Ghost of BiB Posted July 31, 2005 Author Share Posted July 31, 2005 So far, looks like ABC is going to ride the horse. ABC News Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 Why no complaining when Matt Lauer interviews George Bush or Musharraf? They're words that give a historical account of what both sides are saying; that is what a journalist's job is --- supplying information, thoughts and opinions of people who make things happen, be they good or bad. Seems the problem you guys have is that it might make the other side appear human, when it's desirable to think of them as faceless monsters. Personally, that guy seemed pretty damn pathetic to me, cooking Ramen noodles with his prostetic leg over his shoulder. Kind of like showing Hitler in the bunker with the gun to his head. It's only a matter of time before this guy's head is on a stick. His quotes just showed him to be the terrorist he is. Did you have similar misgivings about the McVeigh interview? ABC knew what Russia was going to do. They read the statement at the end of the broadcast, as the Russians declined any other comment, which is their right of course, but it leaves just one side speaking. Now, it may force ABC into better newsgathering; running to talk to gov't officials who sit behind desks is one of the bigger wastes of time, and often hinders getting at the real truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 31, 2005 Author Share Posted July 31, 2005 ABC knew what Russia was going to do. Of course they did. You think they are stupid? No. That is part of my point, but from a different angle than yours. Let's not even talk about the nuances, the subtleties of it all. It's not even close to subtle, but whatever. I know well that in the grand scheme, this will blow over. It really isn't a big deal. It could be, but only if the rest of the press makes it so. Anyone found Natalee yet? Stories on TV in America, and elsewhere shape opinion, and no one is interested in facts. Were they. They'd check. Whatever I could pull up off the current Chechnya situation for the obligatory soundbite would probably not be accurate at all. Let's just say this guy is somewhat of a rogue, they could have had peace earlier, but he's off the program...and his particular "rebel Army" is a large reason Russia and Chechnya didn't work anything out. This boy also had a lot to do with his own elected president getting killed. Google it. If you are going to comment, study. The "current" situation in Chechnya started about 1992-1997 (OK, sharpshoot me, I'm going from memory). When there were opportunities to work things out, this ramen eater (y'all buy that, right? Love the wooden leg part) back stabbed the same people he worked with to make things normalized. I'm not going to do the whole story here, if you want, look it up. Everyone besides NJ Sue can find it. Of course, we don't care. It's not here (In America). Ever wonder why it's not here? Maybe we got friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Nevermind the fact that they were blindfolded and driven around in circles in hell's halfacre, several hundred miles.... Nevermind the fact that the journalist who conducted the interview was Russian, not American; ABC just picked the story up.... you equate talking to someone as a jailing/torture-worthy offense? The point was to ask, Why the hell are you doing this, not, How can we help you. We'd all love this guy to be under 6 feet of freshly turned dirt, but that's the military's job. You complain about Al Jazeera only showing the Arab side of the news, yet people cannot for the life of them see that our media, as you would have it, would be the same thing only for 'our side.' I'd rather find out something closer to the truth. "Congress shall make NO law..." 394215[/snapback] Sorry, but I don't want to know why the terrorists do what they do....I just want to know that they aren't alive, and can't do it anymore. Not saying that you are wrong, and that I'm right, but I was just stating my opinion.....I know there are plenty on both sides of the fence........nice to be in a free country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 I'm not disputing the facts. What's at issue here is that you don't think ABC was "responsible" by airing this interview. This is just another addition to all of the filed clips. In the history books, this guy will be noted for the scumbag he is, that he's actually said these things that killing kids is fine b/c 'they' killed people on his side. And in the unfortunate event that he is captured rather than killed, it takes away any plausible denialbility that he ordered these terrorist attacks. You didn't say anything against the networks for showing the edited tapes when OBL gloated about the 9/11 attacks. Nightline, let's face it, is just slightly more in-depth than a nightly news segment, usually about some more obscure event than America is really interested in, which is why so few people watch it. But you seem to be pissed just by the fact that they're briefly updating the story, which might prompt some people to actually give a sh-- and try to read more. It's just a transcript of questions and answers and in the grand scheme, it's about as innocuous as the "Day 346: Natalee's Still Missing And Her Mother's Still An Airhead." Lord knows ABC has talked with Russian officials who've said they want to find this guy and smoke him. I just don't get an inability to reconcile that there are two sides to the conflict and for a matter of record, ABC decided to air the one that bothered to talk. The reason why it's not here and we don't have to worry about it is b/c of brave soldiers who fight for our ability to go about our lives and talk about our sorry-ass little First World problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Nightline, let's face it, is just slightly more in-depth than a nightly news segment, usually about some more obscure event than America is really interested in, which is why so few people watch it. But you seem to be pissed just by the fact that they're briefly updating the story, which might prompt some people to actually give a sh-- and try to read more. It's just a transcript of questions and answers and in the grand scheme, it's about as innocuous as the "Day 346: Natalee's Still Missing And Her Mother's Still An Airhead." Lord knows ABC has talked with Russian officials who've said they want to find this guy and smoke him. I just don't get an inability to reconcile that there are two sides to the conflict and for a matter of record, ABC decided to air the one that bothered to talk. 394727[/snapback] I think you're misreading me- I'm against giving that scumbag any type of forum- the only time he SHOULD be on american TV is while he is being executed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Sorry, but I don't want to know why the terrorists do what they do....I just want to know that they aren't alive, and can't do it anymore. Not saying that you are wrong, and that I'm right, but I was just stating my opinion.....I know there are plenty on both sides of the fence........nice to be in a free country 394724[/snapback] So, just b/c you don't want to know, then ABC must self-censor for your convenience. Never mind that you're not strapped to your armchair and your remote control isn't Super-Glued to Channel 4. Oh well, good luck to those historians in 2078 who'll have nothing to go on except the official, gov't-approved documents. Those really helped David McCollugh when he was writing "1776." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 So, just b/c you don't want to know, then ABC must self-censor for your convenience. Never mind that you're not strapped to your armchair and your remote control isn't Super-Glued to Channel 4. Oh well, good luck to those historians in 2078 who'll have nothing to go on except the official, gov't-approved documents. Those really helped David McCollugh when he was writing "1776." 394734[/snapback] You are correct- I just won't watch it- but I am annoyed that the REAL reason that it was aired- not to inform, but for the almighty dollar. Our media is about entertainment and ratings, not about educating and telling the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 So, just b/c you don't want to know, then ABC must self-censor for your convenience. Never mind that you're not strapped to your armchair and your remote control isn't Super-Glued to Channel 4. Oh well, good luck to those historians in 2078 who'll have nothing to go on except the official, gov't-approved documents. Those really helped David McCollugh when he was writing "1776." 394734[/snapback] What you're saying is that all terrorists, murderers, and others should be given free time on national tv to air their grievances and inform us all of their demented view of the world. I'm totally against censorship, but giving killers a free forum is not what I consider free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 for the almighty dollar. 394737[/snapback] Nightline? You've gotta be kidding. Why do you think they've been trying to get rid of it for the past five years? Alfred E. Neuman presents those topics he wants to present. Be what they may; I'll defend his or anyone's right to until the day I die. Here's an idea. You try to write, produce and edit a 23-minute news program each weeknight that everyone agrees with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 What you're saying is that all terrorists, murderers, and others should be given free time on national tv to air their grievances and inform us all of their demented view of the world. I'm totally against censorship, but giving killers a free forum is not what I consider free speech. 394742[/snapback] I think we're on the same page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 What you're saying is that all terrorists, murderers, and others should be given free time on national tv to air their grievances and inform us all of their demented view of the world. I'm totally against censorship, but giving killers a free forum is not what I consider free speech. 394742[/snapback] Yet when they interview Michael Jackson, Gary Condit, Mel Gibson or Jane Fonda, that's all right. I consider it free speech, b/c even tho it might not be popular and I might not agree with it, it's allowed to air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Cute. You are a smart guy. Thank you for setting me straight. 394738[/snapback] It's a difference of opinion over the length and breadth of the First Amendement. Let's leave it at that. 'Night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 What you're saying is that all terrorists, murderers, and others should be given free time on national tv to air their grievances and inform us all of their demented view of the world. I'm totally against censorship, but giving killers a free forum is not what I consider free speech. 394742[/snapback] I don't understand how you are supposed to determine who are the bad guys if you don't let them talk to the media. Should we take Putin's word for everything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 I don't understand how you are supposed to determine who are the bad guys if you don't let them talk to the media.394777[/snapback] You mean killing 350 school children wasn't enough of a hint? Did you questin Charles Manson's guilt before Geraldo interviewed him as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 You mean killing 350 school children wasn't enough of a hint? Did you questin Charles Manson's guilt before Geraldo interviewed him as well? 394823[/snapback] C'mon, good guys often wear masks, carry automatic weapons, and take over schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 C'mon, good guys often wear masks, carry automatic weapons, and take over schools. 395086[/snapback] Scott Peterson never talked to the media. I guess he's not a bad guy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted August 1, 2005 Author Share Posted August 1, 2005 Alfred E. Neuman presents those topics he wants to present BTW, that's funny. I certainly see the resemblance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Scott Peterson never talked to the media. I guess he's not a bad guy... 395127[/snapback] murdering your wife and unborn child does not make you all bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 murdering your wife and unborn child does not make you all bad. 395237[/snapback] But if they've already been born, and they're not yours, and it's 350 of them...well, let's withhold judgement until interviews him... Yeah, I know YOU were being sarcastic...but there's more outright stupidity in this single thread than I remember seeing in any past three PPP threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts