Hear, Hear

[acroyear]

The names matter. They really do.

Comments

I couldn't agree more.

[fiona64.livejournal.com]

This pre-emption is ridiculous. It's the media equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and chanting "Na na na can't hear you."

::disgusted::

Re: I couldn't agree more.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

no, its worse than that. its sticking one's fingers in MY ears and saying na na na you aren't allowed to hear that.

that's FAR worse.

give me a CHOICE, assholes...

[faireraven.livejournal.com]

A co-worker of mine made one observation, one I can't say I agree with her on, but all the same, I feel I need to show her point of view. She doesn't object to the names being said. She objects to the fact that she believes the media is creating its own event by doing this. If someone else unrelated to the media held an event to commemorate the soldiers and call them each by name, and the media covered the story, she would not object (ala 9-11 memorial coverage). But she does object to what she sees as the media trying to throw a political slant on things.

Not my opinion. But that of someone here.

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

Ask you friend if it was "political" that USA Today this morning had all the names and faces of the people who died this month.

Then ask her what the difference is.

[faireraven.livejournal.com]

Actually, i asked her what the difference was between Nightline "creating its own events" and the Today Show creating its own events (Al Roker traveling the US and giving a charity a bunch of stuff each day and reporting on it). She didn't consider the Today Show to be a "real news show". *sigh* Yeah, like any of those news shows are real news shows, nightline included. Nightline makes an agenda and presents it, it doesn't just rattle the news out there.

She tends to be on the conservative side of things... I tend to straddle the fence. But you know, everyone has a political agenda, no matter who you are. There will always be "spin" put on things.

I would have gotten into a more thorough discussion with her, but she told me she had work to do. *sigh*

John McCain isn't thrilled with it either...

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=NewsCenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=1276

the media HAS to do it

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

who else can do it? who else would?

the media is the only "institution" that has the resources to actually collect all the names right now. no individual or group that didn't possess a significant amount of money to do the research would have access to all of that.

Does the media create their own events? Of course it does.

"When did news become entertainment?" "since it was invented?" -- Max Headroom (specifically edison carter and murray, his boss)

The media has always had a slant. unslanted news can't possibly be presented in any way that would actually encourage readership or viewership. It would always lose out in a head-to-head fight with some other outfit adding that little bit of sensationalism to it. For a while, particularly post-watergate, the sensationalism was very strongly anti-big-government. Reagan played that to a T, promising to get rid of big government in order to win the election (truth being told, of course, that he tripled the size of the bureaucracy in his 8 years in office).

Now, Fox and Murdoch are presenting an alternate bias, that of pro-president, pro-war, because its got an audience that doesn't feel they're getting "the whole story". Of course, by going to the Fox side of things, they STILL aren't getting the whole story, just the other half of it.

anyways, news magazines like nightline, dateline, 60 minutes, and the news portions of the morning chat shows (Today), all exist under the ratings slave clause. no ratings, no show. in order to get the ratings, they HAVE to advertise special features, just like any other show would.

don't like it? don't watch. simple as that.

(note, this is to "the co-worker", not to you)

Re: the media HAS to do it

[faireraven.livejournal.com]

(note, this is to "the co-worker", not to you)

I know, dear. :*

Re: the media HAS to do it

[rennfoole.livejournal.com]

the media HAS to do it
who else can do it? who else would?

It's their job. It's why we watch them. Not for the feel-good stories but for the down-and-dirty-get-under-their-skin-and-into-their-mind stories.

Thank goodness for reporters like Ted Koppel as he follows in the grand traditions of Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite and, one of the most important news duos ever, Woodward & Bernstein (without whom, I suspect, we might have been living under President-for-Life/Emperor Nixon). I can only hope that there are many young reporters inspired to follow in their footsteps.