Home | Community | Message Board

HighDesertSpores.com
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
explain this you dirty neocons
    #2634486 - 05/03/04 11:23 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

ABC news ran an episode of nightline on friday where koppel read the names of dead soldiers as they flashed pictures. Some conservative media company wo contributes to bush banned their 7 affiliates from broadcasting!!!! censoring the news? these fucking conservative facist pricks make me sick. they want this country turned into a nazi police state. this really is the scary, i mean censoring news??? what comes next?? burning books?? Bush, Ashcroft, Cheney are probably the 3 most corrupt evil men to ever hold their offices.

...one more note, the media company also makes all its new casters finish the news by saying "we stand 100% behind out president"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleClean
the lense
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/03
Posts: 2,374
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2634530 - 05/03/04 11:32 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

the CEO of sinclair broadcasting (the company and indeed the very man who censored nightline) was busted in 96 getting a BJ from a hooker.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2634581 - 05/03/04 11:40 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

this really is the scary, i mean censoring news???

Sinclair Broadcast Group (the company that pulled the special) is not a part of the government, nor were they forced by the government to pull the show. poor decision? yes. censorship? absolutely not.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 26,403
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: ]
    #2634610 - 05/03/04 11:46 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Can you provide a link showing that the word "censorship" means censorship by a government?


--------------------
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


LET'S GO, DARWIN!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: ]
    #2634636 - 05/03/04 11:54 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

how do you know bush didnt give a call to his good buddy over at sinclair media and have him pull that show? id wager someone in the administration giving orders to his media buddies...i think bush had someone at clear channel pull the plug on howard stern in florida, a key swing state cuz stern started exposing him.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2634658 - 05/04/04 12:03 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

he said:

"i mean censoring news??? what comes next?? burning books?? Bush, Ashcroft, Cheney are probably the 3 most corrupt evil men to ever hold their offices."


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: ]
    #2634667 - 05/04/04 12:07 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

what are u, some kind of repeublican?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2634668 - 05/04/04 12:06 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

how do you know bush didnt give a call to his good buddy over at sinclair media and have him pull that show? id wager someone in the administration giving orders to his media buddies...i think bush had someone at clear channel pull the plug on howard stern in florida, a key swing state cuz stern started exposing him.

you can speculate all you want, but we know for certain that no one was forced. a private owner made a voluntary decision about what to show on the media outlet that they own and operate. this is not an example of government censorship. take a look at what goes on in places like cuba and north korea if you want to see how government censorship works.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: ]
    #2634676 - 05/04/04 12:09 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

oh you know for certain?? and how do you know this?? did bill oreilly tell u?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2634683 - 05/04/04 12:12 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

what are u, some kind of repeublican?

"Your decision to deny your viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war's terrible costs, in all their heartbreaking detail, is a gross disservice to the public, and to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces," McCain, a Vietnam veteran, wrote in a letter to David Smith, president and CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group. "It is, in short, sir, unpatriotic. I hope it meets with the public opprobrium it most certainly deserves."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/30/abc.nightline/

(john mccain is a republican)

i am more of a libertarian, and while i think it was wrong for sinclair broadcast group to do what it did, anyone, of any political frame of reference, and as long as they hold a little objectivity, can see that this is not an example of government censorship.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: ]
    #2634700 - 05/04/04 12:21 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

you dont know for a fact bush had nothing to do with it, and i dont have 100% proof that he did. point is, bush is involved in some fucked up shit with his corporate buddies. i would bet $100 that the bush administration is calling the shots and telling fox, clear channel and others what not to air. bush makes me sick, he is a despicible human being and worse a fundamentalist christian. i know ive gone off topic, but let me sceam something:

ITS 2000-FUCKING-4 AND OUR GOD DAMN, LUNATIC PRESIDENT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION!! HE IS A CREATIONIST!!! OMGGG!!! IN HIS PRESS CONFERENCE, HE SAID OUR SOLDIERS ARE DOING GODS WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT THE FUCK EVER HAPPENED TO SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!! HE TALKS TO JESUS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND ASKS HIS ADVICE!!!! THATS LIKE ASKING THE EASTER BUNNY ABOUT FORIEGN POLICY!!!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblekaiowas
lest we baguette
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/14/03
Posts: 5,501
Loc: oz
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2634711 - 05/04/04 12:27 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

haha I stand behind my pres!!! :goatse:


--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: kaiowas]
    #2634732 - 05/04/04 12:31 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

my guess is , back in his cocaine days, a lot of men stood behind him  :smirk:


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 7 years, 6 days
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2634798 - 05/04/04 12:44 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

From the Oxford Dictionary of Current English:

censor: 1n. official with power to suppress whole or parts of books, plays, films, letters, news etc. on grounds of obscenity, threat to security, etc.

When a publisher decides on his own not to publish certain things, that is not censorship. When a publisher is told by government that he may not publish certain things, that is censorship.

In the case of a private owner of a privately-owned television station deciding to air or not air a certain program, the term "censorship" is inappropriate.

We can argue till the cows come home over whether or not Sinclair Group's decision was a wise business decision. But it is not by any stretch of the imagination "censorship".

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2634863 - 05/04/04 12:57 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

im saying bush and his cronies had a hand in the not showing of that broadcast... then its censorship, of course my only proof is the strong ties that company has to bush.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineKommunist
Stranger

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 34
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2634901 - 05/04/04 01:03 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Private owners dont have the right to censor, only the Government does


--------------------
Join The American Communist Party


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Kommunist]
    #2634910 - 05/04/04 01:04 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

you got it backwards.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleJellric
altered statesman

Registered: 11/08/98
Posts: 2,261
Loc: non-local
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: ]
    #2635193 - 05/04/04 01:51 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

i mean censoring news??? what comes next?? burning books??

'They don't have to burn the books, they just remove 'em.'

Rage Against The Machine


--------------------
I AM what Willis was talkin' bout.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2635259 - 05/04/04 02:11 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

I'm waiting for the day when they flash up the pictures of every IRAQI killed...


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXochitl
synchronicitycircuit
Registered: 07/15/03
Posts: 1,241
Loc: the brainforest
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2635313 - 05/04/04 02:30 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

definition of the word official from the same Oxford English Dictionary of Current English:

official

? adjective 1 relating to an authority or public body and its activities and responsibilities. 2 having the approval or authorization of such a body.

? noun a person holding public office or having official duties.

There seems to be an assumption here that the airwaves are privately owned. They are not. The public owns the airwaves.

Newspapers and magazines belong to their respective publishers. Anything they want to say is on their dime, because they pay for the paper, the ink, the reportage, and the distribution.

Radio and television, however, use a precious resource that belongs to all of us: the airwaves. There is only so much ?ther to go around, and the broadcasters lease the spectrum from us, the American people. Because they are using a scarce resource, they have to abide by the terms of the lease; those terms are administered by the FCC. One of those terms is that you can't use our national resources to support one political candidate without giving others equal time.


So, in the case of the Sinclair Broadcasting Group, they essentially limited public information on public airwaves for political purposes. Now, the Nightline special was incredibly factual - it was a simple reading of the names of the fallen. They showed the solider's name, rank, and age along with a photograph - most of them were official military photographs in uniform. Nothing more, nothing less. Ted Koppel did not include commentary with the reading of the names - the only commentary was during the last 30 seconds of the hour or so long program; it was a commentary about the controversy. Here is what he said:

Quote:

There is no easier applause line in American politics than to invoke the brave men and women fighting in our behalf.

As for those who've died, they can be used with equal cynicism by the hawks and the doves.

You want to whip up support for the war? It goes something like this: "We owe it to the men and women who have died in the cause of freedom that we complete their mission with honor."

You oppose the war and want to pull the troops out? It's one variation or another of this theme: "Too many brave men and women have already died in a war that never should have been fought in the first place."

Our goal was to elevate the fallen above the politics and the daily journalism, to let their names and faces remind us of what has always been true: When the American people fully understand the cause for which our troops are fighting, and when they accept that it is essential to our national welfare and security, no burden is too heavy, no cost is too high.

It may well be that the war against terrorism, which is all too real, does require that our troops spend many more dangerous years in Iraq. At times, there is no alternative to war.

During World War II, more than 16 million Americans served in uniform; and over 400,000 of those died. Most Americans believed then and believe now that the sacrifice was necessary.

The reading of those 721 names was neither intended to provoke opposition to the war nor was it meant as an endorsement.

Some of you doubt that. You are convinced that I am opposed to the war.

I'm not; but that's beside the point. I am opposed to sustaining the illusion that war can be waged by the sacrifice of a few, without burdening the rest of us in any way. I oppose the notion that to be at war is to forfeit the right to question, criticize or debate our leaders' policies, or, for that matter, the policies of those who would like to become our leaders.

Nightline will continue to do all of those things in the weeks and months to come. But that is not what this broadcast was about.





I do not see how a reading of names is political spin or anti-war activism when there is no political or anti-war coloring of the reading. It is reality - it is fact. The role of the media and its journalists is provide citizens with information. Funny how when the media actually provides information without spin or bias for once, they are attacked.

So, the score is: the Sinclair Broadcasting Group prevented the release of straight fact/public record on public airwaves for its political reasons. Okay - so how is this not a form of censorship again? And if its not a literal censorship, it is pretty damn close.

Does anyone else see a slippery slope here? What if Sinclair disagreed with other news stories? Are they going to continue to prevent the broadcasting of these because of their political stance? Is this a pattern that will continue? How is this "a good thing" for nation again?


--------------------
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld 2/2/02 Pentagon


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 7 years, 6 days
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Xochitl]
    #2635453 - 05/04/04 03:03 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Xochitl writes:

There seems to be an assumption here that the airwaves are privately owned. They are not. The public owns the airwaves.

Assuming this is true, that doesn't change the fact that the equipment feeding content into those airwaves is privately owned. Sinclair Group owns the transmitters of the stations in question. If the powers that be at Sinclair choose not to use their transmitters to broadcast the same thing that other transmitters broadcast, that is of course their right. How could it be otherwise?

This is identical in principle to a newspaper (or several newspapers) choosing not to run a cartoon they judge their readership may not appreciate.

Your providing the definition of an "official" strengthened the point I was making, and I thank you for the assistance, though I feel it was not really necessary. Clearly the board of the Sinclair Group is not a "public body", but a private one.

So, in the case of the Sinclair Broadcasting Group, they essentially limited public information on public airwaves for political purposes.

So the broadcast was a political ploy? So much for Koppel arguing it wasn't.

I do not see how a reading of names is political spin or anti-war activism when there is no political or anti-war coloring of the reading.

You may not see it. The owners of the stations did. Koppel himself said it, but he tried to present it as capable of being spun either way, politically.

The role of the media and its journalists is provide citizens with information.

Are television stations required to present news? So much for the Cartoon Network and HBO, then.

Funny how when the media actually provides information without spin or bias for once, they are attacked.

Funny how you would ignore the context of Koppel's unabashed opposition to the war. Koppel's attempt to claim that it was a neutral act might have held water if it were someone other than Koppel reading it -- Rush Limbaugh, for example.

So, the score is: the Sinclair Broadcasting Group prevented the release of straight fact/public record on public airwaves for political reasons.

Sinclair Group prevented no such thing. The information is widely available from sources other than a single Nightline broadcast. Anyone who wants to expend the effort to find the names of those killed in action can do so.

What if Sinclair disagreed with other news stories?

If they were to choose not to air them, I imagine they would eventually lose viewers, then sponsors, and be hurt financially. Possibly even hurt to the point where they might be forced to sell their stations.

Are they going to continue to prevent the broadcasting of these because of their political stance?

Could be. That is their right.

Is this a pattern that will continue?

Perhaps. What's the problem if it does?

How is "a good thing" for nation again?

How is it a bad thing for anyone other than Sinclair? As I point out, anyone with an interest in finding out who has been killed can do so through sources other than a single show on a single tv channel. It certainly isn't bad for "the nation". Worst case scenario is some people have to expend more effort informing themselves of the names of US troops who have died in Iraq to date. Note that this same effort would need to be expended to find the names of those US troops killed in Afghanistan.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 26,403
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2635619 - 05/04/04 04:17 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

So the broadcast was a political ploy? So much for Koppel arguing it wasn't.

No, the (abridge, ban, black out, blacklist, bleach, bleep, blue-pencil, bowdlerize, clean up, conceal, control, cork, criticize, cut, decontaminate, delete, edit, examine, excise, expurgate, exscind, inspect, launder, narrow, oversee, purge, purify, refuse transmission, repress, restrain, restrict, review, revile, sanitize, scissor out, squelch, sterilize, strike out, supervise communications, suppress, withhold)ing of the broadcast was a pollitical ploy.


This is a clear case of corporate (abridge, ban, black out, blacklist, bleach, bleep, blue-pencil, bowdlerize, clean up, conceal, control, cork, criticize, cut, decontaminate, delete, edit, examine, excise, expurgate, exscind, inspect, launder, narrow, oversee, purge, purify, refuse transmission, repress, restrain, restrict, review, revile, sanitize, scissor out, squelch, sterilize, strike out, supervise communications, suppress, withhold)ship.


--------------------
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


LET'S GO, DARWIN!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 26,403
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2635624 - 05/04/04 04:19 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Also I forgot to mention conservative bias in the media.


--------------------
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


LET'S GO, DARWIN!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezeronio
Stranger
Male

Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 5 years, 4 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2635666 - 05/04/04 04:34 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Once again there is a big difference how American & the rest of the world media picture the current military situation in Iraq.
The general impression outside USA is that the army is loosing control over Iraq and that the colaition holds only small parts of bigger cities. American media don't even mention the retreat of army from Fallujah or at least it's not shown as a retreat.
Few days ago there was a main headline on CNN web page about results of 1 month old poll that showed that majority of Iraquis support ocupation, while my newspaper reported heavy fights and losses of coalition and hundreds of "collateral damage" amoung civilians in Fallujah.
Of course I can't know what is the truth, but one year ago our media reported that the war is starting under false pretentions, that there are no WMD and that Powell report in UN about proofs USA has about Iraq threat is completely fake. Eurpean media convinced 90% of the public about this, while american media convinced people in contrary. Now I have a feeling that american public is being fucked again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 7 years, 6 days
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2635726 - 05/04/04 04:53 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Well, we have to agree to disagree, then. I saw it as a political ploy. I am not alone in this. But to be blunt, what I or anyone else thinks about it is irrelevant. What matters is what do the owners of the stations involved think about it?

They believed it was a political ploy.

They own the transmitters. They paid for the content (the specific Nightline episode) and have the right to air it or not to air it. This is not "censorship". They were not violating anyone's right to free speech, nor were they preventing anyone from obtaining the information contained in Koppel's program.

If Rush Limbaugh were to do exactly the same thing, and some of the stations carrying Limbaugh's program refused to air it, would anyone here be crying "censorship"?

This is a clear case of corporate (*)ship.

It is a clearcut case that though you have the right to say what you wish, you don't have the right to force another to provide you a megaphone.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 26,403
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2635738 - 05/04/04 04:58 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

No. But you do have a right to be a dissatisfied consumer of tainted media product.

I hope this bites Sinclair Broadcasting on it's ass and maybe wakes America up a little.


--------------------
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


LET'S GO, DARWIN!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 7 years, 6 days
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: zeronio]
    #2635755 - 05/04/04 05:09 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Zeronio, the thing here is that none of this is news. None of this is being hidden from the American pople. It is quite literally impossible to pick up any major newspaper without seeing an update of the death toll of American troops. Every time -- every time -- there is another attack on coalition troops resulting in fatalities it is covered. Without exception. Many of the media organs even keep a running box score -- "Number of troops killed since Bush declared end to major combat operations - 438".

Koppel's program was not news. It was editorializing. You would pretty much have to be living in a cave not to be at least close to knowing how many troops have been killed so far. You pretty much can't get away from it.

Quote:

The general impression outside USA is that the army is loosing control over Iraq and that the colaition holds only small parts of bigger cities.




And that general impression is incorrect. If one takes the time to dig into it rather than just half-listening to the sound bites coming out of the boob tube in a sports bar while chugging down a few beers with the gang, it can be seen that from the beginning, there have been a few trouble spots. Fallujah is one. Najaf is another. These attacks are not distributed all over Iraq.

Quote:

American media don't even mention the retreat of army from Fallujah or at least it's not shown as a retreat.




Which American media? I know about it, and I check CNN. Every now and then I check FOX as well. I should point out that I check only their web pages because I don't have a tv. But if it's on their web pages, you can be sure it's shown on tv as well.

The "retreat" from Fallujah, by the way, is not a military move but a political one. It's not that the Marines were getting their asses kicked (quite the reverse) it's that the politicians have decided that they might gain some brownie points with world opinion by showing some restraint. This is of course wishful thinking.

As for the reports of collateral damage among civilians, just how -- in a situation where none of the combatants on one side wear uniforms -- is anyone to determine whether a dead body was a civilian or not?

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 7 years, 6 days
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2635763 - 05/04/04 05:13 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Baby_Hitler writes:

Quote:

But you do have a right to be a dissatisfied consumer of tainted media product.



Indeed you do. And I very much doubt anyone who normally follows the news to any significant degree is unaware of the flap. Presumably they will react accordingly.
Quote:

I hope this bites Sinclair Broadcasting on it's ass and maybe wakes America up a little.



If it damages Sinclair financially, then would it not be yet another confirmation that the free market system works?

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezeronio
Stranger
Male

Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 5 years, 4 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2635835 - 05/04/04 05:41 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

You described better then me what American media report about Iraq. Political withdrawal from Fallujah could be much more problematic then you think and that is shown to you. The resistance was so strong that the army had to get out, otherwise they would have to obliterate the city, civilians and rebels. Which would be more close to a defeat then to a victory. Also repeating the old positive polls as the main news is a classic smoke curtain.
I've seen stuff like that during the wars in Yugoslavia. You can't trust the media from the coutries that are in war. If you want a good picture then you have to find information that come from countries that have nothing to do with the conflict. That should rule out Iraq war reporting from Arabs, Americans, British & co.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 7 years, 6 days
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: zeronio]
    #2635869 - 05/04/04 05:54 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

zeronio writes:

Political withdrawal from Fallujah could be much more problematic then you think and that is shown to you.

Agreed. People can argue all they want about whether it is correct to go to war, but once you're in one, win it! Don't half-ass it. This was America's biggest problem in Viet Nam.

The resistance was so strong that the army had to get out, otherwise they would have to obliterate the city, civilians and rebels.

Actually, that is not correct at all. Not even close. It's not that the Iraqi fighters were so strong, but that they were willing to use tactics they knew (or thought) the Americans were reluctant to counter. Tactics such as holing up in Mosques, using women and children as shields, etc.

It's not complicated to win when you're talking about one city. Surround it, offer safe passage to women and children, then go in and disarm whoever's left. Those who don't want to disarm, shoot. No need to level the city, no need to shoot everything that moves.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezeronio
Stranger
Male

Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 5 years, 4 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2635967 - 05/04/04 07:29 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Agreed. People can argue all they want about whether it is correct to go to war, but once you're in one, win it! Don't half-ass it. This was America's biggest problem in Viet Nam.




You can't win if you're fighting against the population and that's what I'm afraid is going on now. Isolated terrorist attacks have grown into an uprise of part of population.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 7 years, 6 days
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: zeronio]
    #2636051 - 05/04/04 08:59 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

zeronio writes:

You can't win if you're fighting against the population...

If you're fighting against the entire population, or even a significant part of it, correct.

...and that's what I'm afraid is going on now. Isolated terrorist attacks have grown into an uprise of part of population.

Completely untrue. Not even close. Those attacking coalition troops are a very tiny percentage of the 25 million Iraqis. Many (perhaps most) of those carrying out the attacks aren't even Iraqis at all, but Iranians, Syrians, even Palestinians in some cases.

Do you read any of the Iraqi blogs? I do. I've provided links to them here in other posts. The vast majority of the Iraqis are staying out of this entirely. Some Iraqis are even acting on their own as vigilantes against al-Sadr's thugs.

Easing the pressure against Fallujah for even an instant was a mistake. Sitting outside Najaf letting the attackers mortar installations is a mistake. The politicos seem to have convinced themselves that showing this kind of restraint will somehow be perceived by the world as admirable. They are dead wrong. The attackers don't respect or admire restraint, they respect action. So does the "Arab Street" in general. The best way to ensure more attacks is to respond ineffectively to them. The current passivity on the part of the coalition decision makers is insanity, nothing less. There is no way to sugarcoat it. Those planning things have freaking lost their minds.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXochitl
synchronicitycircuit
Registered: 07/15/03
Posts: 1,241
Loc: the brainforest
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2636409 - 05/04/04 12:02 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Assuming this is true, that doesn't change the fact that the equipment feeding content into those airwaves is privately owned. Sinclair Group owns the transmitters of the stations in question. If the powers that be at Sinclair choose not to use their transmitters to broadcast the same thing that other transmitters broadcast, that is of course their right. How could it be otherwise?




Actually, they dont own the transmitters - they lease them. You are correct however; Sinclair has the right to edit, remove, silence, and censor news stories that they would rather not the public see during the election year.

Quote:


This is identical in principle to a newspaper (or several newspapers) choosing not to run a cartoon they judge their readership may not appreciate.




No, it is not. The public airwaves and a privately printed and distributed newspaper are not the same.

Quote:

Your providing the definition of an "official" strengthened the point I was making, and I thank you for the assistance, though I feel it was not really necessary. Clearly the board of the Sinclair Group is not a "public body", but a private one.




They are a private body who maintains and operates a public body.

Quote:

So the broadcast was a political ploy? So much for Koppel arguing it wasn't.




No, the Nightline episode wasnt political - it was an expression of fact - plain and simple. Do you get ABC down in the Dominian Republic? The removal of the show by Sinclair was a political move - they removed it from selected cities because they disagreed with it.

Ted Koppel supports the war, by the way, and in his own words, did not do the show for political reasons. He simply wanted to honor our young dead and put faces on the names. If didnt catch the show (I'm sure you'll say you did), it was a very simple tribute. How is this political again? How is this not a broadcast of fact?

Quote:


You may not see it. The owners of the stations did. Koppel himself said it, but he tried to present it as capable of being spun either way, politically.




No, Koppel didnt see the material as political - he said it was material that is often capitalized on for political reason by other parties.

Quote:

Are television stations required to present news? So much for the Cartoon Network and HBO, then.




Cartoon Network and HBO are cable channels. We are talking about major networks on public airwaves. These channels are required by the FCC to provide news content.

Quote:

Funny how you would ignore the context of Koppel's unabashed opposition to the war. Koppel's attempt to claim that it was a neutral act might have held water if it were someone other than Koppel reading it -- Rush Limbaugh, for example.




I'd gladly support Limbaugh reading the list of the dead. I do not find the broadcasting of plain and true fact to be something to avoid.

Quote:

Sinclair Group prevented no such thing. The information is widely available from sources other than a single Nightline broadcast. Anyone who wants to expend the effort to find the names of those killed in action can do so.




They prevented a Nightline show that was 100% fact. They prevented information - whether or not such information can be found elsewhere is irrevelent.

Where else have you seen the full list of names, faces, ages, and rank of all dead soliders in American media, by the way? Since its so accessible and all, lets see it.

Quote:

Are they going to continue to prevent the broadcasting of these because of their political stance? Is this a pattern that will continue?

Perhaps. What's the problem if it does?




Are you serious?  :rolleyes:


--------------------
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld 2/2/02 Pentagon


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2636423 - 05/04/04 12:11 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

There seems to be an awful lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over small meduia company deciding not to air, in a handful of small cities, a news show that would not normally attract many viewers anyway. The decision by Sinclair not to air the show has probably caused far more people to be aware of it than would otherwise have been the case.

As for the question of whether this is censorship I have to agree with Pinky. All news is edited, whether over the air, in print, or on the internet. Do any of you here think that Sinclair should have been compelled to broadcast the show? Be very, very careful of that road.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinegermin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 17 years, 6 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2636485 - 05/04/04 12:47 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

KingOftheThing said:
you dont know for a fact bush had nothing to do with it, and i dont have 100% proof that he did.




Please, don't let that simple little thing stop you from making accusations.
Quote:


point is, bush is involved in some fucked up shit with his corporate buddies. i would bet $100 that the bush administration is calling the shots and telling fox, clear channel and others what not to air. bush makes me sick, he is a despicible human being and worse a fundamentalist christian.
Quote:


Right.
Quote:


ITS 2000-FUCKING-4 AND OUR GOD DAMN, LUNATIC PRESIDENT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION!! HE IS A CREATIONIST!!! OMGGG!!! IN HIS PRESS CONFERENCE, HE SAID OUR SOLDIERS ARE DOING GODS WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT THE FUCK EVER HAPPENED TO SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!! HE TALKS TO JESUS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND ASKS HIS ADVICE!!!! THATS LIKE ASKING THE EASTER BUNNY ABOUT FORIEGN POLICY!!!



You don't understand what seperation of church and state means.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinegermin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 17 years, 6 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Xochitl]
    #2636510 - 05/04/04 01:08 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Xochitl said:
No, it is not. The public airwaves and a privately printed and distributed newspaper are not the same.




I think that airwaves are frequencies purchased from the FCC. You aren't actually purchasing said frequency, rather a license to use it.  The airwaves aren't public. You couldn't start using the frequency that your local network affiliate uses to broadcast your homemade porn, for example. They are privately held and operated.

Quote:


Ted Koppel supports the war, by the way, and in his own words, did not do the show for political reasons. He simply wanted to honor our young dead and put faces on the names. If didnt catch the show (I'm sure you'll say you did), it was a very simple tribute. How is this political again? How is this not a broadcast of fact?




I don't want to put words into someones mouth, but I don't think that pinksharkmark owns a television.  Do you think that a special showing sonograms of fetuses that have been aborted would be poliitcal in nature? Why, isn't it a "broadcast of fact"?

Quote:


Cartoon Network and HBO are cable channels. We are talking about major networks on public airwaves. These channels are required by the FCC to provide news content.




Can you show me a link that shows that the FCC Requires networks to have news content ? Also, doesn't the FCC ,as I mentioned above, simply license out the use of specific frequencies. They don't "own" the frequencies, and the private organiztaions pay for the license and thus, they 'own' the airwaves.
Quote:


They prevented a Nightline show that was 100% fact. They prevented information - whether or not such information can be found elsewhere is irrevelent.




It shows that their isn't a nation-wide, government backed conspiracy, as some people see it, to withhold this information. If I own a news channel, I choose what I show and what I don't. It's just that simple. The Sinclair Group didn't prevent anyone from having this list, they just didn't offer it to the populace of the cities in question.
Quote:


Where else have you seen the full list of names, faces, ages, and rank of all dead soliders in American media, by the way? Since its so accessible and all, lets see it.




It's in newspapers, not too hard to compile a list.
Quote:


Are you serious?  :rolleyes:



I think that you are misunderstanding pinkys position. He isn't encouraging this type of 'censorship', he is simply defending the rights of the  Sinclair group to show what htey want on their television channels. Do you think that if the NSDAP decided to push Free Speech TV to show 2 hours of pro-Nazi programming per day, that FSTV should be required to do so? Hardly. It's THEIR damn station.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 7 years, 6 days
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Xochitl]
    #2637223 - 05/04/04 04:40 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Xochitl writes:

Actually, they dont own the transmitters - they lease them. You are correct however; Sinclair has the right to edit, remove, silence, and censor news stories that they would rather not the public see during the election year.

If Sinclair Group doesn't own the transmitters (source please), who does? And if you concede SG has the right not to air the program, why are we still talking about this?

No, it is not. The public airwaves and a privately printed and distributed newspaper are not the same.

Yes they are. There is no difference whatsoever in principle. The fact that the public, through its designated agents, the FCC (and whether the FCC has any business existing in its present form is another argument for another time and place), leases a particular electromagnetic frequency in a particular location to a particular company does not mean that the company doing the leasing is required to transmit exactly the same stuff every other company who has leased the airwaves does. As a matter of fact, they are not required to transmit anything at all.

They are a private body who maintains and operates a public body.

You misunderstand the concept of "public ownership of the airwaves". Sinclair's broadcst facilities are not a public body, any more than UPS's sorting warehouses and trucks are a public body. Sinclair (and others) using "publicly owned" electromagnetic frequencies to deliver content is no different in principle from UPS and FedEx using publicly owned streets to deliver freight.

No, the Nightline episode wasnt political - it was an expression of fact - plain and simple.

No, it was a political statement, plain and simple. A printed list accompanied by photos is simply delivering information. Those photos can be reviewed again and again, the names checked again and again. Flashing photos on the screen while reading hundreds of names provides no information to anyone other than the incredibly tiny percentage of humans with an eidetic memory. I challenge you to find anyone who can today recite twenty of those names, and adequately describe the people associated with those twenty names.

It wasn't providing information, it was providing spectacle. A non-flashy and restrained spectacle, but a spectacle nonetheless. It was a publicity stunt callously using the dead to advance Nightline's agenda.

Ted Koppel supports the war, by the way, and in his own words, did not do the show for political reasons. He simply wanted to honor our young dead and put faces on the names.

Well, gee, that's a surprise. He denies there was any motivation other than honoring the dead? He and his producer have also both denied they were even aware the program would be aired during "sweeps week", and if you believe that in-your-face, laugh-out-loud whopper, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

And both Koppel and his producer say the inspiration for this stunt came from Life Magazine's similar move thirty-five years ago -- a move which was a famous (and Koppel and his producer know this) crystallizing factor in the opposition to the Viet Nam war. For them to pretend otherwise is more than disingenuous, it's insulting to the intelligence of Americans.

If didnt catch the show (I'm sure you'll say you did), it was a very simple tribute. How is this political again? How is this not a broadcast of fact?

I don't have a tv so I didn't catch the show. I didn't have to catch it to recognize it for what it was. The format of the show has been described quite plainly in numerous sources I can access.

There are facts, and there are facts. No mention was made of what the deaths of those people accomplished. No list of names (with pictures) of Iraqis released from prison -- who will now live rather than die-- due to the actions of those troops was read. No footage of grinning Iraqi kids playing soccer rather than huddling in Hussein's "kiddie jails" was shown.

No, Koppel didnt see the material as political - he said it was material that is often capitalized on for political reason by other parties.

To be accurate, one must say that Koppel denies seeing the material as political.

We are talking about major networks on public airwaves. These channels are required by the FCC to provide news content.

I was unaware of that fact. So cable channels are not required to provide news, but the FCC requires those who broadcast over airwaves rather than through coax cable to provide news as a condition to granting a license? Interesting. I won't ask you for a source to back that up. I'll accept it at face value.

They prevented a Nightline show that was 100% fact.

I can provide information to you that is 100% fact as well. That doesn't mean the information provides a factual picture of what I'm describing.

They prevented information - whether or not such information can be found elsewhere is irrevelent.

No broadcaster has the obligation to provide all the facts about everything. If that were true, there would never be time to broadcast anything other than news, 24-7. Even the news networks sift and filter and discard information. That's reality.

Where else have you seen the full list of names, faces, ages, and rank of all dead soliders in American media, by the way? Since its so accessible and all, lets see it.

I didn't say it was available through the media. I said it was available. And it is. If it weren't, Koppel could hardly have done the show, could he?

Are you serious?

Is that an answer to my question? I ask again, what problem do you envision if they opt not to air other publicity stunts?


pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXochitl
synchronicitycircuit
Registered: 07/15/03
Posts: 1,241
Loc: the brainforest
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: germin8tionn8ion]
    #2637322 - 05/04/04 05:03 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

I think that airwaves are frequencies purchased from the FCC. You aren't actually purchasing said frequency, rather a license to use it. The airwaves aren't public. You couldn't start using the frequency that your local network affiliate uses to broadcast your homemade porn, for example. They are privately held and operated.




You think wrong. The airwaves that ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. use are regulated and licensed by the FCC in the name of the ownership of the national public - much like, say, a national park. The National Forest Service maintains and regulates the land, but citizens and tax payers own it. Why is (non-cable) television and radio free? Because the citizens own the airwaves. If you want more channels or better quality, you can pay for them.

Citizens cannot broadcast their own pornography because that does not abide with FCC regulations and protocol.

Quote:

Do you think that a special showing sonograms of fetuses that have been aborted would be poliitcal in nature? Why, isn't it a "broadcast of fact"?




I do not consider a list of how many abortions have taken place political in and of itself, no. However, graphic pictures of aborted fetuses and the memorial shown on Nightline are not the same. Nightline did not show dead bodies of American soliders; it was incredibly respectful, rather - like a live reading of the Vietnam Memorial Wall. Also, abortions are usually private affairs, unlike war. Our soliders fighting in our name on tax dollars is not a private matter - it is public. I can see how such an abortion special could be apolitical, but it would be difficult to achieve. Possible, yes. I would have no problem with an apolitical or politcally balanced show on abortion.

Quote:

Can you show me a link that shows that the FCC Requires networks to have news content ?




http://www.fcc.gov/onsite-resources.html - It'll be found somewhere there. Look for references to public interest obligation and Communications Act of 1934 and the Telcom Act of 1996 and the public interest, convenience and necessity clause. The public owns the electromagnetic spectrum. Period. Do some research.

Quote:

It shows that their isn't a nation-wide, government backed conspiracy, as some people see it, to withhold this information. If I own a news channel, I choose what I show and what I don't. It's just that simple.




I never mentioned any government conspiracy.

Quote:

Do you think that if the NSDAP decided to push Free Speech TV to show 2 hours of pro-Nazi programming per day, that FSTV should be required to do so? Hardly. It's THEIR damn station.




That is subscription satellite television. We are talking about the free, public airwaves that the major networks of ABC, NBC, CBS, (non-cable) Fox, WGN, etc. operate on.


--------------------
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld 2/2/02 Pentagon


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 26,403
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Xochitl]
    #2637339 - 05/04/04 05:09 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

I suspect that one of the reasons that internet bandwith has plateued for the last several years is that the media companies don't want internet television stations taking their business away from them.


--------------------
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


LET'S GO, DARWIN!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXochitl
synchronicitycircuit
Registered: 07/15/03
Posts: 1,241
Loc: the brainforest
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2637609 - 05/04/04 06:22 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

If Sinclair Group doesn't own the transmitters (source please), who does?




It was mentioned in the New York Times or USA Today. I'll see if I can find it online.

Quote:

And if you concede SG has the right not to air the program, why are we still talking about this?




I never said SBG broke any laws. Yes, they have the technical right - I never said otherwise. But considering the great medium of television for a majority of the citizen population, their actions should be set to a higher standard than petty, political kneejerk reactions like preventing people from watching Nightline.

Quote:

No, it is not. The public airwaves and a privately printed and distributed newspaper are not the same.

Yes they are. There is no difference whatsoever in principle.




Privately funded, edited, and distributed newspapers do not operate on publicaly owned airwaves. They are quite different - apples and oranges. Television and newsprint have totally different sets of regulation and legislation.

Quote:

You misunderstand the concept of "public ownership of the airwaves". Sinclair's broadcst facilities are not a public body, any more than UPS's sorting warehouses and trucks are a public body. Sinclair (and others) using "publicly owned" electromagnetic frequencies to deliver content is no different in principle from UPS and FedEx using publicly owned streets to deliver freight.




No, you do not understand. I never said that Sinclair was a public body in the same vein as the FCC; I said they were a private organization that operates on public medium. They are not free to operate as they choose - they must yield to the regulation of the FCC whether or not you like it. This includes an agreement to broadcast for the public interest.

How exactly is removing a news show because they disagree politically with the content in the public interest?

Quote:

No, it was a political statement, plain and simple. A printed list accompanied by photos is simply delivering information. Those photos can be reviewed again and again, the names checked again and again. Flashing photos on the screen while reading hundreds of names provides no information to anyone other than the incredibly tiny percentage of humans with an eidetic memory. I challenge you to find anyone who can today recite twenty of those names, and adequately describe the people associated with those twenty names.




Following your logic, all television and radio news is merely a political statement that should be disregarded as such.

Quote:

It wasn't providing information, it was providing spectacle. A non-flashy and restrained spectacle, but a spectacle nonetheless. It was a publicity stunt callously using the dead to advance Nightline's agenda.




Did you watch this Nightline episode? How often do you even watch Nightline? Certainly enough that you'd find an agenda...

Quote:

I don't have a tv so I didn't catch the show.




Wait, guess not. You sure have a strong opinion about something you did not even see. Certainly, when we discuss a particular television show or book, you must actually read or watch the material in order to even begin to debate it - certainly to be able to honestly judge its merit.

How is all televised news not a spectacle following your definitions and logic?

Quote:

Well, gee, that's a surprise. He denies there was any motivation other than honoring the dead? He and his producer have also both denied they were even aware the program would be aired during "sweeps week", and if you believe that in-your-face, laugh-out-loud whopper, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.




Actually, it was aired on the last week of the deadliest and most historical month ever in this war.

Quote:

And both Koppel and his producer say the inspiration for this stunt came from Life Magazine's similar move thirty-five years ago -- a move which was a famous (and Koppel and his producer know this) crystallizing factor in the opposition to the Viet Nam war. For them to pretend otherwise is more than disingenuous, it's insulting to the intelligence of Americans.




Sources?

If your theory is correct about Time Life/Vietnam, why do you think the simple show of names, faces, ages, and rank of dead soliders has such a high track record of gallanizing anti-war sentiment and support? Consider and answer this question please.

Why do you consider the presentation of facts on a current affair to be manufacturing political points, but censoring such a presentation of facts not a political move in itself?

Quote:


I don't have a tv so I didn't catch the show. I didn't have to catch it to recognize it for what it was. The format of the show has been described quite plainly in numerous sources I can access.




You should know the material before arguing. Thanks.

Quote:

No mention was made of what the deaths of those people accomplished. No list of names (with pictures) of Iraqis released from prison -- who will now live rather than die-- due to the actions of those troops was read.




Well, why do you think this is? Why do you think the names of American soliders is more relevent to Americans on their own airwaves than the names of Iraqis? Hmm tough one.

Quote:

No footage of grinning Iraqi kids playing soccer rather than huddling in Hussein's "kiddie jails" was shown.




I have seen plenty of images like that on American news, especially on ABC News.

Quote:

I was unaware of that fact. So cable channels are not required to provide news, but the FCC requires those who broadcast over airwaves rather than through coax cable to provide news as a condition to granting a license? Interesting. I won't ask you for a source to back that up. I'll accept it at face value.




Information provided in my previous post. Enjoy.

Quote:

I can provide information to you that is 100% fact as well. That doesn't mean the information provides a factual picture of what I'm describing.




What are you talking about? The names, ages, rank, and faces of the dead soliders are true - they are facts. How are they not factual?

Quote:

I didn't say it was available through the media. I said it was available. And it is. If it weren't, Koppel could hardly have done the show, could he?




Oh, I see. The information is available, but not through the media. Then how else is the news-viewing public supposed to get information then? The role of the media is to present such hidden and burried information especially in times like these. Again, I find it funny that when the major networks actually air something that is all fact and no bias, spin, or editoralizing - people are up in arms.

Quote:

what problem do you envision if they opt not to air other publicity stunts?




As someone who actually watch the full program - unlike yourself - I disagree with your premise that it was a publicity stunt.

One problem that I envision if groups like SBG continue this pattern of blocking news programs and information that they happen to disagree with is the silencing opposition to their favored regime, policies, legislation, and campaigns. I shouldnt have to explain why such a setup should be avoided.


--------------------
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld 2/2/02 Pentagon


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinebaraka
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/16/00
Posts: 10,768
Loc: hyperspace Flag
Last seen: 14 days, 2 hours
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2641455 - 05/05/04 01:51 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

how do you know bush didnt give a call to his good buddy over at sinclair media and have him pull that show? id wager someone in the administration giving orders to his media buddies...i think bush had someone at clear channel pull the plug on howard stern in florida, a key swing state cuz stern started exposing him.




Are u for real? Get over it, democrats lost to bush the first time, and i predict the same again.

I am in no way a republican or a bush supporter, but all these anti bush things im reading in this forum are wacky.


--------------------
This is the only time I really feel alive.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 7 years, 6 days
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Xochitl]
    #2641985 - 05/05/04 04:27 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Xochitl writes:

Privately funded, edited, and distributed newspapers do not operate on publicaly owned airwaves.

You are still not grasping the concept. The airwaves are not the content any more than the roadways on which the newspaper delivery trucks travel are the content. The airwaves are nothing more than a delivery vehicle for the content. So is a coaxial or optical cable, and (in the case of the internet) a telephone line.

The fact that the public "owns" the airwaves is no more relevant than the fact that the public owns the road system.

Television and newsprint have totally different sets of regulation and legislation.

And which regulation requires a tv station to broadcast the identical thing as another tv station?

No, you do not understand. I never said that Sinclair was a public body in the same vein as the FCC; I said they were a private organization that operates on public medium.

Well, actually what you said was, "They are a private body who maintains and operates a public body." They don't maintain and operate a public body, though. They maintain and operate a private company. I will accept your clarification, though.

They are not free to operate as they choose - they must yield to the regulation of the FCC whether or not you like it.

And which regulation of the FCC requires them to broadcast whatever Nightline believes they should broadcast?

How exactly is removing a news show because they disagree politically with the content in the public interest?

How is it not? As I point out, no one is being deprived of information -- the information is available to anyone who wishes to find it. Nightline is not being deprived of money. They get paid for the episode whether it is aired or not.

Hell, even you have agreed SBG was within their rights to do what they did. Why are either of us still typing?

Following your logic, all television and radio news is merely a political statement that should be disregarded as such.

All? Nope. The report of an earthquake is not political. Weather is not political. A car accident is not political.

You sure have a strong opinion about something you did not even see. Certainly, when we discuss a particular television show or book, you must actually read or watch the material in order to even begin to debate it - certainly to be able to honestly judge its merit.

That is arrant nonsense. This may be true of something with complex content. But I need not actually watch a broadcast of some talking head reading a list of names accompanied by photos to know that this is exactly what happened. I have read the transcript of Koppel's accompanying remarks as well. We're not talking about a book here. We're talking about a list.

And, to point out yet again the issue at the heart of this, it doesn't matter whether I think it was a political stunt. What matters is whether the powers that be at SBG think it was a political stunt. It's their transmitters.

Actually, it was aired on the last week of the deadliest and most historical month ever in this war.

Actually, it was aired in sweeps week.

Sources?

Here's just one of the many you can find on Google:

from http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2004/05/01/koppel_statement.html

"My executive producer Leroy Sievers remembered, and asked me if I remembered and I did, a two-page spread in Life magazine back in 1969 on the Vietnam war dead for one week and the impact; he reminded me of the impact that that had had. And said, why don't we try to do something similar?"

They were deciding, right then, to make a political statement, which they hoped would have impact.

And when Robert Cox of the The National Debate went back to '69 and reviewed what was happening in Vietnam, and at home, including the turns in the war at that time...

"The "impact" of the Life magazine "ONE WEEK'S TOLL" was to crystalize opposition to the war in the wake the high casualties taken at Ap Bia mountain. The context of Koppel's "tribute" mirrors those events - it is the one year anniversary of President Bush declaring the end of "major combat operations" in Iraq, Senator Kennedy recently called Iraq "George Bush's Vietnam", the U.S. is coming off a particularly bloody battle in Fallujah and opinion polls show a decline in support for the War in Iraq."

... Cox was making his political statement.

More at the link.

If your theory is correct about Time Life/Vietnam, why do you think the simple show of names, faces, ages, and rank of dead soliders has such a high track record of gallanizing anti-war sentiment and support?

Because the simplicity of the format has its own inherent and elegant dramatic impact. Because such a presentation, by its minimalist content, presents a single facet of a complex issue -- Americans died. It says nothing (and in fact by its nature can say nothing) of what their deaths accomplished.

Why do you consider the presentation of facts on a current affair to be manufacturing political points, but censoring such a presentation of facts not a political move in itself?

See above. Because the presentation is completely one-sided.

You should know the material before arguing.

I do know the material. Comments were made by Koppel (and I have read them) photos were shown names were read, more comments were made by Koppel (and I read them). It's pretty hard not to know the material when it has been exhaustively covered in the news for days. And its not as if there were a lot of ground to cover.

Well, why do you think this is?

I told you why I think this is. You don't agree.

What are you talking about? The names, ages, rank, and faces of the dead soliders are true - they are facts. How are they not factual?

Don't be naive. You're the same one who has complained of "spin" here in the past. The fact that the spin in this case is by omission rather than by commission doesn't change things. I can provide information to you that is 100% fact as well. That doesn't mean the information provides a factual picture of what I'm describing.

Oh, I see. The information is available, but not through the media. Then how else is the news-viewing public supposed to get information then? The role of the media is to present such hidden and burried information especially in times like these.

None of that info is "hidden and buried". It's available at the DoD website. Libraries have internet terminals which can access and print that information. In fact, it's not even necessary to print it really. Just look at it on library monitor screen rather than on a tv screen.

Again, I find it funny that when the major networks actually air something that is all fact and no bias, spin, or editoralizing - people are up in arms.

All fact, no bias, spin or editorializing? Are you truly so naive that you believe things cannot be spun using nothing but fact?

Read the following list of facts then, and tell me what you think of this guy:

"Robert Wayne Jernigan is now 28 years old. People who knew him said he was quiet, somewhat stand-offish. He was not widely liked in high school.

"Four years ago, a witness reported seeing Jernigan enter a building in a remote suburb of Dallas with an axe. Four people were found dead at the scene, including a nine year old girl. No charges were filed. Less than two days later, Jernigan turned up again, this time at the scene of a suspicious fire in a day care center. Miraculously, no one was injured. But it was just a matter of time.

"During the next several weeks, it is possible to place Jernigan at the scene of no less than thirteen suspicious fires. Eleven people died. Eyewitnesses were unshakable in their determination that Jernigan had been on the scene. And yet the police did nothing.

"Jernigan had long been fascinated with fire. A search of his apartment revealed fireman-related magazines, posters and memorabilia. Despite the deaths of fifteen people, despite repeated eyewitness accounts and photographic evidence placing Jernigan at these fires, no criminal charges were ever filed against Robert Wayne Jernigan. He remains a free man to this day."

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2642383 - 05/05/04 06:26 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Damn, pinky! You just threw down! :thumbup:


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineFrankieJustTrypt
and fell

Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2642737 - 05/05/04 08:15 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

To sidestep this, I'd like a political candidate to make a campaign commercial displaying the names and pictures of dead soldiers and possibly even mention the actions of SGB....

The question would be would SGB then refuse to run any campaign ads.


--------------------
If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
    #2642792 - 05/05/04 08:36 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

of course they wouldnt run those ads.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinegermin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 17 years, 6 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
    #2642823 - 05/05/04 08:46 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

And they wouldn't have to!

Lets say that David Duke was running for office and managed to pay for some air time on a station owned by a Jewish man, or an African American. Should they be compelled to play the message? of course not. It's their damn station.


Why can't "liberals" understand that people are allowed the RIGHT to discriminate? If it's their own private institution, they can do what the hell ever they want, within certain legal paramters of course. Do you think that society would be better or worse off if media outlets were required by, say, the government, to show certain programming and to not edit the programming to the desires of the station owners?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineHagbardCeline
Student-Teacher-Student-Teacher
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/10/03
Posts: 9,998
Loc: Overjoyed, at the bottom ...
Last seen: 23 days, 13 hours
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
    #2642847 - 05/05/04 08:53 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

FrankieJustTrypt said:
To sidestep this, I'd like a political candidate to make a campaign commercial displaying the names and pictures of dead soldiers and possibly even mention the actions of SGB....

The question would be would SGB then refuse to run any campaign ads.




Of course they would refuse.  They should refuse.  If someone called you a conspirator, saying that you were trying to keep the truth from the public and you had alot to lose from it, would you walk around telling everyone you meet your accuser's side of the story, convincingly?

Quote:

KingOftheThing said:
of course they wouldnt run those ads.




Wow, you finally got something right.  Don't go and ruin it by trying to tell me it wasn't on purpose. :laugh:


--------------------
I keep it real because I think it is important that a highly esteemed individual such as myself keep it real lest they experience the dreaded spontaneous non-existance of no longer keeping it real. - Hagbard Celine


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 26,403
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: germin8tionn8ion]
    #2643322 - 05/05/04 11:17 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

I don't remember anyone suggesting that the stations shouldn't have the legal right to refuse to broadcast something.

(Unless it were to violate some contract)


--------------------
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


LET'S GO, DARWIN!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2643387 - 05/05/04 11:29 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and as much as I consider myself a libertarian, a problem with privately-owned media as opposed to government media is that it's not held to the same standard of accountablity.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: silversoul7]
    #2643538 - 05/05/04 11:58 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and as much as I consider myself a libertarian, a problem with privately-owned media as opposed to government media is that it's not held to the same standard of accountablity.




I don't know man, you think Sinclair is bad but they have nothing on China's government run media.


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #2643554 - 05/06/04 12:00 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Divided_Sky said:
Quote:

silversoul7 said:
I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and as much as I consider myself a libertarian, a problem with privately-owned media as opposed to government media is that it's not held to the same standard of accountablity.




I don't know man, you think Sinclair is bad but they have nothing on China's government run media.



But China doesn't have a free speech ammendment. America does.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 7 years, 6 days
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: silversoul7]
    #2643613 - 05/06/04 12:13 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

What does SGB's decision not to air a show they paid for have to do with the Free Speech Amendment?

Think very carefully before answering.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2643637 - 05/06/04 12:19 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
What does SGB's decision not to air a show they paid for have to do with the Free Speech Amendment?

Think very carefully before answering.

pinky



Nothing. I'm just pointing out that if it were a government-owned channel, then the government would be required to respect free speech, while SGB is not. I'm just saying that that would be one advantage of government-owned media over privately-owned media.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 26,403
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: silversoul7]
    #2643657 - 05/06/04 12:23 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Even a government owned station doesn't have to air every single piece of work that is handed to them.


--------------------
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


LET'S GO, DARWIN!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2643661 - 05/06/04 12:23 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
What does SGB's decision not to air a show they paid for have to do with the Free Speech Amendment?

Think very carefully before answering.

pinky




well supposedly if you listen to Michael Powell(FCC Chairman) or Bill O'Reilly the airwaves are owned by the people. They are rented to these companies. So was it the people that didn't want the ABC show viewed?? no, it was a conservative media company, censoring a message they didnt want broadcast. THOSE AIRWAVES ARE OURS!!!!! it would be different if it was cable, something privately owned. i think they should lose their broadcast license for not playing a show where they did nothing more than read names. There was no spin (i watched it) i was simply, names pictures and music.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 26,403
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2643777 - 05/06/04 12:52 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

They also own the roads. Should they be able to tell you where you can go on them?


--------------------
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


LET'S GO, DARWIN!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblesir tripsalot
Administrator

Registered: 07/10/99
Posts: 6,487
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2643786 - 05/06/04 12:55 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

I do sometimes, stealing those pylons was the best thing I ever did.


--------------------

"Little racoons and old possums 'n' stuff all live up in here. They've got to have a little place to sit." Bob Ross.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXochitl
synchronicitycircuit
Registered: 07/15/03
Posts: 1,241
Loc: the brainforest
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2644235 - 05/06/04 05:22 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

The airwaves are not the content anymore than the roadways on which the newspaper delivery trucks travel are the content. The airwaves are nothing more than a delivery vehicle for the content. So is a coaxial or optical cable, and (in the case of the internet) a telephone line.




Your analogy is cute, but has little basis in reality.

Compare the amount of federal regulation (on behalf of public) that the major networks ABC, NBC, CBS, (non-cable) Fox, WGN, etc. have to abide by with the amount of federal regulation and protocol that print publications have. There is a huge difference; television/radio has a thousand-fold more regulations than printed publications. Why do you think this is? Well, if you actually read the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telcom Act of 1996, you'll see the answer: the electromagentic airwaves are a limited resource that the public owns but has limited access to, therefore the federal government regulates who, when, what, where, and how content is broadcast on this public resource.

Newspapers and television and are vastly difference vis a vis federal regulation. Period. Your analogy is false.

Quote:

The fact that the public "owns" the airwaves is no more relevant than the fact that the public owns the road system.




The fact that the public owns the airwaves is relevent to the fact that broadcasters cannot simply air whatever they want on these public airwaves. Your ideological assumption that broadcasters have this grand right to do as they please is not true and quite misleading. There are federal codes and regulations set on behalf of the public. See my above posts for just one example of what broadcasters must do as stipulated in their agreement to broadcast on public airwaves.

Quote:

Hell, even you have agreed SBG was within their rights to do what they did. Why are either of us still typing?




Correct. I see no legal foul. What I do see is a overtly political move on behalf of the conservative Sinclair Broadcasting Group to prevent views from watching Nightline because it is an election year.

I once worked in auto-testing facility when I was younger. There was a huge push by the workers from other stations to unionize. Of course, the owners and the managers were against this initiative. They followed the legal course of action by allowing employees to vote on whether or not they wanted to have union representation/engage in collective bargaining. But in the mean time, they would confiscate union reading material during work hours. They had all the legal right to do so. This is an example of censorship being within the boundaries of rights of ownership.

My argument is regarding Nightline and Sinclair is: Sinclair had the right to prevent viewers from watching Nightline, but they still engaged in some form of censorship.

Quote:

Following your logic, all television and radio news is merely a political statement that should be disregarded as such.

All? Nope. The report of an earthquake is not political. Weather is not political. A car accident is not political.




Huh? You made the lame argument that because televisied news is not easily remembered nor easily reviewed that the information presented should not be considered as fact. I merely pointed out the fallacy of that argument.

Here is what you said: No, it was a political statement, plain and simple. A printed list accompanied by photos is simply delivering information. Those photos can be reviewed again and again, the names checked again and again. Flashing photos on the screen while reading hundreds of names provides no information to anyone other than the incredibly tiny percentage of humans with an eidetic memory. I challenge you to find anyone who can today recite twenty of those names, and adequately describe the people associated with those twenty names.

Are you arguing that televisied news is not a means to provide information?


Quote:

That is arrant nonsense. This may be true of something with complex content. But I need not actually watch a broadcast of some talking head reading a list of names accompanied by photos to know that this is exactly what happened. I have read the transcript of Koppel's accompanying remarks as well. We're not talking about a book here. We're talking about a list.




No, I maintain that in order to fully grasp the Nightline episode you had to have actually watched it. Otherwise, you really do not know what you speak of - even if it is a simple list (your word). If there was indeed a political statement projected by Nightline, seems as though it would be quite subtle given the very simple format of the broadcast. I do not think these subtleties (if they even exist) can be fully conveyed from simply reading others' editorals and blogs.

Quote:

They were deciding, right then, to make a political statement, which they hoped would have impact.




Thanks for the info, but so what? Due to the pure-fact nature of the program, the viewer does not receive nor is effected by the intention of the producers. Whether or not this feed of fact creates anti-war or pro-war sentiment is entirely up the viewer him or herself. Nightline was simply providing fact. What is wrong with this?

What was the source and context of these quotes, by the way?

Quote:

Because the simplicity of the format has its own inherent and elegant dramatic impact. Because such a presentation, by its minimalist content, presents a single facet of a complex issue -- Americans died. It says nothing (and in fact by its nature can say nothing) of what their deaths accomplished.




We all seem to disagree with what the nearly thousand dead Americans have accomplished - how on Earth would a news program present such information without straying heavily into bias-land? It is simply not possible. So, why bring it up as an option?

Quote:

None of that info is "hidden and buried". It's available at the DoD website. Libraries have internet terminals which can access and print that information. In fact, it's not even necessary to print it really. Just look at it on library monitor screen rather than on a tv screen.




Perhaps I am overlooking this information; please provide me with the exact same list of names, pictures, age, and rank of the 730+ dead American soliders from these other sources. Thanks.

Quote:

All fact, no bias, spin or editorializing? Are you truly so naive that you believe things cannot be spun using nothing but fact?




Well, I never said otherwise. But in the specific case of Nightline, there was no spin; each accomplishment and each context of each individuals' death would be practically impossible to air within the television format without heavy political bias. Such an objective listing, therefore, is hardly an option. Are you arguing that when pure fact is presented it is biased by default? Is the Vietnam War memorial (a pure-fact list of names and rank in chronological order of death) an anti-war or pro-war statement? Well, depends on who views it, no?

Because of the pure fact nature of the program, viewers took what they wanted from the Nightline episode - plain and simple. Whether or not there was some subtle spin is irrevelent.

If Americans cannot handle the simple reading of the names of the dead, then I think we have some hard times ahead.


--------------------
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld 2/2/02 Pentagon


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 7 years, 6 days
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Xochitl]
    #2644319 - 05/06/04 06:20 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Xochitl writes:

Your analogy is cute, but has little basis in reality.

You still aren't grasping the concept. The public may be deemed to "own" the airwaves", but there is no possible way to pretend that the public owns the equipment which transmits content over those airwaves. I know of no other ways to dumb it down any further, so I will leave you to your own devices rather than repeat myself.

...the electromagentic airwaves are a limited resource that the public owns but has limited access to, therefore the federal government regulates who, when, what, where, and how content is broadcast on this public resource.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not the government should be doing this in the first place, where exactly does the FCC state that a broadcaster must broadcast exactly what others do?

The fact that the public owns the airwaves is relevent to the fact that broadcasters cannot simply air whatever they want on these public airwaves.

But this is not a case of a broadcaster airing something prohibited by the FCC.

Your ideological assumption that broadcasters have this grand right to do as they please is not true and quite misleading.

I don't assume that broadcasters can do "whatever they please". They can, however, choose not to air something they don't want to. Whether or not their viewers agree with them on what constitutes inappropriateness is something else again. If enough of their viewers disagree, their viewer numbers may drop.

There are federal codes and regulations set on behalf of the public.

And which of these codes and/or regulations requires that SBG broadcast every Nightline show?

Correct. I see no legal foul.

Then why are we still typing?

What I do see is a overtly political move on behalf of the conservative Sinclair Broadcasting Group to prevent views from watching Nightline because it is an election year.

And the owners of SBG see that Nightline show as an overtly political move on behalf of the Democrats in an election year.

Sinclair had the right to prevent viewers from watching Nightline, but they still engaged in some form of censorship.

According to the definitions of "censor" and "official" provided by the Oxford Dictionary of Current English, there was no censorship.

Are you arguing that televisied news is not a means to provide information?

Nope. I am arguing that it is not the means to provide information. That information is readily available from other sources.

If there was indeed a political statement projected by Nightline, seems as though it would be quite subtle given the very simple format of the broadcast.

About as subtle as a fart in a bathysphere.

However, for the third time in this thread, may I repeat that it doesn't matter if pinksharkmark thinks it was a political ploy, it doesn't matter if Xochitl thinks it was a political ploy, what matters is that SBG thinks it was a political ploy, and as you have pointed out, they had every right to act as they did.

Due to the pure-fact nature of the program, the viewer does not receive nor is effected by the intention of the producers.

Oh, please. Did you see Schindler's List? What do you think the intention of the director was when he showed that little girl's coat in color? You needn't beat the viewer over the head in order to make a point. Subtlety works quite well. Sometimes it works better.

What do you think was the intention of the guy who wrote that piece on Jernigan I provided for you? Using facts and nothing but facts, he paints a pretty devastating picture of Mr. Jernigan, does he not?

What was the source and context of these quotes, by the way?

Look, I don't mind spoonfeeding folks on occasion. But this is getting just a little bit ridiculous. I provided the link. Go to the link, read it. There are embedded hyperlinks there which will take you to the entire telephone conversation with Koppel. I believe it is pointer.org who ran the interview, but I might be misremembering. In any event, going to my link will answer your question.

We all seem to disagree with what the nearly thousand dead Americans have accomplished - how on Earth would a news program present such information without straying heavily into bias-land?

By a simple reading of facts with accompanying photos, perhaps? Saddam removed from power and sitting in a jail cell. His sons and presumptive heirs dead. More than a hundred new Iraqi newspapers. Kiddy prisons empty. Hospitals open. You know -- simple facts, each accompanied by a simple photo. If your claim that simply reading a list of facts and showing photos can't be considered bias is an accurate one, then surely Ted squeezing in something like "And as we remember those who died, let us remember what it was they died for," and then rolling the simple reading of the facts I list above would not be considered biased.

Perhaps I am overlooking this information; please provide me with the exact same list of names, pictures, age, and rank of the 730+ dead American soliders from these other sources.

Well, that's a pretty tall order, but let's see if I can puzzle out the best way to do this. I know! How about if I were to open Google, type pictures and names of US troops killed in Iraq into the search window and press return? Done. What do I get? -- http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie...earch&meta=

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Let's click on the very first listing on this page http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/ and see what we have.

Gee. Might this be what you're looking for? You will note that in addition to all the details you requested, this page also lists the home towns of the soldiers and describes the circumstances surrounding their deaths. You will also note that this page has been around since last year, and that it is continually updated.

Finally, you will note that I didn't have to expend a whole lot of effort to obtain this information. It seemed the most logical way to find it was to ask a search engine to look for the "pictures and names of US troops killed in Iraq". Turns out it was. I feel so smart now.

Look, I don't mind spoonfeeding folks on occasion. But this is getting just a little bit ridiculous.

But in the specific case of Nightline, there was no spin; each accomplishment and each context of each individuals' death would be practically impossible to air within the television format without heavy political bias.

Incorrect. See my above suggestion re newspapers, prisons, hospitals, etc.

Are you arguing that when pure fact is presented it is biased by default?

You seem to be arguing that. What else do you mean when you say "how on Earth would a news program present such information without straying heavily into bias-land? It is simply not possible."

Pick a stance and stick with it.

Is the Vietnam War memorial (a pure-fact list of names and rank in chronological order of death) an anti-war or pro-war statement?

Is the Viet Nam Memorial a television broadcast? And I can't help noting that one must actually make some effort to view the Viet Nam Memorial.

Whether or not there was some subtle spin is irrevelent.

As long as that subtle spin accords with your worldview, huh?

For what it's worth, I personally would have let the show air if it had been up to me. There are far more egregious examples of media bias occurring daily. This doesn't change the fact that SBG did nothing wrong in choosing not to air it. And they certainly didn't engage in "censorship".

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinegermin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 17 years, 6 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2644399 - 05/06/04 07:57 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

KingOftheThing said:
well supposedly if you listen to Michael Powell(FCC Chairman) or Bill O'Reilly the airwaves are owned by the people.




This has been covered already by pinky.
Quote:


They are rented to these companies. So was it the people that didn't want the ABC show viewed?? no, it was a conservative media company, censoring a message they didnt want broadcast. THOSE AIRWAVES ARE OURS!!!!!




No, they aren't. They belong to the group that licenses them.
Quote:

it would be different if it was cable, something privately owned.




Cable still goes through public land.
Quote:


i think they should lose their broadcast license for not playing a show where they did nothing more than read names. There was no spin (i watched it) i was simply, names pictures and music.



I think you are wrong. Very wrong.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXochitl
synchronicitycircuit
Registered: 07/15/03
Posts: 1,241
Loc: the brainforest
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2645537 - 05/06/04 02:40 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

You still aren't grasping the concept. The public may be deemed to "own" the airwaves", but there is no possible way to pretend that the public owns the equipment which transmits content over those airwaves. I know of no other ways to dumb it down any further, so I will leave you to your own devices rather than repeat myself.




Read the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telcom Act of 1996, then maybe, you'll grasp the "concept." I am fully aware of its contents, unlike yourself.

Quote:


I don't assume that broadcasters can do "whatever they please". They can, however, choose not to air something they don't want to.




Not true. The major networks are required by FCC regulations to air equal coverage to both candidates or sides of an issue, for example. Therefore, they must air material even if they "dont want to."

Quote:

And the owners of SBG see that Nightline show as an overtly political move on behalf of the Democrats in an election year.




...if that is true, so what? The producers at ABC supposedly wanted to enact this anti-war episode of Nightline. Well, hidden intentions aside, all that came out was fact - plain and simple. This leaves the viewer to decide and interpret as they like. What is wrong with leaving things up to the viewer?

Quote:

According to the definitions of "censor" and "official" provided by the Oxford Dictionary of Current English, there was no censorship.




That is debatable.

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (one of the most widely used English dictionaries):

Main Entry: cen?sor?ship
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-s&r-"ship
Function: noun
1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoringb : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively

Also, from the Cambridge Dictionary:

censor

noun [C]
a person whose job is to read books, watch films, etc. in order to remove anything offensive from them, or who reads private letters, especially sent during war or from prison, to remove parts considered unsuitable

censor

verb [T]
The book was heavily censored when first published.

censorship

noun [U]
censorship of the press

As you can see, censorship is not exclusive to governmental authority.

Quote:

About as subtle as a fart in a bathysphere.




Well, the broadcast was purely fact. So, if there was any projected political agenda, it sure was hidden quite well.

Quote:

Oh, please. Did you see Schindler's List? What do you think the intention of the director was when he showed that little girl's coat in color? You needn't beat the viewer over the head in order to make a point. Subtlety works quite well. Sometimes it works better.




Are we talking about Schindler's List and symbolism in artistic works? We are talking about Nightline - the broadcast was nothing but names, faces, rank, and age. Ted Kopell did not suddenly turn pink and blue.

Quote:

By a simple reading of facts with accompanying photos, perhaps? Saddam removed from power and sitting in a jail cell. His sons and presumptive heirs dead. More than a hundred new Iraqi newspapers. Kiddy prisons empty. Hospitals open. You know -- simple facts, each accompanied by a simple photo.




Will your list include the hundreds upon hundreds of civilian deaths by Occupation forces as well as each of their individual stories? Or how about the rampant civil rights abuses? Without these, your list will not be accurate - only a biased expression.

Quote:

If your claim that simply reading a list of facts and showing photos can't be considered bias is an accurate one, then surely Ted squeezing in something like "And as we remember those who died, let us remember what it was they died for," and then rolling the simple reading of the facts I list above would not be considered biased.




Perhaps I am thinking a bit to realistic for you. See, in order to provide an entire picture of the last year, such a program would need to show all sides of the story. Now, try to do this within the television format such as the typically 30-minute Nightline broadcast. I do not think this is a realistic option, therefore, it is foolish to consider it has an option.

I think a simple list of names is sufficient as a tribute to their deaths like the Vietnam Memorial wall.

Quote:

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/




Thanks for this link - I guess I overlooked it. Good thing CNN and others allow its release, unlike Sinclair.

Hey - how come when Nightline provides such a list, it is political move worthy of censorship, but when CNN and others do the same, it is a presentation of information?

Quote:

Are you arguing that when pure fact is presented it is biased by default?

You seem to be arguing that. What else do you mean when you say "how on Earth would a news program present such information without straying heavily into bias-land? It is simply not possible."




That is not my argument. What I mean is: full-on analysis and/or presentation of all sides of the story leads into bias given the limitations of the television format. We all have our own critique of what is and what is not an accomplishment and surely not every opinion will be presented - giving favor only to a few. The only way to efficiently reduce bias to an inconsequential level is through a presentation of pure facts.

Your fireman example was incredibly contrived, detailed, and complex, by the way - completely unlike the simple Nightline broadcast of the list.

Quote:

Is the Viet Nam Memorial a television broadcast? And I can't help noting that one must actually make some effort to view the Viet Nam Memorial.




No, it is a practically identical list as that of what Nighlined aired and Sinclair prevented viewers from seeing. I would say that the Vietnam memorial wall is just as accessible (in terms of its gravity and content) and in the minds of the general American public then the names, faces, ranks, and ages of the near- thousand dead Americans from Iraq. Every american history/social studies textbook from the 6th grade, well into college contains pictures and a description of the wall.

Google comes up with the following hits:
102,000 for "pictures and names of US troops killed in Iraq"
887,000 for "Vietnam Memorial"

And considering that fact that you are not an American, you would probably not know that there are several replicas of the Vietnam Memorial wall that criss-cross the nation. They are intended to be displayed in every city - so if the replicas havent come to your town, they will. Is this an anti-war protest?

Quote:

For what it's worth, I personally would have let the show air if it had been up to me.




Good, glad you agree with me.

Quote:

And they certainly didn't engage in "censorship".




According the Merriam-Webster dictionary and the Cambridge University dictionary, Sinclair did engage in censorship. And if you ask anyone here in America who knows about the situation and isnt interested in playing semantics games, most would say that it was a form of censorship.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 26,403
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 hours, 18 minutes
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Xochitl]
    #2645665 - 05/06/04 03:24 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

I'm not defending Sinclair's decision, but they are well within their legal rights on this.


--------------------
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


LET'S GO, DARWIN!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2646117 - 05/06/04 05:04 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

not on public airwaves


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,246
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2646124 - 05/06/04 05:05 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

i think they should lose their broadcast license for not playing a show where they did nothing more than read names.



So you think the Feds should tell broadcasters what they must broadcast?


:lol:

Congrats..... the new dumbest post ever!


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,246
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2646133 - 05/06/04 05:07 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

If only others thought processes and IQ's were equal to your patience.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2646180 - 05/06/04 05:14 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:

i think they should lose their broadcast license for not playing a show where they did nothing more than read names.



So you think the Feds should tell broadcasters what they must broadcast?


:lol:

Congrats..... the new dumbest post ever!




no but censoring the show was an un-ethical business practice over our airwaves. what recourse do i have that this PARTISAN media company is censoring something on my airwaves??? pull their liscense for censoring on a political bias


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2646195 - 05/06/04 05:17 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

in dictatorships, where the tv is state run they hide the truth from the public.death is part of war, we should be able to see coffins and memorial shows. is that what you want in the USA?? LDS, sounds like you want to live in iran, i'll chip in for your plane ticket :smile:


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,246
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2646234 - 05/06/04 05:24 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

You obviously do not understand what the word censor means. Nor do you understand what an unethical business practise is if you think this was one.

As pinky has pointed out but you seem to fail to grasp is there are no rules requiring a company to broadcast something, hence nothing to pull their license over.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,246
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2646240 - 05/06/04 05:25 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

LDS, sounds like you want to live in iran, i'll chip in for your plane ticket



Damn shame about there being a no flame rule. That sentence is so stupid it screams out for one.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinegermin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 17 years, 6 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2646757 - 05/06/04 07:22 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

KingOftheThing said:
in dictatorships, where the tv is state run they hide the truth from the public.death is part of war, we should be able to see coffins and memorial shows. is that what you want in the USA?? LDS, sounds like you want to live in iran, i'll chip in for your plane ticket :smile:



Explain how the Sinclair Group prevented you from seeing coffins or memorial shows. Did they put a legal injunction on the show's producers not to show it? No. Did they gouge your eyes out? No. As pinky showed, it's very simple to find this information. So, since you said that "we should be able to...", and we still can, whats the problem? do you favor governmental censorship?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Boycott Sinclair Broadcasting advertisers fft2 918 0 10/20/04 02:53 PM
by fft2
* Protest Sinclair fft2 696 0 10/20/04 02:54 PM
by fft2
* Neocon agenda
( 1 2 all )
Moonshoe 2,078 29 09/19/04 03:30 AM
by ekomstop
* Cases filed in the Minnesota District Court (Sinclair vs. Obama) lonestar2004 1,162 17 02/25/08 01:53 PM
by HighHat
* Sinclair's News Story Tonight JesusChrist 402 2 10/22/04 08:09 PM
by Phred
* Neocons and psychedelics
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Xlea321 9,390 152 04/20/06 08:05 PM
by Luddite
* Boiled Angel -- In 1994 A guy in florida was arrested for drawing dirty pictures. Baby_Hitler 2,465 2 10/08/05 06:59 PM
by bukkake
* poll about bush (mostly for repubs/neocons) KingOftheThing 919 14 09/28/04 08:06 PM
by JesusChrist

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,000 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2022 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.062 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 18 queries.