who believes what they are told..... over and over and over and over.
TK
I was walking down the street with my friend and he said "I hear music." As if there's any other way to take it in. I told him "you're not special.... that is the way I receive it, too". -- mitch hedberg, 1968-2005
Technically, the Pentagon broke the Abu Ghraib story, since they held press conferences outlining the situation back in January.
Of course, we all understand that images are powerful, but does that, in retrospect, excuse the media for ignoring this important story for three months?
What other important stories are the media ignoring, and why?
For example, no Americans have died in Fallujah for three weeks. The city is quiet now. Why isn't this news? Could the reason be the same that Abu Ghraib wasn't covered when the story broke in January - no compelling images?
Don't we, as citizens, have a right to analyze and criticize this important institution, our news media? If it's stuck in ambulance-chasing mode, isn't that worth addressing?
now you're hitting on something i'd agree with you on. and you're exactly right about why certain things get ignored: because they won't sell.
TK
I was walking down the street with my friend and he said "I hear music." As if there's any other way to take it in. I told him "you're not special.... that is the way I receive it, too". -- mitch hedberg, 1968-2005
Cool. And thanks for not jumping down my throat about changing the subject; after I posted, I realized that I'd drifted, but then, I'm only a faulty and biased human (unlike those that dominate our news rooms).
The news media could theoretically have more than one kind of imperfection - focusing only on bad news is one, slanting the coverage to favor one political school is another, and these are orthogonal (although sometimes the alleged ambulance-chasing could effectively increase the alleged slant as well, and, yes, I would argue we are in that situation now.)
Umm.. Because there are no Americans in Fallujah these days?
More here or here
It's like commenting on how the media somehow "neglects to mention" the fact that no American soldiers have died in space since Bush has been in office. So what?
_____________________________
?The porcupine teaches that you don?t have to be strong enough to defeat a predator to avoid being that predator?s lunch. It suffices to be an expensive meal.? -- John T Kennedy
If Americans HAD been dying in space, and then they STOPPED dying, and the news media covered the former but not the latter, what would you think?
Fallujah was a big new story at one point. Now it's not. What, no resolution? Some people still get their news from the TV; aren't they entitled to know what ultimately happened?
Besides, some people would LIKE it that no Americans are in Fallujah, and that Iraqis are handling the security situation there. Isn't that the goal?
Given that it IS, wouldn't a report on all the local elections taking place be relevant?
Apparently not, per our major media. No compelling photos (and it would help Bush, so don't cover it).
And, besides, are there REALLY no Americans there? Reports that were essentially simultaneous to the links you gave indicated that Americans were doing join patrols with Iraqis.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG0U6CJ4S1.DTL
Well, if the reason they had stopped dying was because they had left space, then no. I wouldn't expect it to be a big deal.If Americans HAD been dying in space, and then they STOPPED dying, and the news media covered the former but not the latter, what would you think?
For details on the "joint convoy", I refer you to the following:
article
particularly the part about the "agreed restrictions Iraqi police and soldiers said were placed on the Marines to ensure them safe travel".
Frankly, I think that the lack of reporting from Fallujah in the mainstream media shows a bias for the president (since the two thing he claims to have ended are "torture" and "mass graves", and pictures from Fallujah could put the second claim to rest just as easily as pictures from the prisons did for the first).
I do agree, however, with your more general thesis that news is chosen primarily for its entertainment value than for any particular sense of proportion or meaning...
____________________
"Liberty is the mother, not daughter, of order" --Pierre J. Proudhon
Still fixated on this non-issue? You are oh so pathetic, Monsieur Douchebag. I only know about the quote in question because it repeatedly appeared at many of your Kool-Aid drinker sites (Freak Republic and/or similar sites) during Clinton's reign along with a lot of other quotes and facts pertaining to Daddy Bush. Attribution was always provided then. I don't have the attribution, or necessarily the exact quote. But that is indeed the point Daddy Bush made, and quite possibly in those exact words, and it is not the least bit difficult for an honest person to believe since it is pretty damn obvious.No doubt the longest "reference" indentification has to go to that little seadog fella. Several months ago he claimed that one "of the few honest statements Daddy Bush ever made in his entire life was: 'David Rockefeller has made me all that I am.'" Reading the words actually in quotes, I was a bit dumbfounded that a poster would have the nerve to talk about "honest statements" while engaging in sheer and blatant dishonesty, himself.Three minutes to identify the reference, without being explicit! Must be a record!
As I told you before, M. Douchebag, if you are that interested in an attribution, go look for one. Whether you seek an attribution or not does not change the fact that I do not make stuff up. You on the other hand continually project your quite obviously pathologically dishonest self onto me and others. If you are truly that miserable a human being, you might consider just doing yourself in. But better yet, you might genuinely become the Christian you dishonestly claim to be on nearly a daily basis. You hate Reaganites such as Mr. Saari and myself because you hate the truth. It really is that simple. Your blatant revulsion toward the truth, continually displayed at this site, is why your claims to being a Christian are completely laughable. Get a life, M. Douchebag, and learn to love the truth.
"What went unforeseen, however, was that the elephant would at some point in the last years of the 20th century be possessed, in both body and spirit, by a coincident fusion of mutant ex-Liberals and holy-rolling Theocrats masquerading as conservatives in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan: Death by transmogrification, beginning with The Invasion of the Party Snatchers."
-- Victor Gold, Aide to Barry Goldwater
