one problem with this line of thinking: Look at ABC's PT rateings and you would know no one watches ABC, thats why in the last few years, NFL not withstanding, they get spanked in nearly every slot, the reason they dont get slaudered with NBA/NFL is that those products sell themselves.
and besides, not to belittle the troops, what they do is great and they are all great heros but NO ONE wants to hear that before they turn in for the night. that is why shows like Letterman, Leno, and back in the day, carson work so well at 11:30, people want a little bit of humor.
Any rateings spike this show gets as compared to any other Nightline is nullified by the fact that the publicity has been so hot and heavy.
as for SBG yanking Nightline, this is not a freedom of speech issue in any way shape or form, A private institution has made a private choice to pre-empt something that a number of their consumers may find offencive. Any person in america has the right to say whatever the hell they want, but we also have a right to not listen!!! the constitution defines the right to free speach (a k a TALK), not the right to be HEARED, if I own a station and someone says something I dont like, then I can say "Get off my air". It is all about private property rights.
See, there used to be this little concept known as "public ownership of the airwaves". The FCC licenses corporations to make use of theses publicly owned assets, but requires them in exchange to adhere to certain standards and guidelines intended to serve the public good.
God knows this concept has been all but buried under free market/consolidation/right wing hatred for all things "public" (see also Michael Powell), but the concept hasn't been stricken from the books, just ignored.
So, under the original idea about how licensee are supposed to operate, it's not a private property issue at all, it's a "community interest" issue.
See, there used to be this little concept known as "public ownership of the airwaves". The FCC licenses corporations to make use of theses publicly owned assets, but requires them in exchange to adhere to certain standards and guidelines intended to serve the public good.
God knows this concept has been all but buried under free market/consolidation/right wing hatred for all things "public" (see also Michael Powell), but the concept hasn't been stricken from the books, just ignored.
So, under the original idea about how licensee are supposed to operate, it's not a private property issue at all, it's a "community interest" issue.
HUMMmmmm.....so demoralising the public of a nation at war is in the "community interest"?!?
OBVIOUSLY, KOPPLE wants to do anything possible to make Iraq a second Vietman, because like most of abc news their political leanings are on parade, the news is just their platform, or soapbox if you will. The piecenics grew up and got jobs in the medis, dont beleive me? go listen to the radio news and whatch what little tv there was that covered WWII, I think you will be shocked about how todays media is on the terorist side by comparison to their predicessors.
HUMMmmmm.....so demoralising the public of a nation at war is in the "community interest"?!?
OBVIOUSLY, KOPPLE wants to do anything possible to make Iraq a second Vietman, because like most of abc news their political leanings are on parade, the news is just their platform, or soapbox if you will. The piecenics grew up and got jobs in the medis, dont beleive me? go listen to the radio news and whatch what little tv there was that covered WWII, I think you will be shocked about how todays media is on the terorist side by comparison to their predicessors.
If you want to have crackpot ideas, have your theories be about something interesting, like UFOs and crop circles.
HUMMmmmm.....demoralising the public of a nation at war is in the "community interest"
OBVIOUSLY, KOPPLE wants to do anything possible to make Iraq a second Vietman, because like most of abc news their political leanings are on parade, the news is just their platform, or soapbox if you will. The piecenics grew up and got jobs in the medis, dont beleive me? go listen to the radio news and whatch what little tv there was that covered WWII, I think you will be shocked about how todays media is on the terorist side by comparison to their predicessors.
Doesn't matter if it strikes you as being in the community interest, the point is that this is the arena that this decision rightly belongs in, not property rights.
The "peace-niks" (which was most of America by the end of the war) may have gotten some of the jobs in journalism, as did the indifferent and the hawkish.
More significantly, the corporate minded, profit motivated, inevitably right leaning kids grew up to get all the jobs owning "the media", while some of their peers went to work dismantling any controls on public accountability and concentration of ownership.
The idea that the hand-full of huge of conglomerates that own and operate America's media are somehow rendered "leftist" because some of the reporting staff were against the war in college is very amusing. And tiresome. And willfully stupid.
One thing to mull over...those coffin photos...administration thought it was an invasion of privacy...even though there were'nt any names on those coffins. Just flags.
Now ABC's Ted (tsunami hair) Koppel wants to read and show off names and photos of the dead soldiers in Iraq...am I a total idiot or isn't THAT an invasion of privacy? Did ABC get the permission of hundreds of wives, husbands and families of these dead to do this? What did the victims get...money? A new car?
HUMMmmmm.....so demoralising the public of a nation at war is in the "community interest"?!?
OBVIOUSLY, KOPPLE wants to do anything possible to make Iraq a second Vietman, because like most of abc news their political leanings are on parade, the news is just their platform, or soapbox if you will. The piecenics grew up and got jobs in the medis, dont beleive me? go listen to the radio news and whatch what little tv there was that covered WWII, I think you will be shocked about how todays media is on the terorist side by comparison to their predicessors.
"Terorists side"? Your irrationality is not even comical anymore.
1. The only motivation possible for NOT airing this particular piece is that the Bush fanboys, who will do anything blindly for their President, are scared that people will be reminded of the human side of war and in turn not vote for Bush in November. This is not a media issue. It is a censorship issue.
2. Every Journalist in the country could be a bleeding heart liberal and it would hardly constitute a liberal media. Why? Becuase those journalists are constantly censored by the producers, editors, and TV executives whose single purpose it is to generate revenue for the almighty corporation. Who loves big business? The republicans. Who is scared of the truth? The republicans.
I can't blame them, if I made a giant f**k up I wouldn't want people to see the results of my stupidity broadcast for all the world to see and why would they. That's the reason they are calling on their blind loyalists to try and make an issue out of this.
"Terorists side"? Your irrationality is not even comical anymore. ...
Sorry, bad way to phrase what I wanted to say, so here is take two: It appears to me that today?s media is not reporting in a manner that portrays America as the good guys, they are not pro terrorist by any stretch of the imagination. They report the news as if it were STALIN v HITLER, two bad guys, two villains - THE BIG BAD USA MILLITARY v SO-DAMN INSANE- Sort of ironic that this is the same force that stands up for the presses right to bad-mouth them.
Sorry, bad way to phrase what I wanted to say, so here is take two: It appears to me that today?s media is not reporting in a manner that portrays America as the good guys, they are not pro terrorist by any stretch of the imagination. They report the news as if it were STALIN v HITLER, two bad guys, two villains - THE BIG BAD USA MILLITARY v SO-DAMN INSANE- Sort of ironic that this is the same force that stands up for the presses right to bad-mouth them.
That is completely utterly idiotically untrue . . . . what do you want to see . . . non-stop flag waving and heroic, silhouetted images, in slow motion, of armed American soldiers surrounded by awestruck children looking up to them?!?!
well . . . . just turn on the TV its there!
And by the way . . . i was being sarcastic when I said that this would pull people from the sitcoms . . . do you think that people who want to watch TV (escapism) are going to want to watch a slide show of faces and a list of names?!?!
It is in no way a ratings grab . . . that's absurd.
So did anyone watch it? I had it on for a few minutes. It was oddly mesmerizing. He was reading the names so fast, about 2 seconds per name. Two faces on screen at once, so each face up on screen for 4 seconds. Intellectually, I know that 700-odd isn't a lot of combat deaths for a major war. But still, he had to read so fast that of picture, name and age, my eyes only had time to look at two.
...am I a total idiot or isn't THAT an invasion of privacy? Did ABC get the permission of hundreds of wives, husbands and families of these dead to do this? What did the victims get...money? A new car?
Where do you think the photos came from? From the onset of the war, CNN was posting KIA photos and names of the soldiers.... and alot of the photos came from the families.
I watched the whole thing, and apparently they listed more than just those who have died in the last month or two. I didn't count but Ted noted they had listed 700+ names. That has to be a grand total at this point... doesn't it?
Figure about one name read every 2.5 seconds roughly, and about 30 minutes worth of name reading... that's exactly 720 names.
Anyway, I thought it was very tastefully done, and I thought Ted's explanation at the end pretty much drove a stake through the "it's a political manuever" argument. He in fact stated for the record he was not against the war, but against the idea of the media having to place the issue of the dying and dead on back-burners, and against not being able to question our leaders or wannabe leaders.
Wanting to have a war without images of teh dead or roll-calls of names of teh dead reminds me of that original Star-Trek episode where people of one planet fought a war with another planet that had no battles . . . computers lobbed fake bombs then people merely stepped into extermination boxes . . . so everything was clean and orderly.
Yes because god knows you would rather use their blood for your idealogy rather than just letting their families have their privacy.
Nick
Actually, I read an article in the Washington Post about how originally they were only going to read the names of those killed in actual battle. But then the parents and families of those who were killed in accidents or some other way in Iraq called/wrote/whatever and asked that their relative's sacrifice be mentioned as well. I think the article said that added over a hundred names to the list. Personally, I think that families want to make sure this country knows who the person is behind the number. They want to make damn sure that this country appreciates what's going on here. I don't see it as a partisan effort to gain votes for Kerry. It is a reminder to the American people that fellow citizens are dying, that war is not something that should be entered into lightly, and we must make sure we understand the full consequences of our actions. Families want this to be shown. It is a respectful way of honoring their memories.
Yes because god knows you would rather use their blood for your idealogy rather than just letting their families have their privacy.
You're not making any sense. I'm not saying photographers have good taste, just that the government shouldn't have any say in who's opinions get aired on television.
Comments
Originally posted by a_greer
one problem with this line of thinking: Look at ABC's PT rateings and you would know no one watches ABC, thats why in the last few years, NFL not withstanding, they get spanked in nearly every slot, the reason they dont get slaudered with NBA/NFL is that those products sell themselves.
and besides, not to belittle the troops, what they do is great and they are all great heros but NO ONE wants to hear that before they turn in for the night. that is why shows like Letterman, Leno, and back in the day, carson work so well at 11:30, people want a little bit of humor.
Any rateings spike this show gets as compared to any other Nightline is nullified by the fact that the publicity has been so hot and heavy.
as for SBG yanking Nightline, this is not a freedom of speech issue in any way shape or form, A private institution has made a private choice to pre-empt something that a number of their consumers may find offencive. Any person in america has the right to say whatever the hell they want, but we also have a right to not listen!!! the constitution defines the right to free speach (a k a TALK), not the right to be HEARED, if I own a station and someone says something I dont like, then I can say "Get off my air". It is all about private property rights.
See, there used to be this little concept known as "public ownership of the airwaves". The FCC licenses corporations to make use of theses publicly owned assets, but requires them in exchange to adhere to certain standards and guidelines intended to serve the public good.
God knows this concept has been all but buried under free market/consolidation/right wing hatred for all things "public" (see also Michael Powell), but the concept hasn't been stricken from the books, just ignored.
So, under the original idea about how licensee are supposed to operate, it's not a private property issue at all, it's a "community interest" issue.
Originally posted by addabox
See, there used to be this little concept known as "public ownership of the airwaves". The FCC licenses corporations to make use of theses publicly owned assets, but requires them in exchange to adhere to certain standards and guidelines intended to serve the public good.
God knows this concept has been all but buried under free market/consolidation/right wing hatred for all things "public" (see also Michael Powell), but the concept hasn't been stricken from the books, just ignored.
So, under the original idea about how licensee are supposed to operate, it's not a private property issue at all, it's a "community interest" issue.
HUMMmmmm.....so demoralising the public of a nation at war is in the "community interest"?!?
OBVIOUSLY, KOPPLE wants to do anything possible to make Iraq a second Vietman, because like most of abc news their political leanings are on parade, the news is just their platform, or soapbox if you will. The piecenics grew up and got jobs in the medis, dont beleive me? go listen to the radio news and whatch what little tv there was that covered WWII, I think you will be shocked about how todays media is on the terorist side by comparison to their predicessors.
Originally posted by a_greer
HUMMmmmm.....so demoralising the public of a nation at war is in the "community interest"?!?
OBVIOUSLY, KOPPLE wants to do anything possible to make Iraq a second Vietman, because like most of abc news their political leanings are on parade, the news is just their platform, or soapbox if you will. The piecenics grew up and got jobs in the medis, dont beleive me? go listen to the radio news and whatch what little tv there was that covered WWII, I think you will be shocked about how todays media is on the terorist side by comparison to their predicessors.
If you want to have crackpot ideas, have your theories be about something interesting, like UFOs and crop circles.
ABC "is on the terorist side."
Originally posted by a_greer
HUMMmmmm.....demoralising the public of a nation at war is in the "community interest"
OBVIOUSLY, KOPPLE wants to do anything possible to make Iraq a second Vietman, because like most of abc news their political leanings are on parade, the news is just their platform, or soapbox if you will. The piecenics grew up and got jobs in the medis, dont beleive me? go listen to the radio news and whatch what little tv there was that covered WWII, I think you will be shocked about how todays media is on the terorist side by comparison to their predicessors.
Doesn't matter if it strikes you as being in the community interest, the point is that this is the arena that this decision rightly belongs in, not property rights.
The "peace-niks" (which was most of America by the end of the war) may have gotten some of the jobs in journalism, as did the indifferent and the hawkish.
More significantly, the corporate minded, profit motivated, inevitably right leaning kids grew up to get all the jobs owning "the media", while some of their peers went to work dismantling any controls on public accountability and concentration of ownership.
The idea that the hand-full of huge of conglomerates that own and operate America's media are somehow rendered "leftist" because some of the reporting staff were against the war in college is very amusing. And tiresome. And willfully stupid.
Now ABC's Ted (tsunami hair) Koppel wants to read and show off names and photos of the dead soldiers in Iraq...am I a total idiot or isn't THAT an invasion of privacy? Did ABC get the permission of hundreds of wives, husbands and families of these dead to do this? What did the victims get...money? A new car?
/seriouslydoubtinghumanitycompletely
Originally posted by a_greer
HUMMmmmm.....so demoralising the public of a nation at war is in the "community interest"?!?
OBVIOUSLY, KOPPLE wants to do anything possible to make Iraq a second Vietman, because like most of abc news their political leanings are on parade, the news is just their platform, or soapbox if you will. The piecenics grew up and got jobs in the medis, dont beleive me? go listen to the radio news and whatch what little tv there was that covered WWII, I think you will be shocked about how todays media is on the terorist side by comparison to their predicessors.
"Terorists side"? Your irrationality is not even comical anymore.
1. The only motivation possible for NOT airing this particular piece is that the Bush fanboys, who will do anything blindly for their President, are scared that people will be reminded of the human side of war and in turn not vote for Bush in November. This is not a media issue. It is a censorship issue.
2. Every Journalist in the country could be a bleeding heart liberal and it would hardly constitute a liberal media. Why? Becuase those journalists are constantly censored by the producers, editors, and TV executives whose single purpose it is to generate revenue for the almighty corporation. Who loves big business? The republicans. Who is scared of the truth? The republicans.
I can't blame them, if I made a giant f**k up I wouldn't want people to see the results of my stupidity broadcast for all the world to see and why would they. That's the reason they are calling on their blind loyalists to try and make an issue out of this.
Originally posted by buckeye
"Terorists side"? Your irrationality is not even comical anymore. ...
Sorry, bad way to phrase what I wanted to say, so here is take two: It appears to me that today?s media is not reporting in a manner that portrays America as the good guys, they are not pro terrorist by any stretch of the imagination. They report the news as if it were STALIN v HITLER, two bad guys, two villains - THE BIG BAD USA MILLITARY v SO-DAMN INSANE- Sort of ironic that this is the same force that stands up for the presses right to bad-mouth them.
Originally posted by a_greer
Sorry, bad way to phrase what I wanted to say, so here is take two: It appears to me that today?s media is not reporting in a manner that portrays America as the good guys, they are not pro terrorist by any stretch of the imagination. They report the news as if it were STALIN v HITLER, two bad guys, two villains - THE BIG BAD USA MILLITARY v SO-DAMN INSANE- Sort of ironic that this is the same force that stands up for the presses right to bad-mouth them.
That is completely utterly idiotically untrue . . . . what do you want to see . . . non-stop flag waving and heroic, silhouetted images, in slow motion, of armed American soldiers surrounded by awestruck children looking up to them?!?!
well . . . . just turn on the TV its there!
And by the way . . . i was being sarcastic when I said that this would pull people from the sitcoms . . . do you think that people who want to watch TV (escapism) are going to want to watch a slide show of faces and a list of names?!?!
It is in no way a ratings grab . . . that's absurd.
Originally posted by a_greer
Whatever...it's all the same old misspelled stupid shit anyways. Pick a post...any post....
Originally posted by a_greer
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=41525
Originally posted by a_greer
Sort of ironic that this is the same force that stands up for the presses right to bad-mouth them.
You're incorrect. It's the same force that's limiting access to coffins so photographers can't use their 'mouth'.
Originally posted by Artman @_@
...am I a total idiot or isn't THAT an invasion of privacy? Did ABC get the permission of hundreds of wives, husbands and families of these dead to do this? What did the victims get...money? A new car?
Where do you think the photos came from? From the onset of the war, CNN was posting KIA photos and names of the soldiers.... and alot of the photos came from the families.
Originally posted by bunge
You're incorrect. It's the same force that's limiting access to coffins so photographers can't use their 'mouth'.
Yes because god knows you would rather use their blood for your idealogy rather than just letting their families have their privacy.
Nick
Figure about one name read every 2.5 seconds roughly, and about 30 minutes worth of name reading... that's exactly 720 names.
Anyway, I thought it was very tastefully done, and I thought Ted's explanation at the end pretty much drove a stake through the "it's a political manuever" argument. He in fact stated for the record he was not against the war, but against the idea of the media having to place the issue of the dying and dead on back-burners, and against not being able to question our leaders or wannabe leaders.
Good job ABC.
Originally posted by trumptman
Yes because god knows you would rather use their blood for your idealogy rather than just letting their families have their privacy.
Nick
Actually, I read an article in the Washington Post about how originally they were only going to read the names of those killed in actual battle. But then the parents and families of those who were killed in accidents or some other way in Iraq called/wrote/whatever and asked that their relative's sacrifice be mentioned as well. I think the article said that added over a hundred names to the list. Personally, I think that families want to make sure this country knows who the person is behind the number. They want to make damn sure that this country appreciates what's going on here. I don't see it as a partisan effort to gain votes for Kerry. It is a reminder to the American people that fellow citizens are dying, that war is not something that should be entered into lightly, and we must make sure we understand the full consequences of our actions. Families want this to be shown. It is a respectful way of honoring their memories.
Originally posted by trumptman
Yes because god knows you would rather use their blood for your idealogy rather than just letting their families have their privacy.
You're not making any sense. I'm not saying photographers have good taste, just that the government shouldn't have any say in who's opinions get aired on television.