No Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Says One Idiotarian!

[Annie]

It's a QUAGMIRE!

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...till_no_mass_weapons_no_ties_to_911_no_truth/

How to make something bad out of something good:

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/o...2.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/17/ixportal.html

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004441

http://volokh.com/2003_12_14_volokh_archive.html#107163127366226897

 

[nbdysfu]

How was the media alone different during the Vietnam quagmire?

During and directly preceding the war on Iraq, American media has been largely against the war and dismissive of its purpose. After major combat ceased, every casualty became front page news and was used to justify every argument ever made against the war. As things have refused to fall apart, the popular media has become doggedly engaged in covering their hindquarters, much like their Vietnam era counterparts.

Am I right in saying the major and important difference rests in where the media has placed all its credibility? In vietnam, they placed it in the government, and lost sorely. Now they have put all their faith in the failure of the US, and things look bad for these popular news venues, such as the ones mentioned in the telegraph article.

 

[Annie]

You have a point. The reporters during early years of Vietnam were mostly from WWII or Korea, different times than now. Think of what went unreported both healthwise and 'social-wise' with FDR and JFK.

A combination of Vietnam and Watergate created a press that is not only cynical, but many seem to try to 'make' the news. You may also be correct in that the public has started to rebel against this. Perhaps the courts should also pay heed?

 

[nbdysfu]

originally posted by Kathianne
The reporters during early years of Vietnam were mostly from WWII or Korea, different times than now.
_____________________ _______________________
hehe. back in 10th grade I did a report on the reasoning behind the hiroshima and nagasaki bombings. A large amount of my sources were Life magazine and books written in the 40s and 50s. Needless to say I ended up rewriting my skewed report. I think if I still maintained that mentality of not taking into account the political bias of any source reporting on its own times, I'd probably be against the war, as all I generally have the time to read are yahoo AP and the NYT.

I think any time we have a rebellion it is a failure of our democratic society. I hope the rebellion is simply in the form of massive voter turnout.

 

[Annie]

What's interesting is that the reports that 'go against' the grain of general reporting in a given point in history, tend to be the ones that survive. In this case, don't be surprised if the 'historical winners' are the blogs and FOX, hated today by so many of the 'intelligensia.'

 

[nbdysfu]

Actually, I think the FOX news format is innovative mainly because it invites on experts who disagree with the anchors. Every time you watch you get to hear both sides of the argument, and they show their partisan colors when they flame each other. No one watches the O' Reilly factor and wonders if O'Reilly is to the right. It gives you a better chance to see the agenda that the person has.

 

[Annie]

O'Reilly isn't always on the Right, which is probably why his ratings are so high, regardless of how annoying he can be.

Listen to him on Catholic Church, gay rights, and other topics. Now on the War on Terror, you don't need a scorecard, though he's been pretty vocal in the holes of Homeland Security, especially regarding illegal immigration. On this, he is hardly in lockstep with the administration or GOP, both of which have been catering to the Hispanic vote.

 

[nbdysfu]

He has usually been supportive of the traditionally left issues you mention. He surprised me with his stance on the Arkansa Ten Commandments courthouse crisis. I think it shows how amenable the popular right can be to some left values in the current time.