NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Yet another example of the US military doing good things for people and never getting any credit in the media.


Marine, sailors treat more than
2,000 patients in Pakistan (http://www.military.com/earlybrief/0,,,00.html)


Shinkiari, PAKISTAN — Hundreds of people line up every morning outside the gates of the Junior Leader’s Academy here in Shinkiari, Pakistan, with hopes of alleviating pain, repairing broken bones, and finally cleaning out the infections that have gone far too long untreated the devastating earthquake Oct. 8. By the end of November, the Marines and sailors from the 3rd Marine Logistics Group, Okinawa, Japan, had treated more than 2,000 patients.
“It is very rewarding to treat kids,” said Navy Lt. Oksana Hirniak, general medical officer from 3rd Marine Logistics Group. “It puts things in perspective helping young children because they’ll remember the U.S. doctors 20 years from now. It makes a positive and lasting impression.”

The doctors and nurses have treated patients for pelvic fractures, respiratory diseases, cardiac diseases, infections, and burns. Numerous surgeries, intubations, and dental procedures have also been performed since the team arrived Nov. 15.

With an emergency room, X-ray capability, pharmacy, laboratory, and an operating room, the Marines and sailors are prepared to provide vital medical care needed by the Pakistani people. Services not available here have been referred or Medevac’d to hospitals with the appropriate capabilities.

The medical team’s four ambulances brought from Okinawa, Japan, have already covered hundreds of kilometers around the Shinkiari area, conducting medevacs to other hospitals and medical facilities.

“It’s deeply gratifying to know that we’ve had such a significant impact,” said Commander Tom Davis, senior medical officer for Combined Medical Relief Team 3. “It’s emotionally trying to witness the suffering of the Pakistani people, but it feels good knowing you’re making a difference one life at a time.”

The Marines and sailors are deployed from III Marine Expeditionary Force located on Okinawa, Japan. Past deployments include Operation Unified Assistance, where thousands of Marines and sailors deployed to Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and Thailand in support of tsunami relief.

good stories dont sell papers like bad ones?

I've got to agree. The News only airs stories that will get attention and raise ratings. They don't act on issues of morality.

If the headline was Marine, sailors treat more than 2,000 patients in Pakistan, and then eat the heads of CHILDREN!, we'd all hear about it.

Besides, no one wants to hear good things about the US. If all we hear are bad things, after a while we may start to believe the US sucks as much as other people wish it did.

good stories dont sell papers like bad ones?
True, but this is, at least to me, a very interesting story with a great human-interest angle. So why couldn't the frakking media make one little exception to their "bad news is good news" idiocy and publish this? How many papers would they have NOT sold because they published it? How much advertising would they have lost? Answer: NONE! :mad:

True, but this is, at least to me, a very interesting story with a great human-interest angle. So why couldn't the frakking media make one little exception to their "bad news is good news" idiocy and publish this? How many papers would they have NOT sold because they published it? How much advertising would they have lost? Answer: NONE! :mad:
in the words of Buddha, the world sucks get over it

Because the civilian media isn't tasked with bolstering the morale of the troops?

Despite your efforts to paint the civilian world as a bunch of frothing at the mouth soldier haters, we expect our soldiers to do things like this, we assume that they do, they're good cats. It's not news to us, it doesn't have to be reported because we know they do it. What's news is when our expectations are not met.

Because the media doesn't give 2 shits about the earthquake anymore. It's more about that than it is about the US not getting any credit.

Because the civilian media isn't tasked with bolstering the morale of the troops?

Despite your efforts to paint the civilian world as a bunch of frothing at the mouth soldier haters, we expect our soldiers to do things like this, we assume that they do, they're good cats. It's not news to us, it doesn't have to be reported because we know they do it. What's news is when our expectations are not met.
The constant drumbeat of negative news, about anything, colors perceptions. Go ahead ... deny it. :p

The constant drumbeat of negative news, about anything, colors perceptions. Go ahead ... deny it. :p
If there is one thing you'd know about, it'd be a constant drumbeat...;)

We expect this to happen therefore the media ignore it. I'm afraid thats just the nature of the beast

If there is one thing you'd know about, it'd be a constant drumbeat...;)
[ holds up a mirror for Cannot ] See that? :D

We expect this to happen therefore the media ignore it. I'm afraid thats just the nature of the beast
[ hauls out elephant gun ... shoots beast ] There. All better now! :D

[ holds up a mirror for Cannot ] See that? :D
Without looking, name five threads I've started. Name three specific causes I've championed. Don't project your mess on me.

The truth of the matter is, we report "Building Catches Fire," not "Firemen put out Building on Fire." And you know how we hate firemen because of it...

The truth of the matter is, we report "Building Catches Fire," not "Firemen put out Building on Fire." And you know how we hate firemen because of it...

Not a very good analogy.

The truth of the matter is, we report, "US troops get killed in bomb blast" or "US troops fight losing battle against insurgents" or "US troops commit abuses" - never "US troops build school" or "US troops restore clean water service" or "US troops give medical aid to 2000 civilians".

No, it's always a picture of failure, abuse, and violence - and it's done because the people who write the stories and edit the stories hate the military.

Sorry, talked to too many reporters who said they can't submit stories or pictures that don't involve violence by US soldiers, or dead US soldiers, or abuse by US soldiers. In fact, CNN even fired a reporter in Baghdad because he couldn't find any events involving abuse of local Iraqi civilians by US soldiers. He tried to submit stories of nice things happenning instead, and he was fired.

Actually, except in extreme cases, "Soldiers die" rarely get much billing in the news anymore. Given the almost complete lack of in-country video coverage of Iraq these days you could almost begin to think that it wasn't happening except for the constant Battles Of The Pundits.

When's the last time anyone SAW much footage from any of the initiatives they keep telling us are going on to quell the insurgency?

Fact is, there is almost a complete media blackout on actual war coverage - both from the negative or positive sides.

Actually, except in extreme cases, "Soldiers die" rarely get much billing in the news anymore. Given the almost complete lack of in-country video coverage of Iraq these days you could almost begin to think that it wasn't happening except for the constant Battles Of The Pundits.

When's the last time anyone SAW much footage from any of the initiatives they keep telling us are going on to quell the insurgency?

Fact is, there is almost a complete media blackout on actual war coverage - both from the negative or positive sides.

No, you get more stories from having a Democrat stand up on the Hill and assert that either the war is completely and utterly lost and we should leave tomorrow, or that the military is in a complete shambles. Then pundits will sit around and bandy that back and forth until your brain is numb.

I honestly think that most Americans are bored with Iraq - there's no way to get them truly excited about it either way, and most Americans probably no longer care.

COMMENTARY: Yet another example of the US military doing good things for people and never getting any credit in the media.

Here's a civilian rag reporting the story for you:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/1124dnintusquake.125d2f18.html

Happy now? It ain't just the military rags covering it.

Here's a civilian rag reporting the story for you:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/1124dnintusquake.125d2f18.html

Happy now? It ain't just the military rags covering it.

No, we want to see it on a major news network other than Fox News - or we want to see it on the front page of either the New York Times or Washington Post.

No, we want to see it on a major news network other than Fox News - or we want to see it on the front page of either the New York Times or Washington Post.

I hope journalistic principles can stand against such furthered erosion, then, shaky as they are already.

Am I the only one who remembers that journalism is about criticism and not about ideological rimjobs?

I hope journalistic principles can stand against such furthered erosion, then, shaky as they are already.

Am I the only one who remembers that journalism is about criticism and not about ideological rimjobs?

You mean the rimjobs that the American press was constantly giving Bill Clinton for eight years?

Here's a civilian rag reporting the story for you:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/1124dnintusquake.125d2f18.html

Happy now? It ain't just the military rags covering it.
Ooooooooo! The Dallas Daily News! Wow! With coverage like that, who needs a Public Relations office! :rolleyes:

COMMENTARY: Yet another example of the US military doing good things for people and never getting any credit in the media.
It's been covered on the BBC's Newsnight - and they're supposedly part of the anti-military Liberal Conspiracy. I've noticed that claims that some part of the media isn't covering a story usually turn out to be false.

You mean the rimjobs that the American press was constantly giving Bill Clinton for eight years?
LOL! They would positively have orgasms everytime he opened his mouth! :D

It's been covered on the BBC's Newsnight - and they're supposedly part of the anti-military Liberal Conspiracy. I've noticed that claims that some part of the media isn't covering a story usually turn out to be false.
Haven't heard it on BBC World (radio).

No, Safalra, we're looking for it as a front page headline story. Not something buried at night or on the back pages. The lead story.

You mean the rimjobs that the American press was constantly giving Bill Clinton for eight years?

Yeah, those media circuses around Whitewater, and nannygate and the Lewinsky affaire were so kind to him.

Am I the only one who wonders when right-wing USians will get over "oh, oh, but Clinton!"?

Haven't heard it on BBC World (radio).

No, Safalra, we're looking for it as a front page headline story. Not something buried at night or on the back pages. The lead story.
In two pages we've gone from 'any mention' to 'lead story.' Says it all, really.

Yeah, those media circuses around Clintongate and the Lewinsky affaire were so kind to him.

Am I the only one who wonders when right-wing USians will get over "oh, oh, but Clinton!"?
Heh! Good thing I'm no longer placing people on my "Ignore List" for using that derogatory term, Fass. You don't belong there! :p

Ooooooooo! The Dallas Daily News! Wow! With coverage like that, who needs a Public Relations office! :rolleyes:

As you're already rolling your eyes you might want to roll them back towards your opening comment. The fact is that it is a false one:

COMMENTARY: Yet another example of the US military doing good things for people and never getting any credit in the media.

Heh! Good thing I'm no longer placing people on my "Ignore List" for using that derogatory term, Fass. You don't belong there! :p

What derogatory term? "Right-wing"? It's a bit stupid being it, yeah, but the term being derogatory? Come now.

Yeah, those media circuses around Clintongate and the Lewinsky affaire were so kind to him.

Am I the only one who wonders when right-wing USians will get over "oh, oh, but Clinton!"?

It's not a matter of "getting over". You would just like everyone to forget the enormous bias that was present during the 1990s. A bias that was admitted by many CBS news reporters (with the exception of Dan Rather, who thought he was unbiased to the end). A bias that is obvious to me.

Today, viewers and readers are voting with their pocketbook. They're switching to Fox News (even though it's biased the other way). They're not re-subscribing to the New York Times, LA Times, and Washington Post.

You're watching the death slide of the liberal media.

No, Safalra, we're looking for it as a front page headline story. Not something buried at night or on the back pages. The lead story.

What in particular about this story makes it worthy of the front page?

What in particular about this story makes it worthy of the front page?

What makes "10 Marines killed in bomb blast" a front page story?

In this story, 2,000 people are helped. In the other story, 10 Marines are killed.

It's not a matter of "getting over". You would just like everyone to forget the enormous bias that was present during the 1990s. A bias that was admitted by many CBS news reporters (with the exception of Dan Rather, who thought he was unbiased to the end). A bias that is obvious to me.

Oh, the irony.

Today, viewers and readers are voting with their pocketbook. They're switching to Fox News (even though it's biased the other way). They're not re-subscribing to the New York Times, LA Times, and Washington Post.

You're watching the death slide of the liberal media.

How can something that does not exist have a death?

Oh, the irony.

How can something that does not exist have a death?

Walter Cronkite says it most definitely existed, and he promoted it.

It certainly exists in newsrooms around the US.

What makes "10 Marines killed in bomb blast" a front page story? In this story, 2,000 people are helped. In the other story, 10 Marines are killed.

Are you serious with this question? Because it is a bit of a stupid question, really.

Are you serious with this question? Because it is a bit of a stupid question, really.
Quite serious.

What makes "10 Marines killed in bomb blast" a front page story?

In this story, 2,000 people are helped. In the other story, 10 Marines are killed.


Dog bites man. Man bites dog.

Walter Cronkite says it most definitely existed, and he promoted it.

Who?

It certainly exists in newsrooms around the US.

Reading and watching it could have fooled me.

Quite serious.

Then you know nothing about media.

What makes "10 Marines killed in bomb blast" a front page story?

In this story, 2,000 people are helped. In the other story, 10 Marines are killed.
Me thinks you may have more of a problem with human nature (as far as entertainment goes) then the media itself

What makes a front page story is how it draws readers, apparently more people are attracted to the dark rather then the good side of human nature (at least entertainment wise)

Who?


You have no idea who Walter Cronkite is? The most popular newsman in US history? The dean of the evening news? The guiding light for CBS News for years?

No, Safalra, we're looking for it as a front page headline story. Not something buried at night or on the back pages. The lead story.
Why should it be the lead story? Even military.com puts it lower than a story saying "The Defense Department announced Monday that it has received a green light to award performance based raises to its Senior Executive Service members in 2006".

You have no idea who Walter Cronkite is? The most popular newsman in US history? The dean of the evening news? The guiding light for CBS News for years?

How well acquainted are you with Swedish newscasters?

How well acquainted are you with Swedish newscasters?
I'm not going around saying that Swedish newscasters have no bias.

You have no idea who Walter Cronkite is? The most popular newsman in US history? The dean of the evening news? The guiding light for CBS News for years?

Here's a little secret: CBS News is to my knowledge not broadcast in Europe. American pseudo-celebrities are not always so known here. Oh, and not to mention that international US networks don't seem to air the same programmes to the foreign market - case in point, CNN.

Here's a little secret: CBS is not broadcast in Europe. American pseudo-celebrities are not always so known here. Oh, and not to mention that international US networks don't seem to air the same programmes to the foreign market - case in point, CNN.
Then you're not in a position to assert that there's no anti-right bias in the US press

No, we want to see it on a major news network other than Fox News - or we want to see it on the front page of either the New York Times or Washington Post.

Sheesh... you guyst just don;t look very hard do you.

You want to see a good news Military help in Paklistan story picked up? Well, let's see....

ABC News good enough?
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1373982&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

MSNBC? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10338146/from/RSS/

The Philly papers? http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/90-12052005-579734.html

San Jose? http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/13339120.htm?source=rss&channel=mercurynews_world

San Francisco? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/12/05/international/i092932S21.DTL&feed=rss.news

Oh hell, look at the list yourselves...

http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=Muhamad+Nawaz+&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&datesort=1&x=wrt


Shit - even Pravda printed it.

Sheesh... you guyst just don;t look very hard do you.

You want to see a good news Military help in Paklistan story picked up? Well, let's see....

ABC News good enough?
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1373982&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

MSNBC? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10338146/from/RSS/

The Philly papers? http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/90-12052005-579734.html

San Jose? http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/13339120.htm?source=rss&channel=mercurynews_world

San Francisco? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/12/05/international/i092932S21.DTL&feed=rss.news

Oh hell, look at the list yourselves...

http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=Muhamad+Nawaz+&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&datesort=1&x=wrt


Shit - even Pravda printed it.

Lead story please.

Sheesh... you guyst just don;t look very hard do you.

You want to see a good news Military help in Paklistan story picked up? Well, let's see....


Ah yes, but all these have less value than in-house propaganda organs as they only appear in 'civilian rags'...

Then you're not in a position to assert that there's no anti-right bias in the US press

Oh, but US press is quite available, in print (my local news kiosk carries all major US dailies, not to mention the French, British, Italian, German etc. ones) as well as in electronic form.

Lead story please.

Why the fuck should it be a lead story in a civilian paper when the military themselves (as has been shown) don't even consider it to be worthy of such a position?

Oh, but US press is quite available, in print (my local news kiosk carries all major US dailies, not to mention the French, British, Italian, German etc. ones) as well as in electronic form.

Then you'll be able to explain who Walter Cronkite is. And explain his admission that reporters are naturally of a liberal bias, that he slanted his stories that way, that CBS has a tradition of doing it that way...

Lead story please.

You think this should be a lead story? Not even the military had it as that.

Ah yes, but all these have less value than in-house propaganda organs as they only appear in 'civilian rags'...
Glad you like my choice of words! :D

Lead story please.


Ohhhhhh - it has to be on the front page?

Sometimes things get pushed down a bit. You know, they hit the wires on the same day as a plane crashes into a building or something....

Nor can you often tell the placement of a story from the web. for all you or I know it WAS a front page story on the day it was published on some of those.


BEsides, in most areas unless it was a slow news day - A story that goes: "We're STILL Helping a month later" is probably not a front page story.

The very term NEWS implies reporting on what's new. This is nice, but it's NOT NEW!!

Then you'll be able to explain who Walter Cronkite is.

Unfortunately not, since I skip sections on celebrities and entertainment.

And explain his admission that reporters are naturally of a liberal bias, that he slanted his stories that way, that CBS has a tradition of doing it that way...

Why should I have to explain what a celebrity thinks?

Why the fuck should it be a lead story in a civilian paper when the military themselves (as has been shown) don't even consider it to be worthy of such a position?
Some people have irrational requests

Unfortunately not, since I skip sections on celebrities and entertainment.

Why should I have to explain what a celebrity thinks?

He's not a celebrity. He's considered one of the best newsmen/reporters that the US has ever produced. A protege of Ed Murrow.

...because the liberal media wants President Buish to look bad. And one way to make President Bush look bad is to ignore good news/only tell bad news from Afghanistan and Iraq.

While I don't agree with the point, I understand what they're saying. "Soldier Dies in War", an expected event, often makes the front page, but "Soldier Aids Injured in a Warzone", another expected event, never makes the front page.

It's obvious that this is true, but the reasons behind it I simply don't agree with. The media goes with the stories that get them the biggest share. If "Soldier Dies in War" will attract more readers/viewers than "Soldier Aids Injured in a Warzone" then they will definitely put "Soldier Dies in War" in the position of honor over the opposite story. That's what you call market forces.

Deep Kimchi, you commented that people are voting with their dollar, if you really want to change things keep doing so. The media is how it is because people have been voting with their dollar for a long time to see certain types of stories. The media is not biased left or right. They're not biased black or white. They're looking forward at the green.

He's not a celebrity.

You portray him as such - quasi-famous and all.

He's considered one of the best newsmen/reporters that the US has ever produced. A protege of Ed Murrow.

Again, why should I have to explain what he thinks? His thoughts are his.

Deep Kimchi, you commented that people are voting with their dollar, if you really want to change things keep doing so. The media is how it is because people have been voting with their dollar for a long time to see certain types of stories. The media is not biased left or right. They're not biased black or white. They're looking forward at the green.

Like I said, the green is already shifting away from news organizations in the US that are perceived as "liberal".

Like I said, the green is already shifting away from news organizations in the US that are perceived as "liberal".

Then there is no need to complain. Things are shifting in your direction. Do cartwheels.

You portray him as such - quasi-famous and all.



Again, why should I have to explain what he thinks? His thoughts are his.

Fass, the important part is not that he's famous, it's that he's a very respected member of the media. His stories earned awards. His stories got people to tune in. And after leaving the news desk he admitted his bias. That's the point. It's not that he's a celebrity. It's that he's a newsman that many people in the US seek to emulate.

...because the liberal media wants President Buish to look bad. And one way to make President Bush look bad is to ignore good news/only tell bad news from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Really? that there evil liberal news
You know cause msnbc and abc had reports of this

But somehow fox managed to miss it from what I have found so far

Seems like the civilian "liberal" news sites are reporting more then the non liberal ones

Somehow your theory falls short

Fass, the important part is not that he's famous, it's that he's a very respected member of the media. His stories earned awards. His stories got people to tune in. And after leaving the news desk he admitted his bias. That's the point. It's not that he's a celebrity. It's that he's a newsman that many people in the US seek to emulate.

Oh, well, apart from the bold bit, it seems that his celebrity status fails to impress me, which seemed to have been the purpose of the name-drop. I was supposed to hear "Walter Cronkite" and take his presumed (I've not read it, so I am allowed scepticism against what Deep Kimchi claims, since he has a history of being less than truthful) admission of own journalistic failure to be, well, what, exactly? Important in some way for an entire profession and for supporting conspiratorial claims?

Oh, well, apart from the bold bit, it seems that his celebrity status fails to impress me, which seemed to have been the purpose of the name-drop. I was supposed to hear "Walter Cronkite" and take his presumed (I've not read it, so I am allowed scepticism against what Deep Kimchi claims, since he has a history of being less than truthful) admission of own journalistic failure to be, well, what, exactly? Important in some way for an entire profession and for supporting conspiratorial claims?
YES! There are conspiracies EVERYWHERE!

<_< >_>

Oh, well, apart from the bold bit, it seems that his celebrity status fails to impress me, which seemed to have been the purpose of the name-drop. I was supposed to hear "Walter Cronkite" and take his presumed (I've not read it, so I am allowed scepticism against what Deep Kimchi claims, since he has a history of being less than truthful) admission of own journalistic failure to be, well, what, exactly? Important in some way for an entire profession and for supporting conspiratorial claims?
Cronkite didn't see liberal bias as a journalistic failure. He saw it as an obligation for all journalists - if you didn't have liberal bias, you had no journalistic integrity.

Cronkite didn't see liberal bias as a journalistic failure. He saw it as an obligation for all journalists - if you didn't have liberal bias, you had no journalistic integrity.

Interesting. Still doesn't phase me with relevance, though.

Interesting. Still doesn't phase me with relevance, though.
Most American journalists view him as the perfect model reporter.

He had a profound influence on CBS, as well as on the news reporting of most American news networks and papers.

Most American journalists view him as the perfect model reporter.

They do?

He had a profound influence on CBS, as well as on the news reporting of most American news networks and papers.

So be it, I suppose, acquiescing to the claim, but so? How does this 'cause the "evil, librul media"?

So be it, I suppose, acquiescing to the claim, but so? How does this 'cause the "evil, librul media"?
"Gawd-day-umed lubruls! Shoot 'em all, sez I!" :p

"Gawd-day-umed lubruls! Shoot 'em all, sez I!" :p

Sez I, too*, but our liberals aren't your liberals. :p

*I don't really.

They do?

So be it, I suppose, acquiescing to the claim, but so? How does this 'cause the "evil, librul media"?

Not saying it's evil. But after years of denying it, (even Cronkite denying it), we now have the admission.

Even Dan Rather wouldn't admit it, even at the end. Even though the bias in running an obviously fake memo is rather telling - even after it comes out that the memo is fake. Cronkite trained Rather.

Others have seen similar bias in other news outlets, only to hear the same nonsensical denials. Given the respect and admiration with which most reporters see Cronkite and have modeled their journalistic approach after his, it's obvious to me that most of the journalists working in the US are liberals, and let it affect their reporting - because they see it as a sign of their integrity.

Not saying it's evil. But after years of denying it, (even Cronkite denying it), we now have the admission.

Even Dan Rather wouldn't admit it, even at the end. Even though the bias in running an obviously fake memo is rather telling - even after it comes out that the memo is fake. Cronkite trained Rather.

Others have seen similar bias in other news outlets, only to hear the same nonsensical denials. Given the respect and admiration with which most reporters see Cronkite and have modeled their journalistic approach after his, it's obvious to me that most of the journalists working in the US are liberals, and let it affect their reporting - because they see it as a sign of their integrity.

Oh, yes, a single admission. Well, there we have it. Irrefutability, thy name is this.

Oh, yes, a single admission. Well, there we have it. Irrefutability, thy name is this.

Again, you cannot discount the influence this single person had on the face of American journalism. It would be like Washington admitting that in writing the first amendment they discussed how this could eventually destroy all religion. It's still just one man, but, given the profound influence of this one man, it's very telling.

EDIT: I still don't believe there is generally a liberal bias in the media as much as there are particular slants of individual news sources, some worse than others. I think for the most part that the news is geared towards sales however.

So, to see if I understand the seque...


After numerous people pointing out that the story HAD recieved the wider dissemination in the mainstream media that we were told it wasn't getting, what we have devolved to is a very basic complaint that: Dan Rather = Liberal ergo Media = Liberal ergo Media = teh suxxor.



I mean, given that this supposedly liberal media did carry the story which it was accused of not carrying.... becuase, after all, it's so liberal.... the argument now is that it DID carry it, but that's still not a good enough thing because its.... liberal.

A de facto argument that it isn't doing it's job based on a specious allegation derived from a single source (try looking into what journalism school says about corroberation)



Am I confused or are people now complaining that the media did exactly what they wanted it to?

Is this just for the purposes of complaining perhaps?

So, to see if I understand the seque...


After numerous people pointing out that the story HAD recieved the wider dissemination in the mainstream media that we were told it wasn't getting, what we have devolved to is a very basic complaint that: Dan Rather = Liberal ergo Media = Liberal ergo Media = teh suxxor.



I mean, given that this supposedly liberal media did carry the story which it was accused of not carrying.... becuase, after all, it's so liberal.... the argument now is that it DID carry it, but that's still not a good enough thing because its.... liberal.

A de facto argument that it isn't doing it's job based on a specious allegation derived from a single source (try looking into what journalism school says about corroberation)



Am I confused or are people now complaining that the media did exactly what they wanted it to?

Is this just for the purposes of complaining perhaps?

The conversation about the story (which in and of itself wasn't built to last long) evolved into a conversation about the media in general. Threads do that sometimes. Most of us view it as a good thing.

As far as the single source, their is a relative mountain of evidence of the bias of CBS and of the bias of Fox News. To pretend like anyone is relying on a single source is rather ridiculous. And what do journalism schools say about when that single-source is admitting something that is evidenced in actions and that single-source is a powerful person within the organization you're investigating. Do you think people would rightfully find it credible if Michael Jordan gave us some insight into how the Bulls played basketball in the 90's? Would we find it more credible if his story exactly matched up with the basketball playing we saw? You don't like what Cronkite said so you pretend like it's not credible or corroborated. The evidence is overwhelming.

The more important question is, is a single news outlet evidence of a nation-wide media conspiracy? My answer is no.