| Page 2 of 4 < > |
All Violence All The Time
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
"In Fallujah, the people watch Al Jazeerah. However, they also watch CNN. A lot of them fear that the United States will soon cut and run. The people of Iraq see when our country is divided. When they see rallies to 'Bring The Troops Home,' they see that as a sign that we will end our efforts prematurely."
By that logic, though, no American could ever dissent from any war, no matter how wrong-headed, because our troops were involved and we must support the troops.
HuffPost blogger Marty Kaplan says we need less tabloid fare and more graphic war coverage:
"What would cable news look like if it covered the deaths and injuries of American armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same rate that it covers domestic mayhem?
"Anyone who's watched CNN, MSNBC or Fox News Channel has noticed that what has long been a staple of local television news has now gone national.
"A murder story, or a feared-murdered story, that once would be covered only in its own media market, is now a candidate for coast-to-coast airplay. Of course, if the victim (or presumed victim) is white, female or blonde, chances are it'll be a runner for months; hit the trifecta, and we're talking practically 24/7 coverage.
"So let's see. If you take the amount of time that Greta and Rita and Anderson et al currently spend on a typical day on sensational crimes here at home . . . and divide that by the number of victims, and then multiply that per capita coverage times the number of Americans daily wounded or killed in the war . . . let's see . . . carry the seven . . . it looks like there would no time left for any of the cable channels to cover anything but casualties. No Michael Jackson, no runaway bride, no Natalee; just American troops, doing their patriotic job, and paying a terrible price.
"There is no risk that this will happen. American correspondents in Iraq and Afghanistan note that they are getting less and less airtime for their stories. War coverage is now considered by news executives to be a 'downer.' While it's believed that missing and presumed dead white women are inexhaustibly thrilling to American audiences, comparably detailed stories about American soldiers fallen in battle are thought to depress and fatigue viewers."
Quite an interesting contrast.
I see the Iraqi prime minister is promising to release 2,500 prisoners in an effort at national reconciliation. He's got to do something, with each day bringing new atrocities.
On to the amendment that only seems to surface in even-numbered years: At Public Eye, Brian Montopoli thinks the jig is up, politically speaking:
"I suspect that on this issue many in the national media, who live in relatively gay-friendly cities like New York, side with gay marriage advocates. But one could also argue that they're not that far from typical Americans in the issue, as National Journal's William Powers did in February 2004:


