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.
They dont!!!!
But the families have a right to say no to the press takeing pictures of their loved ones coffins. The millitary said no because it is up to the families if they want the coffins photographed or not.
I just think the media getting/showing those pics is distasteful.
I know it has been brought up before but one thing about last night I am still not clear on, where did the pictures come from, I understand that the list of the fallen is public record, but when one dies in war, does any photo of the fallen come into public domain, I understand a number of families gave pictures but geting ALL of the pictures, assumeing they got family permition, seems like a mamoth undertakeing, even for an outfit like ABC NEWS.
HUMMmmmm.....so demoralising the public of a nation at war is in the "community interest"?!?
Boohooo. Don't be so sensitive. That's the reality of a war. It's ugly. People die.
People are much more likely to be in favor of a war when all they see are "sanitized" reports in the news.
Quote:
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.
Riiiight, I'm sure KOPPEL loves to see GIs get killed. He's the enemy, he's against us!!!
Quote:
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.
Gee. I guess you're right since the technology was the same 65 bloody years ago. In case you somehow missed it....we've been in what's known as the "information age" for a while now. And yeah, KOPPEL and ABC, are terrorists.
But the families have a right to say no to the press takeing pictures of their loved ones coffins.
Well you're wrong, the families don't have that right and you're wrong, it is the government in charge of keeping the photographers away from the coffins.
Does anyone that saw the program think it was distasteful? I was moved by it.
Well you're wrong, the families don't have that right and you're wrong, it is the government in charge of keeping the photographers away from the coffins.
Does anyone that saw the program think it was distasteful? I was moved by it.
THIS is a draft of a memo found in Sinclair Corps garbage . . .
It says mouthfulls:
Quote:
ABC Nightline Smear [DRAFT PRESS RELEASE]
The Sinclair Broadcast Group announced on Thursday that it will censor the April 30 edition of Nightline, in which Ted Koppel plans to read aloud the names of U.S. servicemen and women killed in Iraq. We think Nightline's ratings stunt is the moral equivalent of terrorism. As we will elaborate in this weaselly and unsigned statement, our decision to snuff out Nightline is a patriotic gesture aimed to tranquilize taxpayers and prevent them from recognizing the boondoggle in Iraq. As Sinclair CEO and president David Smith likes to remind us, serving the public interest is not in our self-interest.
No organization holds our media industry and the executives who use it to line their pockets in higher regard than Sinclair Broadcast Group. While Sinclair would support a mendacious effort to cover up the alarming number of Americans who have died in Iraq, Mr. Koppel is using simple, indisputable facts?names and photos of the dead, no less?to dramatize the war and give viewers a chance to judge its consequences. However, an informed citizenry is anathema to the corporate state, and we suspect that many of those currently working toward this goal have financial connections to Al Qaeda. Dick Cheney informs us that we are not alone in this viewpoint. As a result, we have decided to preempt the broadcast of Nightline this Friday on each of our ABC affiliates.
Sinclair owns 62 stations in 39 markets, including eight ABC affiliates. If that sounds like a monopoly, it is, and we got it the old-fashioned way?we shilled for it. In 2004, we gave 98 percent of our political donations, or $65,434, to GOP causes. We applaud the GOP's support for deregulation, and we intend to return the favor by cheerleading for the war. Unlike the bad news bears at ABC, we think of ourselves as the Good News Network. In case you haven't heard, 98 percent of Iraqis are thrilled by the U.S. occupation. We have hundreds of hours of footage of people who were paid to say so.
According to published reports, our reps have declined to be interviewed by ABC. It's true we don't trust them, but we're also trying to boost our own ratings by broadcasting a "full debate" in the same time slot Friday night. We call on viewers across America to boycott ABC and, if possible, switch to our channels. At Sinclair, you'll hear lies that are crafted to bolster the profits of warmongers and their media partners. As a bonus, we'll be showing photos and reading the names of Al Qaeda operatives who are believed to be secretly funding the anti-war effort. According to our deep throats, one such operative was spotted in a Georgetown restaurant last month, dining with John McCain. !
well maybe it isn't real . . . !
Unless of course it REALLY IS!!! . . . if it is . .. as the Voice says it is, then these guys are ULTRA-CYNICAL!!!!!
As a Vet, I applaud ABC for this. Even if ABC's top brass don't have completely "non political" reasons for allowing Koppel to read the names of these warriors.
I know there are some Vets that may feel this was inappropriate and poltically motivated. However, I feel confident that the vast majority of vets and active service people applaud this.
Moogs' has weighed in with a favorable response. I would really like to hear the other AI members whom have served give their opinion on this matter.
I couldn't form an opinion about the broadcast itself, since I haven't seen it. However the principle seems reasonable and well-founded, to pay homage on the airwaves, to those who lost their lives serving in the armed forces of the country, remembering them as individuals rather than as statistical numbers, regardless of one's opinion about the conflict in which they died.
It's even more pertinent in times of ongoing hostilities.
I didn't see the broadcast since I generally don't watch TV. I didn't read the thread until you brought it up because I expected the usual black-and-white arguments and when I did read it I stopped reading after half a page.
I'm a bit neutral about this. Because of the ease with which news travels these days I can see bad points. When someone is deployed, whether to the front lines, to a remote location, or under the ocean, they tend to read every scrap of information about home (except sometimes, I think, we'd get soap opera summaries, and I don't know anyone who wanted those pages). Depending on the way the story is filtered, it could be bad for morale. With the internet, if we monitor the news daily, we hear about things before the story is developed and presented after facts have been checked, the actual situation known, etc. Who knows what the soldier in the field hears and from what source.
As for presenting the names to the American public, it is proper to know the costs of war. But I would rather that this type of thing be aired during the late afternoon or early evening hours. I mean, put it more out in the open where it would be a real tribute or even more of a political statement, which ever way one wants to spin it. And, of course, it shouldn't be a one-time event.
it'll be a cold day in Hell before I put the Polital aspirations of Bush or anyone else above the unselfish valor of our soldiers.
You know I watched military benefits get slashed in the 90s and couldn't understand why these of all people were facing cutbacks. Military life means having severe interruptions like War fracture your family. I think they should get every benefit possible. I no longer serve but I am happy to have young men and women rise to the challenge.
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 teroristside by comparison to their predicessors.
How old are you? You must not be in Safari because you spelled every other word wrong. That is just sad. How are we supposed to take your argument seriously if you can't spell "media's", "Vietnam", predecessors", "believe", "peaceniks", "watch", or "terrorist". Hey but you got "their" right! That's a tricky one!
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
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.
They dont!!!!
But the families have a right to say no to the press takeing pictures of their loved ones coffins. The millitary said no because it is up to the families if they want the coffins photographed or not.
I just think the media getting/showing those pics is distasteful.
I know it has been brought up before but one thing about last night I am still not clear on, where did the pictures come from, I understand that the list of the fallen is public record, but when one dies in war, does any photo of the fallen come into public domain, I understand a number of families gave pictures but geting ALL of the pictures, assumeing they got family permition, seems like a mamoth undertakeing, even for an outfit like ABC NEWS.
Originally posted by a_greer
HUMMmmmm.....so demoralising the public of a nation at war is in the "community interest"?!?
Boohooo. Don't be so sensitive. That's the reality of a war. It's ugly. People die.
People are much more likely to be in favor of a war when all they see are "sanitized" reports in the news.
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.
Riiiight, I'm sure KOPPEL loves to see GIs get killed. He's the enemy, he's against us!!!
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.
Gee. I guess you're right since the technology was the same 65 bloody years ago.
Is this dude for real???
Originally posted by a_greer
They dont!!!!
But the families have a right to say no to the press takeing pictures of their loved ones coffins.
Well you're wrong, the families don't have that right and you're wrong, it is the government in charge of keeping the photographers away from the coffins.
Does anyone that saw the program think it was distasteful? I was moved by it.
Originally posted by bunge
Well you're wrong, the families don't have that right and you're wrong, it is the government in charge of keeping the photographers away from the coffins.
Does anyone that saw the program think it was distasteful? I was moved by it.
Your bowels don't count.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Your bowels don't count.
Nick
They do in the other thread....
It says mouthfulls:
ABC Nightline Smear [DRAFT PRESS RELEASE]
The Sinclair Broadcast Group announced on Thursday that it will censor the April 30 edition of Nightline, in which Ted Koppel plans to read aloud the names of U.S. servicemen and women killed in Iraq. We think Nightline's ratings stunt is the moral equivalent of terrorism. As we will elaborate in this weaselly and unsigned statement, our decision to snuff out Nightline is a patriotic gesture aimed to tranquilize taxpayers and prevent them from recognizing the boondoggle in Iraq. As Sinclair CEO and president David Smith likes to remind us, serving the public interest is not in our self-interest.
No organization holds our media industry and the executives who use it to line their pockets in higher regard than Sinclair Broadcast Group. While Sinclair would support a mendacious effort to cover up the alarming number of Americans who have died in Iraq, Mr. Koppel is using simple, indisputable facts?names and photos of the dead, no less?to dramatize the war and give viewers a chance to judge its consequences. However, an informed citizenry is anathema to the corporate state, and we suspect that many of those currently working toward this goal have financial connections to Al Qaeda. Dick Cheney informs us that we are not alone in this viewpoint. As a result, we have decided to preempt the broadcast of Nightline this Friday on each of our ABC affiliates.
Sinclair owns 62 stations in 39 markets, including eight ABC affiliates. If that sounds like a monopoly, it is, and we got it the old-fashioned way?we shilled for it. In 2004, we gave 98 percent of our political donations, or $65,434, to GOP causes. We applaud the GOP's support for deregulation, and we intend to return the favor by cheerleading for the war. Unlike the bad news bears at ABC, we think of ourselves as the Good News Network. In case you haven't heard, 98 percent of Iraqis are thrilled by the U.S. occupation. We have hundreds of hours of footage of people who were paid to say so.
According to published reports, our reps have declined to be interviewed by ABC. It's true we don't trust them, but we're also trying to boost our own ratings by broadcasting a "full debate" in the same time slot Friday night. We call on viewers across America to boycott ABC and, if possible, switch to our channels. At Sinclair, you'll hear lies that are crafted to bolster the profits of warmongers and their media partners. As a bonus, we'll be showing photos and reading the names of Al Qaeda operatives who are believed to be secretly funding the anti-war effort. According to our deep throats, one such operative was spotted in a Georgetown restaurant last month, dining with John McCain. !
well maybe it isn't real . . .
Unless of course it REALLY IS!!! . . . if it is . .. as the Voice says it is, then these guys are ULTRA-CYNICAL!!!!!
and just a tad bit ultra-insane!!!!!
I mean INSANE!
I know there are some Vets that may feel this was inappropriate and poltically motivated. However, I feel confident that the vast majority of vets and active service people applaud this.
Moogs' has weighed in with a favorable response. I would really like to hear the other AI members whom have served give their opinion on this matter.
Skipjack,
hmurchison,
Powerdoc,
ericg,
Immanuel Goldstein,
msantti
Want to hear from you guys.
Originally posted by hardhead
Skipjack,
hmurchison,
Powerdoc,
ericg,
Immanuel Goldstein,
msantti
Want to hear from you guys.
I couldn't form an opinion about the broadcast itself, since I haven't seen it. However the principle seems reasonable and well-founded, to pay homage on the airwaves, to those who lost their lives serving in the armed forces of the country, remembering them as individuals rather than as statistical numbers, regardless of one's opinion about the conflict in which they died.
It's even more pertinent in times of ongoing hostilities.
Originally posted by hardhead
Want to hear from you guys.
I didn't see the broadcast since I generally don't watch TV. I didn't read the thread until you brought it up because I expected the usual black-and-white arguments and when I did read it I stopped reading after half a page.
I'm a bit neutral about this. Because of the ease with which news travels these days I can see bad points. When someone is deployed, whether to the front lines, to a remote location, or under the ocean, they tend to read every scrap of information about home (except sometimes, I think, we'd get soap opera summaries, and I don't know anyone who wanted those pages). Depending on the way the story is filtered, it could be bad for morale. With the internet, if we monitor the news daily, we hear about things before the story is developed and presented after facts have been checked, the actual situation known, etc. Who knows what the soldier in the field hears and from what source.
As for presenting the names to the American public, it is proper to know the costs of war. But I would rather that this type of thing be aired during the late afternoon or early evening hours. I mean, put it more out in the open where it would be a real tribute or even more of a political statement, which ever way one wants to spin it. And, of course, it shouldn't be a one-time event.
it can be a tasteful, honorrific to the men and women who died.
or it can be exploited/used/twisted to sell advertising via the shock, awe and bloodshed.
i would guess the law was designed to stop the sensationalist attitude.
the nightline piece was in good taste, i think it's just hard to restrict one without restricting the other.
it'll be a cold day in Hell before I put the Polital aspirations of Bush or anyone else above the unselfish valor of our soldiers.
You know I watched military benefits get slashed in the 90s and couldn't understand why these of all people were facing cutbacks. Military life means having severe interruptions like War fracture your family. I think they should get every benefit possible. I no longer serve but I am happy to have young men and women rise to the challenge.
I guess I deserve a "Duhh" for not using the private messenging.
Artman, I felt it pertinent that former service Vet's weigh in if they had watched(or not...) the broadcast. OK sir...
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 teroristside by comparison to their predicessors.
How old are you? You must not be in Safari because you spelled every other word wrong. That is just sad. How are we supposed to take your argument seriously if you can't spell "media's", "Vietnam", predecessors", "believe", "peaceniks", "watch", or "terrorist". Hey but you got "their" right! That's a tricky one!
Facts aren't political. The argument ends there.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Same answer as Immanuel : nothing wrong if the homage is made with dignity.
Nothing more to add from me