O'Reilly: NBC News "jazzed" over "[d]ead Afghan kids killed in an American air strike"
During the "Talking Points Memo" segment of the June 19 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, responding to the coverage by network newscasts of the deaths of seven Afghan children in a recent air strike in eastern Afghanistan, host Bill O'Reilly said "last night, all three network newscasts reported seven Afghan children were killed in fighting between the Taliban and U.S. forces. ABC News spent 15 seconds on the story, just told you about it. CBS News, 10 seconds. But NBC News gave it a full two minutes." O'Reilly continued: "Dead Afghan kids killed in an American air strike, NBC News is jazzed. But why? You make the call." He later asserted that "we don't censor the news on The Factor; we tell you the truth about Iraq and everywhere else. But we don't help the terrorists either, and that separates us from some in the anti-war press."
Also, remarking on a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism -- which found that Fox News spent far less time covering the conflict than CNN and MSNBC -- O'Reilly said: "The liberal press has made a big deal about the fact that Fox News devotes less time to Iraq than our competitors at CNN and MSNBC. The question is what kind of coverage are you getting from them and others who show carnage without context." O'Reilly continued: "Again, 'Talking Points' asserts that showing pictures of terrorist activity, purely for the visual, helps the terrorists and doesn't advance the Iraq story." He later concluded: "But we don't help the terrorists either, and that separates us from some in the anti-war press."
A week before, on the June 12 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, O'Reilly also attacked NBC and stated: "This is ridiculous. NBC News has imploded. I was talking to an NBC News pretty high up guy yesterday, and he admits it. I'm not gonna tell you who it was, but he says, 'It's chaos.' " O'Reilly continued: "I mean, they have no standards at all over there. Everything has collapsed." O'Reilly's assertion came after he aired a clip of NBC chief foreign correspondent Andrea Mitchell's statement during the June 12 edition of NBC's Today that "immigration reform is a critical test" for "this lame duck president." He asserted: "You can't be saying 'lame duck president.' Even if you think it, you don't say it if you're a reporter." (O'Reilly seems to have overlooked examples of Fox News' anchors and reporters referring to President Bush and former President Bill Clinton as lame ducks. For instance, during the January 1 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News White House correspondent Wendell Goler said of Bush: "As a lame duck, he can afford to ask the Democrats for the immigration reforms that Republicans rejected, perhaps in exchange for Social Security reforms most Democrats say are too much like privatization.")
O'Reilly's attacks on Mitchell and NBC are O'Reilly's latest salvos in an ongoing feud between Fox News and NBC/MSNBC, a conflict Media Matters for America has extensively documented (here, here, here, and here). Examples include:
- During the June 12 broadcast of O'Reilly's radio show, the same edition during which he attacked Mitchell, O'Reilly asserted, responding to the PEJ study: "In my opinion, CNN and especially MSNBC delight in showing Iraqi violence because they want Americans to think badly of President Bush. And that strategy has succeeded."
- On the March 8 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly complained that, in his coverage of the Iraq war, NBC News Middle East correspondent Richard Engel didn't report that violence had decreased in Baghdad, saying: "[W]hat Richard Engel and [Nightly News anchor] Brian Williams did not report...is that violence has dropped about 80 percent in Baghdad singe the surge, according to the army." In fact, on the March 5 edition of Nightly News, Engle did report the Army's claim that "in the past few weeks, violence in the Sadr City area [of Baghdad] is way down. In December, there were 254 murders, 440 attacks. In February, just 19 murders, 91 total attacks."
From the June 19 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight.
Surging in Iraq, that's the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." American troops are aggressively seeking out terrorists in Iraq right now. It is impossible to know how successful the operation is at this point, but I hope -- I hope -- our forces are successful. I want the USA to stabilize that country and deal a huge blow to terrorism worldwide. But not everybody in the media feels that way.
A good outcome in Iraq might be impossible, however, because many Iraqis are not helping coalition forces, and the USA can't pacify Iraq without the majority of Iraqis on our side, which they are not. So if the Iraqis don't wise up soon, U.S. forces will pull back. So now you're up to date on Iraq, and I didn't have to show you any terror bombings to make my points.
But last night, all three network newscasts reported seven Afghan children were killed in fighting between the Taliban and U.S. forces. ABC News spent 15 seconds on the story, just told you about it. CBS News, 10 seconds. But NBC News gave it a full two minutes. Dead Afghan kids killed in an American air strike, NBC News is jazzed. But why? You make the call.
The liberal press has made a big deal out of the fact that Fox News devotes less time to Iraq than our competitors at CNN and MSNBC. The question is, what kind of coverage are you getting from them and others who show carnage without context?
Again, "Talking Points" asserts that showing pictures of terrorist activity, purely for the visual, helps the terrorists and doesn't advance the Iraq story. But some don't agree, including [Washington Post media writer and CNN Reliable Sources host] Howard Kurtz.
KURTZ (video clip): It's certainly hard for me to believe the argument during World War II that we shouldn't cover every bombing in London because that's what the Germans want.
O'REILLY: Ooh, interesting. Well, what about President [Franklin D.] Roosevelt setting up the Office of War Infromation in 1942, which censored among other things the results of enemy action and American casualty lists? Roosevelt did that to prevent the erosion of morale here in America.
Now, we don't censor the news on The Factor; we tell you the truth about what's happening in Iraq and everywhere else. But we don't help the terrorists either, and that separates us from some in the anti-war press. And that's the "Memo."
From the June 12 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: All right, we got two sound bites I want to play you. We hit Andrea Mitchell pretty hard last night on the TV side, saying, look, she's an NBC hard news reporter and chief foreign correspondent, and she's running around saying all kinds of things that are pro-Democrat/anti-Republican. Now, if she's a commentator, fine, but if she's a reporter, she's not supposed to do that, and then she did it again. Roll the tape.
MITCHELL (audio clip): The president's last-ditch effort today to save immigration reform is a critical test of whether this lame duck president can still pass a major domestic priority for his administration.
O'REILLY: "This lame duck president"? I mean, come on. This is ridiculous. NBC News has imploded. I was talking to an NBC News pretty high-up guy yesterday, and he admits it. I'm not gonna tell you who it was, but he says, "It's chaos." I mean, they have no standards at all over there. Everything has collapsed. You can't be saying "lame duck president." Even if you think it, you don't say it if you're a reporter.
From the January 1 edition Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
GOLER: Meanwhile, Mr. Bush will have to work with a Democratic Congress determined to use its power of oversight and to question his decisions. Analysts note Iraq isn't the only foreign policy problem.
KURT CAMPBELL (Center for Strategic and International Studies): Iran, clearly emboldened and empowered and on the road to trying to create nuclear weapons, very dangerous. A situation in Lebanon and between Israelis and Palestinians, all reaching the boiling point.
GOLER: Not to mention North Korea with a tested nuclear weapon. Domestically, the president thinks he can compromise with Democrats on a hike in the minimum wage if they extend some of his tax cuts. As a lame duck, he can afford to ask the Democrats for the immigration reforms that Republicans rejected, perhaps in exchange for Social Security reforms most Democrats say are too much like privatization.
Last I heard, MSNBC's ratings were up, while those of Faux Noise and CNN were down. Collapse?
May 2007 rankings
Fox News Channel was #5 in primetime on basic cable, averaging 1,415,000 total viewers.CNN was #25, averaging 663,000 total viewers in primetime. MSNBC wasn't in the top 30.
Read his post again.
wes/ap/aa/rogain7/letherjockstrap/tommy-boy never read, he is too busy flipping names ans lying to do that...
i read it again. The last word "collaspse" seems to me to be the key idea.
Only the delusional would use that word.
Keep hoping. FNC's ratings are still higher than CNN and MSNBC's combined ratings.
Genghiz,
Then O'Reilly has no point. He constantly touts his and Fox's ratings. If noone is watching MSNBC or CNN except ideologues then how are they hurting his idol Bush? I say O"Reilly wreaks of inconsistency.
I wonder how many there are like me that ONLY watch b.o. and hannity for the the "intertainment value" ONLY. To me those guys are sooo out there I watch for the laughs only. I know this is a perversion on my part and will go to hell for it but I have a vcr programmed for those 2 nuts every nite and NEVER miss watching. Am I alone in this sickness? If not we all need to start a 12 step program specifically for this problem "b.o. & hantywaste anonymous" Lets get on the yellow brick road to recovery.
Hey jasper,
As an off topic note...where's the bong and papers you promised me?
OVER ONE BILLION SERVED
Posted with a appreciative nod toward HBL.
You are correct. MSNBC is up 14% in total viewers over last year, with Keith Olbermann leading the way, up 72% overall.
Pete,
You had better not hope that KO is "leading the way" since his numbers are going down. He lost 110,000 viewers between April and May:
Jan: 673,000
Apr: 708,000
May: 598,000
Source:
www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/may07ranker.pdf
substituting months as desired.
This to counter the obvious spin in the press release you cite.
There is no spin. Compared to the same time last year, the overall numbers are up, which, IMO, gives you the bigger picture.
If you want to cite month-to-month or day-to-day numbers, as many of those who hate Keith and MSNBC like to do, I won't dispute them, or deem them "spin". Sure, Keith's numbers fluctuate a lot. Around election time, his ratings spiked, big deal.
Overall, I can really give a rat's behind so long as Keith stays on the air and continues to expose the rightwing agenda for what it is.
NO SPIN?????????
The MSNBC press release is dated May 31 and is about how MSNBC performed in May.
Then they write:
"Countdown with Keith Olbermann" (8:00 – 9:00 pm ET) continues to rocket up the ratings charts, up 72% in total viewers over a year ago (701,000 v. 408,000)"
THIS CLEARLY IS APRIL DATA, NOT MAY DATA!!!
I call it spin. You may think it is straightforward, honest reporting to pick May numbers for MSNBC and April numbers for KO, but I don't. I see it as their cherrypicking the data they like and dishonestly portraying it all as current.
Correction: May 30, not May 31
Ok...so let's compare May '07 to May '06.
KO May '06 P2+ 314
KO May '07 P2+ 598
So, instead of a 72% improvement, that's a better than a 90% improvement! Even better!
So their own "spin" makes their own numbers look worse than they really are? LOL
Nope!
I do not object to the "this time last year" comparisons. KO has improved significantly when measured that way. No problem if MSNBC or KO fans want to say that.
I do object to statements like "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" (8:00 – 9:00 pm ET) continues to rocket up the ratings charts,", because the rocket seems to be headed toward reentry. There is no honest way you can look at the trend since January of 2007 and say KO's numbers continue to rocket up.
You have to pretend that available numbers are not there....Cue KO's spooky organ music.
Missouri,
Your comparison is merely not as apt as the year to year comparison. Viewership changes from one month to the next constantly. Some months have more television watchers than others. You can make your claim, but it doesn't really hold up in reality compared to the more apt measurement.
Open mind:
Your point about month-to-month comparisons is a good one: As an example, retailers compare December sales one year to December sales of another rather than highlight the difference between December and the next month.
However, in this case, please check my earlier post about how KO has essentially plateaued in 2007, after his major bump (just short of doubling viewership) that occurred in 2006. Full data is available at tvnewser, but I have not seen a public chart of monthly KO ratings.
My main point remains that I am displeased that people fall for MSNBC press releases based on cherry picked data. Of course, they are not the first ones--I remember Howard Stern talking about how he "trounced" his competition when he started simulcasting in Philadelphia, when actually his ratings were within the margin of error of his top rival. Yet one of my brothers kept talking about how great Stern was doing. When confronted with the facts, he and his wife said, "Oh you know that's just Howard", as if that made everything OK.
Granted, yes, there is a discrepancy. We could call it "spin", but we could also call it an error, we don't know. But if CD's comparison above holds true, it shows that their "spin" was actually to their detriment.
There's a reason why year to year comparisons are generally more informative than month to month. Monthly fluctuations are a normal part of the cycle. I.e., the drop in KO's ratings from April to May isn't unique to KO.
E.g., O'Reilly posted a P2+ rating of 2459 in April; the May rating was 1954, i.e., ~ 20% drop. In that light, KO's ~ 15% drop doesn;t look so bad.
Of more interest, though, is the May 06 to May 07 comparison. KO was up 90%; Bill was down ~ 2%.* Oops.
* P2+ of 2003 in '06 vs 1954 in '07
Oreilly has a problem with reality again. The term lame duck has been used for as long as I can remember, to describe a president in the final years of his term. Clinton and Reagan were both lame ducks, and reporters used the term, and it had no partisan connotation (in my mind anyway).
I think it's hard to argue that we can't report the truth. Just as it's hard to argue Oreilly is reporting the entire story. He is advocating censorship specifically concerning troubling and damaging news towards Bush.
I'll hold with those who favor truth, thanks.
This has nothing to do with truth or lies. It is all about the major networks and their love affair with bad news. It's WAR, people die. Innocent women and children die. Nobody likes this fact. However, the networks spend time focusing on every enemy tragedy and fail to show any progress being made. Nobody talks about towns that are liberated, about schools that are open, about free trade and commerce taking place. It's only bad news, because bad news sells.
Spin this how you want, but take of the hatred goggles.
You and Bill think that you are supporting the troops by ignoring truthful stories that don't make them look heroic.
The local news in my hometown don't report that there's a bake sale in Midtown, or that we finally paved that notorious pothole on Second Street...they report that somebody got shot or stabbed or robbed...because THATS NEWS.
I find it difficult to take you seriously if you are asserting we should ignore the bombs and deaths involved in war, and not report them because "ppl die in war."
BTW...which city got liberated? I missed that story? We've lost 3500 american soldiers in Iraq and all sides now agree that Iraq WILL BE a THEOCRACY when we finally do leave. We didn't even liberate Kuwait. Our govt isn't even pretending to end theocratic rule any more.
Not to mention 30,000 of America's finest maimed.
Let me help. They ALL got liberated.
Telling the world about 7 dead kids in Afganistan is helpful to who? It's NOT helpful to the US is it?
I doubt NBC is "jazzed" about it. That's just dumb but the story has no newsworthiness as far as Americans go unless you want to finger point at the US as the bad guys.
The NYT account MMFA linked to mentions the charge that al qaida uses civilians improperly. I don't think this story is as harmful as O'Reilly seems to suggest if such stories are actually read.
Still, the coalition placed the ultimate burden for the children’s deaths on terrorists, saying that “Al Qaeda operatives” had hidden among innocents.
Witness statements taken early this morning clearly put the blame on the suspected terrorists, saying that if the children attempted to go outside they were beaten and pushed away from the door,” the coalition said in a news release, adding that seven “militants” had also died in the raid.--NYT
"Telling the world about 7 dead kids in Afganistan (sic) is helpful to who? It's not helpful to the US is it?" - Lolo
Actually, Lolo, it's helpful to the American people. We need to understand the TRUTH if we are to make intelligent, informed decisions on our nation's future. The idea of shielding ourselves from reality is an intensely inane concept... one that betrays a contemptuous attitude towards us a s a people.
It seems that your REAL argument is that the truth doesn't help the NEOCONS. The truth is not helpful to the Bush Administration & their murderous, hair-brained schemes of broad imperialism & of forcefully dominating the world's oil supplies. The truth is not helpful in their attempts to continue deceiving & manipulating our own population.
It reminds me of Viet Nam. The Nixon Administration was furious when the news media uncovered their secret bombings of Cambodia, arguing that it was revealing national security secrets to the enemy. The enemy... naturally... was already quite aware that we were bombing them. It was the AMERICAN PEOPLE who were being kept in the dark. The truth had not caused our nation any measurable harm. It had merely caused Nixon's domestic political support to slowly bleed away... & that was a good thing.
I find it extremely telling that the right always manages to gain their greatest successes when the 'truth' can be parceled out in low & carefully managed doses. They wish to tell the people only what they figure they need to know. O'Lielly is simply arguing this time tested fascistic technique.
And again I ask Mescal...what's the "truth" that we needed to know here?
If the truth we need to know is that we killed 7 terrorists that were using children as shields then I agree, we need to know that.
Do we or the rest of the world need to hear that the U.S. bombed and killed 7 Afghan children without the rest of the context?
Maybe the 2 minutes on NBC were in perfect context. If the context was the tactics of the terrorists and their exploitation of iinnocents then I suppose it was fine. Was that the context?
"Do we or the rest of the world need to hear that the U.S. bombed and killed 7 Afghan children without the rest of the context?"--lolo
Who has omitted that context?
Although O'Reilly makes slight mention of the importance of context as you do, it is also pretty clear that O'Reilly is not really as concerned about context as you are. Bill O'Reilly is clearly much more upset with NBC's 2 minutes of coverage (which would presumably show more context of the situation) than ABC and CBS 15 and 10 seconds (respectively) of coverage.
Lolo
Now we're getting somewhere. When you argue that context is essential to understanding events, you are conceding that two minutes ISN'T NEARLY ENOUGH TIME TO BE SPENT IN ORDER TO MAKE THE ISSUE TRULY UNDERSTANDABLE. This is definate progress.
Interestingly enough, you started out this thread defending O'Lielly's contention that the MSM is spending TOO MUCH time portraying events in Iraq & Afghanistan. Your position has now seemingly evolved into arguing that news shows should EXPAND their coverage of war, in order to provide greater CONTEXT from which the American people can gain a deeper understanding of our actions.
I couldn't agree more! This discussion appears to have placed us both on the same page at last. News shows should be F*CKING NEWS SHOWS, for God's sake! Forget about focusing on all of this celebrity drivel. Forget about celebrity gossip. Forget about missing blond 18 year olds. And, most of all, forget about vacuous ruling class twits who have run minorly afoul of the law.
Well done, Lolo.
You and Bill think that you are supporting the troops by ignoring truthful stories that don't make them look heroic.
And reporting this story is good for who? No one here, or on any of the networks as far as I've seen, have been able to explain what's important about it.
Ignoring some stories for our troops benefit would be bad how?
I'll ask again...who gains and who loses by the reporting of this story as anything other then a brief mention put in appropriate context. The context it should be in I've already mentioned several times.
When we start asking "Who benefits and who loses?" to certain truthful and newsworthy items that are covered in the media, we take the first step down the path towards pure propaganda. In North Korea they have to ask what effect the news has on ppl...and they don't report news that has effects they don't intend to get.
This is silly...or it USED to be. Who benefitted from the media exposing the Tillman controversy with the Silver Star they lied about? Should we leave that out of the news too? On the first day of this war we were told Iraq was firing SCUDS and indeed we NOW knew he had WMDs because he was using them against us. It was a knowing lie, told by the Pentagon to a compliant media. Maybe they asked the question...whom does this benefit? Hence, lying, so long as its about Hussein, benefits Bush and the US???
The story was truthful and newsworthy. Check yourself...you sound bitter that this news wasn't benficial to Bush. So what?
If Watergate happened today...guys like you would ask, what's the big deal, and I think you'd have a lot of pals in big media orgs that would agree.
If News Networks choose to air negative stories, that is their choice. Just like it is Fox's choice to favor optimistic war coverage. The reason coverage tends to be more negative is because negative news is typically more entertaining. However, during wartime (unless you are a sadistic bastard) almost all the news is bad news. If the Iraq situation had a clearly defined mission, with specific goals to be met, and those goals were deemed worthwhile to most Ameircans, minor military victories, hospitals and schools would probably see more media coverage. But since this is now clearly an unpopular war, with absolutely no end in sight and no definition of victory, it's hard to see that a few schools and hospitals for Iraqis is worth the price of U.S. involvement.
If "War is Hell" as you claim, and people are dying all over the place, isn't the amount of time networks devote to the negative pretty accurate? And In wartime, the war is the story! The only real positive story that could be reported about a war like this is it's conclusion.
Imagine that a friend of yours was in a severe car accident. After a week, doctors say, "Your friend is paralyzed and has gone into a coma indefinitely, but the good news is, his scrapes and bruises have healed!" This would be an insane thing to say. Similarly in war, it is insane to give equal time to a few positive developments, when the overall prognosis is violent, deadly, and without an end in sight.
And come on man. Do you really get excited about a new school or hospital going up in Iraq, or a town being liberated? There are many, many places in the world that need new hospitals and schools, where the people are oppressed. If we went to those places and did those positive things without inciting civil war, terrorism and insurgency, yes, I would like to see that stuff on the news.
Bill accused both CNN and NBC of showing so much coverage of the war to make Junior look bad. Could the same be said for Bill and Fox, they don't show as much coverage on Iraq because they will do anything to not make Junior look bad.
Not reporting the facts in Iraq yet being tagged with the most coverage of "who was Anna Nicole Smith baby's daddy" does not make you a news organization which Fox and Bill claim they are.
Here are just a few things Bill left out of his Iraq coverage:
Turkey is beefing up military preparedness against Iraq based Kurdish rebels as a preclude to a possible cross boarder incursion. Kind of important since many are under the impression that the Kurds in the north are at peace.
US Military acknowledges an increasing pattern in the number of attacks against the Green Zone. Since there are American citizens in the Green Zone one would think that American citizens might find it newsworthy.
Bill and Fox have been pimping for Junior since 2001 and now that their lies have caught up with them (we are winning in Iraq-Junior Nov 2006) they want to blame any and everyone else.
Turkey is beefing up military preparedness against Iraq based Kurdish rebels as a preclude to a possible cross boarder incursion. Kind of important since many are under the impression that the Kurds in the north are at peace.
Actually, word is the Kurds have been making cross border runs for a while now. The Kurdish situation has been a problem for a while, before we invaded even. The Kurds have long wanted their own independent state, and are getting closer to having it. And such a state will probably prompt a military response from Turkey, given that the southern part of Turkey has a large Kurdish population.
It's Yet Another Thing (YAT?) that Bush didn't consider (or more likely didn't know or care about) before launching this ill advised (and this is just another reason why) campaign into Iraq. It's not enough Bush caused a civil war in middle and southern Iraq. He's causing international incidents between allies. And which side are we gonna back when this one goes hot?
Oh please I have heard about those repainted schools so many times I cant even count them. What it is about for rightwingers is total conformity to the propaganda. Find good news anywhere you possibly can no matter whether or not it is in any way representative of anything EXCEPT the propaganda message the rightwing wants shoved down everyones throat. Reality, facts, those are unimportant or even to be attacked only protecting the message the right wants pushed matters.
"Reality, facts, those are unimportant or even to be attacked only protecting the message the right wants pushed matters"
And you claim that I and other conservatives simply come here and use straw man attacks. It looks like you're pretty good at it yourself.
RH, please go look up the definition of "strawman".
Or explain what the strawman in the post is.
You almost have a point. Perhaps it still eludes you that I often make a point in response to a substanceless post like Cannonballs by mimicing it and turning it around. In this instance however it wasnt just that I think his own post is evidence that he DOESNT care. He is attacking the news for not saying MORE about painted schools and less about dead innocent children. Perhaps you can explain to me how that DOESNT imply that he doesnt care? Clearly he is advocating for conformity to the rightwing message at the expense of informing the American people about what is actually happening in Iraq on any basis of priority OTHER than the usefulness to rightwing propaganda
Solon
If you're holding your breath waiting for Rino Hunter to give a thoughtful reply to your post, then you're likely now flat on your back & your face is a bright shade of purple.
Once again, he's got nothin'.
The thing about your post is that you weren't simply talking about the Canno guy. You painted all conservatives with one big brush. You claimed, "What it is about for rightwingers is total conformity to the propaganda. Find good news anywhere you possibly can no matter whether or not it is in any way representative of anything EXCEPT the propaganda message the rightwing wants shoved down everyones throat." You were talking about "rightwingers," not simply Canno. You misrepresented what we want by creating a strawman. We don't want the news to be one sided. We simply want the media to report the good news as well as the bad. Many conservatives simply feel that the good news gets drowned out by the bad news, and doesn't get as much air time as it should. That doesn't mean that we want "total conformity" to the news. Now, I normally wouldn't care that you wrote something like that, but since you've been making it a point to criticize me for supposedely making straw man arguments, I thought that I should point out that you do the exact same thing that you often accuse me of doing. Also, I don't think that Canno's point was that NO bad news should be shown. I believe that he was simply pointing out that the news should be more balanced. It should report the good news as well as the bad news.
Please explain how we can balance the news of a school that has re-opened with the deaths of innocent children.
Maybe O'Reilly could segue from the school to the carnage but there is no media outlet on the planet so shallow and one sided, as to make it seem anything other than American propaganda.
I'd say you give it a 10-15 second mention and move on. And that mention should include the fact that Al Queda loves using children as shields, weapons or whatever to further their objectives.
You're probably somewhat familiar with children in war Worrieking. It's a horrible thing but who's really to blame?
Yes war is a terrible thing. Which is why the bar for starting one ought to be high, since the COST is high. Starting one with a country that didnt attack us and the CIA said wasnt a threat to attacks us based on lies and distortions is another very bad thing. The costs of a war and its horrific consequences also should not be hidden nor treated lightly as if painting a school makes up for the deaths of innocent children
Fine. Lets put the blame for the deaths of these innocents where it belongs. On Al Queda.
Again I ask, where is the international outrage against these tactics?
All over the world. Did you think you had to convince people al Queda is evil? They are virtually universally seen as an evil terrorist group. PRetending otherwise is simply denying reality. There are many ways to attack that evil. There is nothing wrong with looking at the cost of doing things one way to decide if another way might not be better and more effective. Just ignoring the cost of doing something isnt doing ANYONE any good.
The innocents in Iraq would not have been dying in the tens of thousands had we not invaded. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we invaded.
Saddam was not killing tens of thousands of people every year in the years leading up to our invasion. Most of the people who have died in Iraq in the last 4 years would still be alive if we had not invaded and basically invited Al Qaeda to use Iraq as a temporary place to wage war against our soldiers and the innocent Iraqi's.
Let's ask the Iraqi people if they like having their country be the battleground for the US vs Al Qaeda better than they liked having Saddam as their ruler.
Journalism=FACTS = report the new NOT MAKE THE NEWS SOMETHING YOU WANT TO HERE!
"I'd say you give it a 10-15 second mention and move on. And that mention should include the fact that Al Queda loves using children as shields, weapons or whatever to further their objectives."--lolo
Well, I don't think it is appropriate to read al qaida's minds by saying they "love" that tactic. It can be just as devastating to submit the evidence in a factual way.
Also, can you show that ABC and CBS didn't mention the al qaida tactic at all in their reports? All I know is they were 15 and 10 seconds. How do we know they didn't meet your request? Are you just speculating that they didn't?
stop flipping names tommy-boy and be honest for once
You're ignoring the simple fact that there is never an even balance of good news/bad news, especially when the topic is war. There's a huge difference between creating a balance and objectively reporting the truth. A journalist's job is to do the latter. It's not a journalist's responsibility to balance out bad news with good news. That's an absurd idea, and Solon is absolutely correct when he calls that propaganda.
Incidentally, Solon's argument was not a straw man. You still seem to be unclear on that concept. At worst it was a generalization.
His apparent error notwithstanding, it is nice to see a conservative understand the importance of this whole "logic" thing. It reminds me of the monkey picking up the bone at the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey. We may finally be witnessing the dawn of something big.
; )
Actually, propaganda is what the media puts out on a regular basis when they only report the bad news and don't report on any successes we're having in Iraq. That's prpaganda that helps the terrorists. Reporting the good news in Iraq helps OUR COUNTRY, not simply conservatives. This is about the U.S. vs. the terrorists, not left verses right.
What I think you fail to see is that the news should not be put out to help one side or the other. It should be about trying to tell the truth of the situation as best as possible.
Of course, that is difficult. I don't think the media does a good job of that most of the time. If your only real measuring stick is what you consider loyalty to "our side", then you obviously don't care about truth or maybe you just think we are simply always right out of some unsupportable bias of yours.
Normally I'd agree. Wartime is different. News that hurts the U.S. and our objectives should be controlled.
There's a media element to this war and part of that is propaganda. the enemy is winning this media war.
A lot of that is Bush's fault. After all, he and his crew botched this whole thing beyond belief. That said, putting every bombing on TV benefits who?
If it doesn't benefit America and our interests then why show it every day? It's tactically and strategically bad for us.
If reporting on people dying in a war is bad for America because it some how aids the terrorists, isn't reporting on how one of our three major networks supposedly hates America and wants America to lose even more of a comfort an aid to the terrorists? I mean, it seems unlikely THEY were watching ABC, CBS and NBC with a stopwatch. It would be easier for them to watch the great Cultural Warrior to keep track of our great decline that way. They should send him a gift basket or something. Maybe something for Bed Bath and Beyond.
Saying news should be controlled is saying the American people have no right to enter policy discussions. That we are a bewildered herd that cannot be trusted with the truth and ONLY the elites, those who are going to CONTROL the news have any right to have the actual information necessary to enter into policy discussions. It is an argument for fascism, totalitarianism and among the most anti democratic statements I have ever read. The PEOPLE have a right to reality, to the TRUTH. Everything our government does it does in OUR name with OUR tax dollars. WE have every right to enter the discussion about policy, NO we have an obligation since we are not subjects we are CITIZENS that is WE are the top layer of government and in order TO enter into policy discussions we need REAL information. Giving anyone the right to take that from us demotes us to onlookers only with no say in our government policies. It is the argument of an aparatchic not of a free citizen
You are welcome to your opinion. I think it is very common amongst conservatives from what I have seen. I think the problem I have is that it seems many conservatives view nearly everything as a "war" of some kind that justifies the supposed "exception" of hiding the truth at some level.
At what point did/does the exception become the rule? That is the real question.
Apparently Roosevelt insisted that the media report on the bad (even though there was an initial attempt to censor the bad) from war coverage during the second world war. Why? He wanted the American people to see that it was a hard fight and that it was taking a lot to fight the good fight.
Why are conservatives today afraid of the truth? Why do they want us to go out and shop and not sacrifice while others fight and die in an unjust unnecessary war? Shouldn't we be aware of what's going on over there so we can give more to the effort?
Perhaps because the truth will set you free and that isnt much of a priority to a certain segment of the rightwing
what is success in war? is it the authoritarian viewpoint of right vs. wrong, black and white thinking? I think there is only survival and rebuilding. this ain't football.
We simply want the media to report the good news as well as the bad. Many conservatives simply feel that the good news gets drowned out by the bad news, and doesn't get as much air time as it should.
So in one case, it's wrong to paint right-wingers with a single brush, and then you go and use "we" as though you speak for all right-wingers?
Second, how about show after show of great things happening in Iraq on FoX if that would be such a ratings coup? Why? Cuz it wouldn't sell. Nobody would watch. Not even O'Reilly would watch. Right wingers are supposed to be capitalists. How about letting program directors and news directors do their jobs and vote with your feet and dollars?
After all, that's what we're supposed to do with regards to Fox and it's high ratings, right?
But the fact is, if 100 people a day were dying in this country because of bombs and raids and whatnot, nobody would be saying "Hey, you should be showing the GOOD things that are happening in this country."
Except I didnt say conservatives I said rightwingers. This is a problem. I think it demonstrable there is a set of people out there that feel exactly as I said. Look at Kevin and AA supporting far beyond any possible connection with reality that Plame wasnt covert. This very talking point is itself ludicrous. Like the painting of a school is comparable to the deaths of several innocent children. Exactly how do I point out this set without painting everyone on the right with that brush. IF I had said conservatives you would have a point I didnt. I have a healthy respect for conservatives overall even when we disagree I cut my political teeth on a time where there were very principled conservatives who deserved such respect. I used to use more colorful terms like rightwingnuts or something of the sort but THAT was taken as attacking the right in general. I get to talk politics a lot with different people at work. Many of them are fairly conservative I dont have this problem but in this venue how do I make such a point. Chomsky made this same point in his book Manufacturing Consent. It is demonstrable. Anytime Bush is criticised or the war or any deviation from conformity to the rightwing message the attack dogs come out. This is what earns Limbaugh, Hannity Cal Thomas that the like their paychecks. The only difficulty in showing this is true is defining exactly who constitutes this set that demands such conformity. You denigrate liberals with false characterizations all the time and PRETEND it isnt insulting that is a fantasy. I do the same but first I usually am doing a charicature of a previous post or I am talking about a certain specific tactic and not one conservatives per say are guilty of just the more brainwashed determined to be useful to the propaganda set. Another difference between us is you dont see ME claiming I never personally attack anyone if you took this as a personal attack I dont care. I dont LIE about making personal attacks I do. So do you, the difference is you LIE about it
Seems to me that the coverage of these Afgan kids needs a little context and it needs the blame placed where it should be placed.
On Al Queda. It's a well known fact that the terrorists are using kids as weapons and props of war. Where's the international outrage against these actions?
Let me guess. It's our fault they're knuckle dragging cavemen with no sense of decency or morality.
Actually, the NYT article MMFA links to above provides plenty of context and mentions the exact claim you just brought up. I have to wonder why you would oppose such information being reported?
Cannonball...
Sadly, you showcase the conservative disease that has so damaged our nation: If the news is bad, then don't show it, and then the news will turn good. This is a disease; it's delusional.
Republicans--I mean the real nut jobs--continue to cling to the Rush Limbaugh fantasy that "victory" is just around the corner. No amount of reality can puncture the brainwashed bubble these folks live in.
Have you been asleep since 2003? Do you have any concept of the challenges that journalists face in Iraq every single day? Over 100 of them have lost their lives in Iraq bringing us the stories.
Since security dictates every move a journalist makes in Iraq, they are often relegated to going where the military wants to take them.
The problem is when the journalists ask to be shown a school that's been rebuilt or a power station that's been reactivated, the military refuses access because reporting it will turn it into an insurgent target!
Don't take my word for it, ask Lara Logan.
Nobody talks about towns that are liberated, about schools that are open, about free trade and commerce taking place. It's only bad news, because bad news sells.
Here's your chance. Enlighten us. I'm sure Fox has given you all the details.
Cannonball,
With all due respect, you don't have a clue about war. By passively discounting the deaths of innocent women and children by declaring that this should be expected, you show your ignorance.
Can you tell us the names of the towns that have been liberated and have stayed "liberated"?
Opened schools could be news, only if and when the number of opened schools equals or exceeds the number opened prior to our invasion.
Should we ignore the 14 Americans that have died in Iraq yesterday and today?
We are at war. During wartime, deaths on both sides are news. Collateral deaths are news. Opened schools will always be less important than the deaths of our military personnel and the deaths of innocent people.
Cannon, O'Reilly defenders, etc,
2 questions:
#1-How long was the part of Bill's talking points memo about the kids dying? Was it longer than 2 minutes? If so, why does he fall into the same category of NBC News then? If its 2 minutes or longer, wouldn't it seem he was "jazzed" about NBC's reporting?
#2-If there is all this good news, which you constantly tell us, what is stopping O'Reilly from reporting it? Is he not a journalist?
If O'Reilly is going to make an honest critique against the other networks, he has the perfect forum to balance them, does he not? Before you tell me that more people watch network news than cable news, he still has a chance to provide what he thinks is the "good news" coming out of Iraq and should feel a responsibility to provide it if these stories and how they are reported rankle him that much.
progress - you mean like how most of those schools built were done so poorly that many are falling apart? Or the progress made by the missing millions of dollars intended for reconstruction?
This "happy news" mentality is what's really undermining the country, not vice versa. The last time you censor queens had a chance, this country didn't even know largescale extermination of the jewish population was occuring until after the 1st camps were liberated.
Then again, that may have been a good thing, cause judging by the overt racism of the right, y'all would have probably called for the US to quit the war and let the germans finish.
As above...What's stopping Fox News from reporting all the good things 24/7...Have at...Of course, after 4+ years, 3000+ GI's dead, 30,000+ injured, the Iraqi gov still holed up in the Green Zone, the Iraqi army still not carry its share of the load, etc...the American people have become a tad cynical...but I'm sure all the loyal Fox viewers are willing to get 'jazzed up' about a new school.
You win the "Most offensive comment of the day" prize.I'm English and a right winger but I'm also colour/creed blind. I don't care if the crazed group of men who want me dead is black, brown or white, nor do I care if they are Christian, Scientologists or Muslim. I just care.Your post is so awful it's almost unbelievable.
Can you point out how your remarks relate at all to what snoopy just wrote. I don't see it.
this is where a right-winger would respond: It's just a joke, gosh this PC stuff is really hurting our country and public discourse...
I'm also colour/creed blind.
Heh. What a load of crap.
Thanks for calling everyone on the right racist Snoopy. Perhaps you should reconsider painting with such a broad brush.
"... networks spend time focusing on every enemy tragedy ..."
I didn't realize our 'enemy' was Afghani children.
It's a tragedy that Al Queda would use children as I've said in earlier posts.
Wise up.
Maybe Oreilly would prefer...."Our glorious leader..." instead of "Lame duck?"
i think it's pretty much standard to refer to an eight year president as a lame duck after the off year election of his last term.
Maybe we should just refer to hime as "lame".
Good for NBC News for spending 2 minutes on this, the American People need to know the truth. Hey O'Lielly
I thought it was sad that only two minutes was spent on this story. O'Reilly sees some sort of bias in that? If anything, it's a sign that our fourth estate has abdicated its role.
Why did we need 2 minutes on this? What's the "truth" that we needed to know?
is it that Al Queda uses kids as shields or worse in advancing their objectives?
If that's the truth we should know then I completely agree.
Considering your earlier argument regarding context, wouldn't 2 minutes of coverage almost necessarily contain more context than 15 or 10 seconds? That is assuming no redundancy or dead air.
As a telecommunications engineer, I am always interested in ideas about how to squeeze more data into a smaller timeslot. Please let me know if you have discovered a new principle of which I am unaware.
Is Bill really that stupid? Calling a Presedent in his 2nd term a lame duck isn't an insult, stupid.
Yes, sadly, Bill really is that stupid
...or a President. DOH!
Hahahahahahahahaha! The sexual predator O'Reilley actually thinks he is being clever with this line of attack. He thinks that he is fooling everyone with his whining about NBC News when we all know it is about K.O. and the fact that he took on the sex pervert and makes him look foolish night after night.
What a joke this guy is --- totally transparent and utterly laughable.
as far as I know, WWII wasn't an illegal war opposed by the majority of the American people. Censorship of the reality in Iraq can only be assumed to be intended to encourage support for an immoral campaign. Outfoxed does an excellent sketch of Fox News' attempts to focus only on the positives.
Actually, now that I think of it, I talked to a pretty high up guy the other day too. I won't tell you who it was, but he agreed with me that 'some people say' Bill is changing his legal name to falafal.
This was an illegal war how? It's a far left talking point but it's completely without merit or foundation in law.
The majority of Americans did not want to get involved in WWII. You should brush up on your history.
No it isnt. It is a fair statement. The war might be legal according to our laws but international law is clear and this war was definitly illegal by international standards even Richard Perle whose nickname is the prince of darkness in Washington agreed this is true.
Saddam violated the cease fire agreement not once but many times.
T.hat was all the justification we needed, legal or otherwise, to remove Saddam.
Well that is your OPINION since he didnt HAVE any WMDs I dont know exactly how he was doing any such thing when we invaded but its irrelevant. As I said the claim was the war was illegal. Either side of this argument has a valid claim but there really isnt much argument that it WASNT illegal according to international law as I pointed out even war cheerleader Perle admitted as much. So when it is claimed that it is illegal its not so simple to just claim they are wrong. It is a valid claim.
That should have read WAS illegal according to international law
Oh... for all of you O'Reilley staff members who we KNOW reads these blogs tell your sex pervert boss that his attempt at making the term "secular progressive" mainstream is falling flat on its face is not catching on.
I am embarrassed for your boss.
If you were to read the Paris Business Review, you'd see that "Secular Progressive" is in fact catching on.
LOL right on target :)
Someone should point out to Bill one of Faux's mottos, "We report, you decide".
They don't report, because they don't want their audience to decide based upon the truth.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!
When the time came to pound the drums of war, O'Reilly who only wore the uniform of a cub scout, was pounding loudest for the blood of others! When the sounds become houls for the lies told to the sound the drums of war, O'Reilly thinks the conversation isn't worth making any noise about! I wonder why???
He has been openly wrong about everything but what a Republican may do! Every policy issue has been a unqualified disaster for everyone to see, and he would expect us to be able to ignore reality if we are to believe O'Reilly and his kind! The way of the new American Fascism!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
A week or so ago, O'Reilly had his regular talking points on the screen while he paraphrased them out loud. Funny thing was, when he got to the part that on the screen said "I was wrong in many of my initial assessments of the war", he never mentioned that at all. He didn't paraphrase it, or reference that sentence in any way.
He will barely acknowledge his mistakes, but I think you're right, that the reason he doesn't do this is because it would call into question more of his behavior.
He's the one who said that if the Bush Administration was proven to have been less than honest, he would never support them again. Fat chance of him ever living up to that commitment.
Hey falafel,what do you want the networks to cover?Paris Hilton?Anna Nicole Smith?You had the same complaint about abu ghraib,plame,libby and anything that makes bush look bad.independant my foot!
Al Qaeda,Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda
It's common knowledge Bill O'Reilly is a jerk. I know this, Fox knows this, and most important, O'Reilly knows this. This video exposes two underreported dynamics that are not being told.
What is this only report "things in context" crap O'Reilly claims every Fox wantabee network should be doing? The full measure of this war helps American citizens determine how much support we want to give this illegal war; not underreported massive "collateral damage" numbers. When you are killing children, their Mothers and Fathers, brothers and sisters, uncles and aunties, and even the dogs and cats become the next insurgent willing to die for revenge. I GUESS WE NEED TO KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE WE DO THIS KIND OF THING TO.
Get rid of the phrase "collateral damage" altogether because it' dehumanizing. How would it sound if the life loss during 9/11 were phrased as "the United States suffered massive "collateral damage" as the two towers fell? You would think no human lives were lost.
The other dynamic that is not even challenged is the use of Al Qaeda's name to explain why the action or actions took place. Recently, there has been an offensive involving 10,000 troops in Iraq. Their mission is to attack Al Qaeda. Now Al Qaeda has a standing arm;y for which troops can be deployed in traditional ways?
The army is using Al Qaeda's name to create a killing field; O'Reilly is using the name because it will help him prove his point and win favor. Everyone knows Al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11, and the warmongers and the Bush crowd will use this name to keep this illegal war going.
We have not heard the last of Al Qaeda in Iraq, so get ready to clarify many misuses of the name and their effectiveness.
Joseph
Pssst.
Al Quaeda is in Iraq. It is a fact. They need 10,000 troops to do house to house searches since they hide amongst the population and in schools and mosques. Even some Sunnis are turning against Al Quaeda/ Taliban in Iraq. It is not a fantasy.
Al Qaeda represents an insignificant portion of the fighters in Iraq. A lot of the people claiming to be Al Qaeda are jingoistic Iraqis who use the Al Qaeda tag to scare people like you. Searching door to door for these people will yield little or no results.
Especially since unless al Queda agents have begun glowing in the dark it will be pretty hard to tell a Saudi al Queda terrorist from the run of the mill Iraqi citizen but then indiscriminate use of force in the service of simplistic violence is a hallmark of the bedwetting set.
It's also hard to deal with al Qaeda when your buddies are getting killed mostly by Sunnis. You know, those guys we liberated.
Bush Never Lets GoBush continues to try to make the connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam's old government, who are the Sunnis. For the last two months, they have attributed everything, and I mean everything, to Al Qaeda in Iraq. This amounts to psychological warfare in which we have been slowly program to ingest relative connections between Al Qaeda, the Sunnis, and the war on terror.The next time the question comes up for funding the war the first claim will be "but we are making headway in removing Al Qaeda."I never imagine a president and his political Party would be so bent on killing for money and oil wealth, and willing to divide a nation to do so. Joseph
Insignificant to who since they're behind the big bombiings in Iraq, which is where this news coverage and a large part of the casulaties come from
"When you are killing children, their Mothers and Fathers, brothers and sisters, uncles and aunties, and even the dogs and cats become the next insurgent willing to die for revenge".
My town was bombed during WWII and we Brits bombed the Germans towns too but when the war stopped the killing stopped. Precisely who do you think dies in wars? It seems that whatever happens it's our fault. Someone attacks the US the US fights back and attacks what it sees (rightly or wrongly) as a threat (admittedley in a strategic rather than immediate sense). Another thing - how many people were killed in the actual fighting bit of the war? How many are now being killed in the civil war / terorist stage of societal suicide?
Do you remember Yugoslavia? Well we all supported the downfall of the communist bloc (well most of us but perhaps I may be outnumbered on this site?) and then all hell broke loose as the various ethnic factions started butchering each other. I see parallels in Iraq and although we perhaps should have anticipated this to a degree we ARE NOT pulling the triggers or planting the bombs and that counts - at least to me it does.
Incidenatally last time I looked all children had Mothers and Fathers and loads had brothers and sisters. I know America is advanced but surely there isnt a human life form I am unaware of, is there? Although I do find the liberal filled with visceral hatred a strange contradiction in terms .... does anyone know what liberal means?
I'm afraid this is one of those posts that on 2nd look you might, and frankly should, feel a tad sheepish about.
Since when was war legal incidentally and please don't offend our collective intelligence about the UN having any mandate for anything.
What
You can counter my post better then this. Do you even know what you are talking about? I don't.
Joseph
Someone attacks the US the US fights back and attacks what it sees (rightly or wrongly) as a threat (admittedley in a strategic rather than immediate sense).
Um... who attacked the US?
Another thing - how many people were killed in the actual fighting bit of the war? How many are now being killed in the civil war / terorist stage of societal suicide?
How about answering those questions since our respective governments won/t.
As for Yugoslavia, how about telling us how many Americans died in our successful put-down of that mess?
Since the US helped WRITE the UN mandate and since it the Senate ratified it as a treaty obligation it is most definitly relevant. So try not to insult OUR intelligence. As for what liberal means I assume you know what a dictionary is. People die in wars that is why they should be a last resort, this one wasnt, and have unquestionably righteous motives which this one didnt. Notice the lies that were used to start it. This isnt WW2 Hitler was marching around Europe invading our allies like a it was a blue plate special at Denny's. Iraq hadnt so much as sneezed in anyones direction since the first Gulf War. Germany DECLARED WAR ON US. Did I miss Iraq declaring war on us? Now Afghanistan is a different kettle of fish. Al Queda did declare war on us. Showing the cost of how we are prosecuting the war even so is a valid thing to do. When we bomb from the sky we kill innocents by definition. If we think that cost is too high we can use different tactics.
It's hilarious that O'Reilly, who pretends to be a journalist, apparently does not know what "lame duck" means.
Now I'm waiting for him to scold the press for saying something was jury-rigged, when in fact there was not even a TRIAL!
"Now I'm waiting for him to scold the press for saying something was jury-rigged, when in fact there was not even a TRIAL"
Yeah, that would be funny. Here's a tidbit of useless information: "jury rigged" is actually a PC corruption of the term "gerry rigged"...which was an intentionally insulting way of saying "built by Germans (aka "gerries") and it means cheaply and poorly built.
You are incorrect, but you can find out more about that yourself.
I'm trying to remember when it was that people complained about those poor quality products coming out of Germany.
Umm, yeah, that would be never. I don't remember German products ever being referred to as cheap and or shoddily built. Definitely not during WWII, and definitely not now.
Fox News staffers telling Bill, their boss, what to do? Hahaha! He would say, "It's my show." This mule-headed man runs the show.
What disturbs me about this ego-maniac is that he harps on other networks. Hey Bill! First of all, YOU don't work at these networks, and second, it's NONE of your business how NBC and others run their news department. YOU need to focus on your show, and NOT worry what other networks are doing.
I can see why The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children dropped him as their keynote speaker.
How much time did Fake News spend on it?
The Cons bought control of the media, and now we have the result.
Like it, America?
How much time should they spend on it? Whats the news worthiness of it?
Who does it help?
Who does it hurt?
"Who does it help?
Who does it hurt?" --lolo
Isn't that the essence of media bias? Do you really want the media to start (assuming they already haven't) basing news off of who wins and who loses by what is said? Isn't that what conservatives have been supposedly against all of this time?
It appears that you don't mind asking those questions as long as the outcome is favorable to your own argument. That appears to be a pretty blatantly self-serving form of hypocrisy.
Bill O really doesnt get this whole Democracy thing
I like how the few O'Rielly defenders here constantly harp on about FOX's high ratings, and the lower ratings of other networks. I've said it before, but obviously it has to be spelled out: High ratings don't always reflect quality, people. What they mean is that something, no matter how obviously crap it is, can be extremely popular. Who here watched Geraldo when he had his own show and thought you were watching quality discussions of grippiing social concerns? Sure, I watched a few--for the fluff. The one I can remember is when he had Bob Guccione on to celebrate the anniversary of Penthouse Magazine. Well, why not? Just for s**** and giggles. I don't find that sort of thing offensive, but I also don't consider it high-brow. FOX is popular for the same reason Geraldo was (and surprise surprise--who's ended up on FOX!). It's sensationalism, plain and simple. The problem is they pretend to tell us the news on FOX, and the gullible believe they are getting 'Fair and Balanced.' Turns out those other, 'liberal' networks are telling us the news, not FOX.
bartonim, you're right, it is sensationalism that brings in the cattle for Fox, but I think it's predictability that keeps them.
Exactly what BilldO is crying about here, another network showing a couple of minutes worth of reality, something that might force even your below-average American to think, or question the flag waving zombie ranchers at Fox.
It seems like a few months ago there were a lot more of the "Ratings Queens" here- responding to documentation of their hero's BS by pointing out that millions of other suckers believe it too.
I got tired of posting that, by their logic, McDonald's must be the best restaurant in the world. Eventually all I could post was;
**OVER 1 BILLION SERVED**
What is it about this new story that we should reflect on Lefty?
To me it brings up the question of is bombing and shooting missiles at a target the best way to fight al Queda considering the collateral damage. Is it creating more enemies than it destroys. I am not taking a side on that issue here only saying it brings it up. Might it be more effective in the long run to send in highly trained strike forces to take out SPECIFIC targets. This isnt the first time we killed innocent children in this kind of attack. When we went after an al Queda guy a few months ago where we THOUGHT he was we didnt get him but we killed 20 villagers at least half a dozen of which were children. That stokes a lot of anger and frankly makes me a bit queasy. I am all for fighting al Queda lets get them and FORCEFULLY. However lets not pretend that killing innocents along the way has no meaning that it is IRRELEVANT. If we really felt that way it would be joining the evil doers club and claiming at least we arent as bad as THEM. We have standards of decency al Queda doesnt I dont want that to change. Perhaps we will say it is WORTH the cost, however lets at least EXAMINE whether or not it is, if we dont it is a lessening of our humanity and we shouldnt be willing to pay that cost.
Good thing Fox wasn't around during Vietnam. My Lai would have been censored and we would have been told we were winning the war for 10 straight years.
Sometimes I wonder why I waste time posting. Republicans have made it part of their stock defense to attack the media since as long as I can remember, which goes back to the 1970s Nixon-era.
If the news is bad, attack the media for their bias. That's been their M.O. Now they control a great deal of the media themselves, and use the media to attack media bias...OVER FACTUAL NEWSWORTHY ACTIONS.
Did they kill innocent children inadvertantly during an occupation? NEWSWORTHY. Did a popular mosque get destroyed in the internal civil war that has arisen? NEWSWORTHY. Did a schoolhouse in Tikrit get painted again? WHO CARES...its not news.
Hell, they'd still be telling us we are winning in Nam. And the death count would be 300,000 Ameircans . Just as it will be in 2012 in Iraq. Fox headline..." No problems in Iraq, soon it will be a vacation destination."
NBC news "Americans soldiers killed...10,000"
O'Reilly...."NBC is at it again, reporting dead Americans, don't they know it has been a vacation resort since 2009"
My Lai would have been censored and we would have been told we were winning the war for 10 straight years.
They tried to censor My Lai. The cover-up was assigned to a young Major named Colin Powell. The reason we know about it today is because Powell was incompetent then, too. Also because of the efforts of Ron Ridenhour.
To Bill O'Reilly's defenders:
First, YOU READ???? I for am shocked. Book, with FACTS, are often written by LIBERALS or, as Bill-O calls them, SPs. AHHHHHH!!!!
Second, WHAT ARE YOU DEFENDING??? That the media should IGNORE the war because it's ICKY POO or that the media should lead with headlines such as, "In Iraq today, a man didn't get his head blown off when he shopped for vegetables." Last I checked, that is NORMAL for any place NOT EMBROILED IN AN OCCUPATION/INSURGENCY/CIVIL WAR. Normality, what Iraq is striving for, is not news, it is wool gathering.
Third, if this war, and all its horrors, were headed by a DEMOCRAT, you'd be screaming bloody murder, WHERE'S THE COVERAGE OF THIS DEMOCRATIC DEBACLE???? The only thing you scurvy little Bill-O worms could get excited about was CLINTON'S ERECTIONS WITH A WOMAN NOT HIS WIFE. Iraq war....who needs it?...except when IT WAS GOING WELL. Then, Bill-O couldn't get enough of showing President McFlightsuit's triumphant carrier landing 10 feet off the San Diego shoreline. Next time, rent a wave runner. It's cheaper than a FULLY LOADED ship of military props, I mean personnel.
Randy
Exactly.
Perhaps Bill has forgotten that war involves blowing things up and killing people. Whatever one might think about this particular war--its legality and morality of it--it is sill war.
This is yet another instance of Bill O being rather insensitive (to say the least) about the safety and well-being of children. I remember his callous remarks a couple of months ago regarding the young boy that was kidnapped and held in captivity for a long period of time. Now he's arguing that we shouldn't be concerned about the death of seven innocent children because they're just "collateral damage."
Yes, Bill, when a president (or any other elected official) nears the end of his term and is not up for re-election, he is commonly referred to as a "lame duck." Perhaps the more appropriate term for this president might be lame-assed duck.
BO's greatest hits
The bs never stops with this guy. Aria Huffington and Olberman tore bo a new one last night over this. It was quite refreshing to watch. How can anyone truly defend him on this.
THis should work better:
The News According to Bill : Bill O'Reilly says he's not covering the news from Iraq, because it's too hard, it helps the terrorists, and it's "meaningless". He says he covers what's important to Americans. We took a look at all the important news he's covered, just in the last week. It's MUST SEE VIDEO.
I saw that and it was hilarious, our young people are being maimed and killed and Bill's analyzing Rosie O’Donnell’s body language. Those WNP's (wing nut priorities) are baffling
Well 0'Reilly is right. That is what sets the GOP propaganda machine(FOX) apart from the real media.
There's a simple reason why "good news" about schools and hospitals in Iraq are not being reported: Because there is no good news involving schools and hospitals. The schools and hospitals have been bombed, most of the students, teachers, and doctors have fled either from their homes into outlying Iraqi areas or out of the country altogether...or in many cases, professors have been targeted and kidnapped/killed, as have doctors. Here are some links to more news that Leather, Rino Hunter, Wesley, etc. will call propaganda, but is the truth. Just because news is bad does not mean it is a lie:
Iraq's universities and schools near collapse as teachers and pupils flee
More than 250 academics have been killed since 2003, targeted by so many warring factions that it seems to be the only issue they can agree on. To date, not one person has been arrested for these murders.
At least 100 people a day are killed each day, and many more are seriously injured, by the ongoing violence in Iraq. Even if the injured make it to hospital, they face a 70% chance of dying in the emergency room, according to the World Health Organization.This is because Iraq’s hospitals lack staff, drugs and equipment – and things are getting worse. “The daily violence coupled with the difficult living and working conditions are pushing hundreds of experienced health staff to leave the country,” says the WHO, despite efforts by the government and aid agencies to keep hospitals supplied with medicines, water and electricity.
Also, as has been mentioned by some others on this thread, I would like Rino Hunter to tell me why Laura Ingraham, Billo, Hannity, Rush, etc. do not go to Baghdad and spend a week interviewing schoolteachers in their classrooms, or sit in an emergency room for two days, or shop at a market WITHOUT apache helicopters or an entourage of US soldiers, or do Iraqi on the street interviews, or go live with a family, OR go to PARLIAMENT for a week to watch their "Progress"...the possibilities are ENDLESS. Hannity and Ingraham did go to Iraq...and stayed on the military bases and interviewed SOLDIERS. As heroic as our soldiers are, they are not what is important in the big picture: If rightwingers want to complain that good news is not being reported, then GO THERE AND SHOW IT TO US!!!!
Rino Hunter, I am calling you out. Give me an answer as to why this is not being done. I can't wait to hear it.
O'Reilly and his ilk are not about reporting the facts they're about creating a reality.
I specifically remember after the fall of Baghdad a Fox "reporter" running around with a geiger counter looking for the site of Saddam's nuclear program.
Well, he got a reading of radiation and Fox broke into their regular prime time line up to give the guy air time to speculate about what it meant. Was the place he was getting a reading from actually Saddam's nuclear program?
It turns out it was a microwave oven or something but Fox never let us know that.
That's the kind of reporting O'Reilly wants us to have: fantasy that's in line with the adninistration's politics.
The point I believe that Bill O'Reilly is making is war is about will and morale and the terrorists know this and their will is stronger so he chooses to present the war from his perspective. They (media / information disseminators) all do this and I believe the only truth is facts we see filtered through our own value systems. I don't see anything sinister here particularly becuase he's saying why he's doing it - doesn't make him right for everyone but you do know his agenda and can switch the channel.
It is fact that war has always been vile and up close it looks like it has no point. It is also true that horrible things happen by horrible people on both sides. But this is dealing with the business of what is, not what might have been. Since TV was involved in war America started losing. I'm from the UK incidentally. This is IMO because people who didn't see it closely and saw it as noble and valiant now see children dying and it makes then feel sick with grief, guilt or whatever else. Please understand that right wingers, of which I am one, do feel the same things and of course we care.
The diffeences it seems is that we right wingers believe that this 'war' is inevitable and unless it is 'won' (which I agree is extremely hard to define) the wahhabist based fundamenatalism will succeed in undermining our collective society and will detonate a nuclear bomb one day in our city or cities - I believe London is particularly vulnerable.
I do not subscribe to the view that we are making it worse. The war was going on long before most of us knew we were in one and many seem willing to believe that we still aren't or if we are we brought it on ourselves. If you are correct I apologise but I don't think you are and I believe BO doesn't think that either.
The reasons for going to war were manufactured 'realpolitik' but the truth is Blair and Bush believed that region was headed out of control and needed to address them. OK wow how bad can it have gone! However the need is not diminished and to withdraw and leave the majority of people trying to just live their lives without protection would be cruel, at least for what its worth, is my opinion. Final point is does there have to be so much visceral hatred for those with different opinions? Remember we are free to disagree with one another and then get on with our lives. If you do that in some Wahhabist controlled areas you will die. That is much more worrying to me than whether BO is biased - of course he is and so is everyone else.
Our priorities seem peculiarly out of sync with the real world. I just want to protect the freedom I enjoyed for my 4 year old and if the Mid East can be sorted then thank you to the Moon, Sun, or whatever God floats your boat.
"The point I believe that Bill O'Reilly is making is war is about will and morale and the terrorists know this and their will is stronger so he chooses to present the war from his perspective." --richard
You say this like it is some sort of revelation. I would argue that most people know this. That is why wars should be made of sterner stuff than what the war in Iraq was made of. The problem with O'Reilly is that the War in Afghanistan is and was still fairly popular (even amongst us liberals) as it was much more directly related to the events of 9/11 and as long as we are there, we might be able to bring OBL to justice.
Pay a thousand dollars for a can of white paint to slap on an outhouse and what you have when you are done is still an still an outhouse minus a thousand dollars from your wallet.
God where do you buy your paint...you're getting hosed.
Halliburton and yeah we are getting hosed.
The reasons for going to war were manufactured 'realpolitik' but the truth is Blair and Bush believed that region was headed out of control and needed to address them. Richardg6256
Richard, if both Junior and Poodle (and yes I call them that cause I have no respect for them) really believed that the Middle East was headed out of control they should have approached the war seriously. More troops should have been on the ground from the start not now 4 years and 3,500 plus lives later. Bush should not have stood before the American public as "the commander in chief" and told the lie after lie for the last 4 years, ("we are winning in Iraq-Nov 2006/stay the course"). If changing the Middle East is what this was about from the beginning then both leaders should have told the truth but they could not and you and I both know why. No one in their right mind would take on Iraq until and unless we solve the Palestinian/Israel problem. If changing the picture in the Middle East was their mission why not start with Lebanon. A country that was on it's way even with the Hezbollah factor. While screaming "democracy", but when Hamas is elected cut off funding. The message that it sends is "democracy our way only". Not the best way to "win the hearts and minds"
The mission for this war has changed so often that unless you are really not paying attention you realize that neither Junior nor Poodle have the slightest idea WTF they are doing.
7 Children Killed by US Bombers
7 Children Killed by US Bombers
The U.S.-led coalition apologized Monday for the killing of the children but blamed militants for hiding among civilians. "We are truly sorry for the innocent lives lost in this attack," U.S. Army Maj. Chris Belcher, a coalition spokesman, said in a statement. "We had surveillance on the compound all day and saw no indications there were children inside the building." "We know that the militants often hide among women and children but we did not give a sdamn". "We would have dropped the bombs even if there were 50 women and children in the shool to get the one Hi-Profile Al Qadea Leader."According to several officials, and contrary to previous statements, the U.S. military knew there were children at the compound but considered the target of such high value it was worth the risk of potential collateral damage.
Those same officials tell NBC News the target of Sunday's attack was Abu Laith al Libi, the al-Qaida commander in Afghanistan and a top lieutenant of Osama bin Laden. The sources report that although six sets of remains besides those of the seven children were recovered, it's not clear whether Abu Laith is among those killed.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19318805/
US bombed a “compound” in Paktika province, Afghanistan, in which, they say, “nefarious activity” ( Wicked in the extreme; iniquitous; EVIL activity, VICIOUS activity ) was occurring. The bombs killed 7 or more children, so if there wasn’t nefarious activity ( Wicked in the extreme; iniquitous; EVIL, VICIOUS ) occurring before, that pretty much counts. The Independent comments, “The statement gave no indication what such nefarious activity (Wicked in the extreme; iniquitous; EVIL activity, VICIOUS activity ) might be”. One might add an additional note of skepticism about intel that is evidently capable of detecting nefarious activity ( Wicked in the extreme; iniquitous; EVIL activity, VICIOUS activity ) but not children. The children were killed in a school. The US military says it didn’t expect there to be any children in a school (they used the word madrassa). C’mon, they said, it was Sunday, shouldn’t those kids have been in church? The story the US is putting out is that the fighters kept the children with them by force. If true, then “wouldn’t the shield explaination only work if the shields were, you know, visible?” Shouldn't the clearance/approval to strike a school/madrassa require confirmation women and children are "not" present? How high up the Chain of Command did the request for this Air Strike go until it was approved? Did it go to the White House? What are the current rules of engagement? We know 7 children is an exceptable tradeoff for one Hi-Profile Al Qaeda. What about 50 women and children? What about 100 women and children? Has Congress reviewed the rules of engagement? This just one more slaughter of innocent Women and Children in Iraq and Afghanistan by US forces. It's time to re-write the rules of engagement for Airstrikes with 500 and 2000 pound bombs on potential innocent civilian targets. Jim Frego Grants Pass, ORNope. We rewrite the rules and Al Queda will use more children as shields and put more children in car bombs as decoys.
Let's put the blame where it should be. On Al Queda.
So we eschew all standards of decency and say we dont care how many children we kill as long as we get an al Queda guy every now and then? NO, we put our anguish on display. We do what we think we have to but we AKNOWLEGE the costs.
Lolo remember if you use there tactics, you can't claim the moral high road, you're no better than the people you hate.