Ghost of BiB Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Really? Sounds like you want our press to be a propoganda tool and I do not. 605316[/snapback] Yeah, that's it. That is certainly where I was going. Did you attempt at all whatsoever to read what I wrote and consider before you posted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Yeah, that's it. That is certainly where I was going. Did you attempt at all whatsoever to read what I wrote and consider before you posted? 605339[/snapback] Give it up. Popular perception is that "news" must be generally "bad" to be worth reporting...and thus, by extension, not limiting oneself to reporting bad news is irresponsible journalism. Thus, in the interests of "responsibility", we hear about idiots in Abu Ghraib, but now the reconstruction of the Iraqi education system. Or about the continuing success of the insurgency, but not how internal security efforts are slowly but consistently being turned over to Iraqi forces. Or how this is an open-ended occupation...but US troop strength in theater has dropped by 30k in the past 12 months. It's not "responsible" to report about things being okay...because meeting expectations is not news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Yeah, that's it. That is certainly where I was going. Did you attempt at all whatsoever to read what I wrote and consider before you posted? 605339[/snapback] Yes, I did. Please explain yourself since I'm obviously not going to bring you the right rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted February 17, 2006 Author Share Posted February 17, 2006 Just to attempt to keep this post from being hijacked- Sharia Law Comes West 13 February 2006 @ 3:44PM In the London Sunday Times, Andrew Sullivan wonders why the "Islamo-bullies get a free ride from the West": You'd think, wouldn't you, it might be helpful to view the actual cartoons so you can see what on earth this entire fuss is about. But the British and American media have decided that it is not their job to help you understand this story. In fact it is their job to prevent you from fully understanding this story. As of this writing no major newspaper in Britain has published the cartoons; the BBC has shown them only fleetingly and other networks have shied away. All have decided not to give you this critical information, without which no intelligent person can construct an informed and intelligent position on the matter. You're on your own. The reasons given are conventional enough: the press doesn't want to inflame matters further; the cartoons are indeed offensive, and no editor has to publish images that would appal readers; reprinting would merely play into the hands of extremists, and so on. The one argument you haven't heard is the one you hear off-camera. Many editors simply don't want to put their staffs at risk of physical danger. They have "offended" Muslims in the past and learnt to regret it. In New York the editors of a free alternative paper, the New York Press, decided they wanted to run the cartoons so their readers could have a grasp of what this huge story is about. The owner refused. The staff quit en masse. The editor claims the owner gave him a simple explanation: "I'm not putting lives in danger. We're not getting things blown up." And, according to an editorial in the Boston Phoenix, Sullivan is right. The Phoenix admits that one of the reasons they won't run the cartoons is "[o]ut of fear of retaliation from the international brotherhood of radical and bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do." This is, frankly, our primary reason for not publishing any of the images in question. Simply stated, we are being terrorized, and as deeply as we believe in the principles of free speech and a free press, we could not in good conscience place the men and women who work at the Phoenix and its related companies in physical jeopardy. As we feel forced, literally, to bend to maniacal pressure, this may be the darkest moment in our 40-year publishing history. In other words, after just a few days of rioting, the media has already bent over, surrendered, and accepted Sharia law as the arbiter of its editorial decisions. Our media has just taught a valuable lesson to the various interest groups of the world: if you want to control how your group is covered, be as threatening and violent as possible. Sullivan notes that online media--not the establishment media--is now the only source for full coverage of this story: The fundamental job of journalists is to give you as much information as possible to make sense of the world around you. And in this story, where the entire controversy revolves around drawings, the press is suddenly coy. You can see Saddam Hussein in his underwear and members of the royal family in compromising positions. You can see Andres Serrano's famously blasphemous photograph of a crucifix in urine, called Piss Christ. But a political cartoon that deals with Islam? Not our job, guv. Move right along. Nothing to see here. [...] And so we have two media now in the world. We have the mainstream media whose job is increasingly not actually to disseminate information but to act as a moral steward for what is fit to print, to become an arbiter of sensitivity, good taste and political correctness. And we have web pages like Wikipedia or the blogosphere to disseminate actual facts, data, images and opinions that readers can judge with the benefit of all the facts, not just some of them. Take a look at the cartoons. Sure, they obviously offend some people, but they're not outrageous, certainly not in the context of a free society. Other groups have managed to bear similar offenses or worse without resorting to uncontained rampages of violence. And in those cases, the media didn't worry much about who might be offended. The fact that the cartoons are so mild is a huge part of the story. After all, if people are threatening death over these cartoons, what else will set them into a murderous rage? Wouldn't this information be helpful? Apparently not, in the view of our media. It is quite easy to stand up as a noble defender of press freedoms when the only people on the other side are finger-wagging octogenarian letter writers complaining about an errant nipple during a Superbowl half-time show. But the pitiful reaction of the press in this instance shows that they are nothing more than bloviating pushovers who will hand over their freedoms as readily as the French in 1940 the first minute they're faced with anything more dangerous than a pile of letters to the editor. But they're worse than just being cowards, because they've just reinforced the only lesson that radical Islamists seem to understand: the best way to achieve their goals is through mob violence. Will we ever see stories that are as critical of Islamofascism as they are of, say, the American government? I wouldn't hold my breath. Our media has just proven that fear will cause them to cover up anything that might "offend" the mobs of Islamic arsonists. (This isn't exactly new territory for the establishment media, either.) Who knew that the first major surrender in the War on Terror would come so easily? I didn't. But I can't say I'm surprised to see that it's our media selling us out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Yes, I did. Please explain yourself since I'm obviously not going to bring you the right rock. 605387[/snapback] I don't want propoganda either. I'd like to see some balance. IMO, our press, in general, puts the worst possible spin to anything we do involving this Islam/ME dilemma, or government at large. The Katrina business shaped a lot of opinion beyond our borders. News orgs in other countries, including AJ borrow from that coverage. Plus, because of sat TV and internet connectivity, millions now can get American media without it being picked up by another org. So, if anyone out there wants to compare coverages, they are getting the same message. Our own TV is telling Americans that Americans are bad, as in general that's all we see. CNN is on all over the world - often in the local language. It's easy for someone promoting an anti US agenda to point to this as a reference. There are few, if any images being broadcast to counter this - would someone in the region care to do so. If EVERYTHING were bad, I'd agree with you. But everything isn't. It probably never is. For example, I've seen very little coverage concerning the fact that the Shia have "had it up to here" with the AQ "insurgency" and desperately want them to go away. But from what media reports I see, it is appearing that the foreign involvement in the "insurgency" is generally successful from that perspective - as nothing contrary to that is being forwarded. This emboldens and helps as a recruiting tool - and it's not even the correct message. There's a lot of coverage given to things like photos of people wearing bags on their head, but little on the fact that it doesn't occur anymore (at least under those circumstances), shouldn't have occurred (whatever one's opinion is of it - it was really, really stupid) and that changes were made over it. Would it hurt to feature some successful reconstruction projects or maybe some Iraqi small businesses getting spun up with American help once in a while? Not newsworthy, because as CTM said - it's not bad news. And, as referenced above and in the original intent of this thread, the press seems to actually want to support them, not support us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 I don't want propoganda either. I'd like to see some balance. IMO, our press, in general, puts the worst possible spin to anything we do involving this Islam/ME dilemma, or government at large. The Katrina business shaped a lot of opinion beyond our borders. News orgs in other countries, including AJ borrow from that coverage. Plus, because of sat TV and internet connectivity, millions now can get American media without it being picked up by another org. So, if anyone out there wants to compare coverages, they are getting the same message. Our own TV is telling Americans that Americans are bad, as in general that's all we see. CNN is on all over the world - often in the local language. It's easy for someone promoting an anti US agenda to point to this as a reference. There are few, if any images being broadcast to counter this - would someone in the region care to do so. If EVERYTHING were bad, I'd agree with you. But everything isn't. It probably never is. For example, I've seen very little coverage concerning the fact that the Shia have "had it up to here" with the AQ "insurgency" and desperately want them to go away. But from what media reports I see, it is appearing that the foreign involvement in the "insurgency" is generally successful from that perspective - as nothing contrary to that is being forwarded. This emboldens and helps as a recruiting tool - and it's not even the correct message. There's a lot of coverage given to things like photos of people wearing bags on their head, but little on the fact that it doesn't occur anymore (at least under those circumstances), shouldn't have occurred (whatever one's opinion is of it - it was really, really stupid) and that changes were made over it. Would it hurt to feature some successful reconstruction projects or maybe some Iraqi small businesses getting spun up with American help once in a while? Not newsworthy, because as CTM said - it's not bad news. And, as referenced above and in the original intent of this thread, the press seems to actually want to support them, not support us. 605461[/snapback] I think there are a few facets to the issue. To me, the biggest is that the news gets filtered/spun by forces that are outside of our control. There is no guarantee that reporting good news means good news will be recived. One comforting fact is that the truth is the truth. Lack of reporting/broadcast/proper messaging can never change this. Eventually, the truth has a way of being revealed. It is inexorable but not always fast enough. A big part of the race we are in is based on the truth being delivered before some really bad stojan happens which is based on falsehoods or half thruths. We have always been in this race and always will be. Our "weapons" in this area are always growing as global communications capabilities expand. This forces the enemy to ratchet up the rhetoric and combat our message with theirs. This is dangerous for them because they risk being exposed as the frauds that they are. All of our communication power is great, but the real truth is always on the ground. The more and faster we help that truth get better and better, the more we become the winners. The media and its makeup is certainly another cmponent. Coke vs Pepsi doesn't really cut it. No matter the political leanings of the networks, they all follow the same formula when it comes to running their companies. This is their right and they may be maximizing profits through story selection at tis current structure (as CTM pointed out, bad news sells). They probably don't realize as much as you'd think that they are the major funnel of news and that their reporting has an impact overseas. I find this sad on a couple of levels. While I don't think they should change their structure at the request of the state, I do sense that they are wrong in their read of bad news selling better than good. I think they'd be surprised at the reaction ratings wise, if they were to report good news. Even if they had a separate show called "The Good News from Iraq" (catchy huh?) I'm wiling to bet it would do well. The Coke vs Pepsi thing makes it too risky to venture beyond proven formulas. The good news is that once a wildly different formula is proven successful, others hop on (diet coke begets diet pepsi). Just see reality shows (barf) for an example. Where do I think the government could help? Well, nowhere really. Not immediately, just gradually. They could have done it much earlier. Less regulation in communications spawns lots of 7-Ups and Iced teas to combat Coke and Pepsi's iron grip. Bottled water - whooda thunk? Coke and Pepsi latch on to these winning formulas too, but the innovator is always rewarded. There are tons of examples of this in technology (MSFT, CSCO, ORCL, and others too numerous to count --- BTW throw me the stock symbol of the next big thing here....thanks). Disruptive technologies are one thing....disruptive media is another. You would thinkthe barriers to entry were higher in technology, but I'm not so sure. On a positive note, technology is definitely helping lower barriers to ebtry in media. I feel the govt should help guard against artifical barriers being erected by the Cokes and Pepsis. Done rambling.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts