Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Annie, May 9, 2006.
Not much in the MSM about, but some. Links at site:
These documents ought to be highlighted by President Bush every day through Election Day.
But they won't be. BTW, Welcome noob!
He got that one right, big time. Sad, sad, sad, sad--for us, for our country, for Iraq, and for the Iraqi people who want to live in freedom.
Fewer of our soldiers are dying in Iraq. Has anyone noticed that?
Frankly, the Administration must start to counteract the MSM more aggressively. They seem to be looking to Rush Limbaugh, the Blogosphere, NewsMax and everyone else to do their talking for them.
This administration needs more PR finesse, I hope that naming Tony Snow as Press Secretary will be a big step in that direction.
It's a mystery why they have given the MSM such liberty to get their message out relatively unchallenged. Don't they remember what happened with regard to Vietnam when defeat was snatched right from the jaws of victory because Walter Kronkite said that's the way it should be? It's almost like the Administration believes that the anti-war case is so asinine no one will pay any heed to it or those who espouse it.
Dealing with the MSM is a catch-22. You can pose it as the leftist media wants to bring down the conservative administration or the leftist media wants to break the war cause, but the media is out for $$$.
What is a better story "battle, bloodshed, and struggle" or, "we are having success". So while you say the admin. should attack the media, something like that will not go over well at all. That makes it look like the administration is tooting its own horn and is interfering with certain freedoms. For example, the decision to forbid pictures of coffins...not good for P.R. It makes it look like the administration is hiding the reality of war (which in that case, they are). So it is tough to force anything on the media without having it turned around to bite you in the ass.
At the same time, if an administration lets the media run free, the media will continue to get the money stories. Soldiers under constant fire. Snipers owning the cities...that kind of stuff. Don't pretend that it is all a leftist agenda. That plays a role at times, but the final goal is ratings. Look at celeb divorces and celeb drama. Whats a good celeb story? celeb weddings get a small buzz, but something like Tom Cruise's craziness, or Brad Pitt running off on Jennifer--that is the $$$ shit. People enjoy watching things go wrong.
Many also argue that if a presidential administration is going to say everything is well, you need a source that will at least define 'well'. In this case: the media. It is there job to go out there and say, "yes the president says all is well, but do not forget that there is a lot still happening out here".
It is the MSM's job to report factual news, not the pick-and-choose/ slanted/biased coverage that we constantly get from them. The complaint against the MSM is that it is so overtly political in its coverage of the news that we can't trust their reports to be fair or even accurate. There is plenty of evidence from unbiased reporters that there are lots of positive things happening in the WOT that the MSM refuses to report. You can count of the fact that we will never hear the upside of the WOT from the MSM. What we have today is a deliberate abuse of power by the MSM, betraying the trust people place in them for factual coverage of the news.
I'd say it is ALL media's job to report factual news, not just the MSM. I find it kinda ironic that you call the unbiased reporters that are the ones reporting positives re Iraq and other things like the WOT. What makes you think they are unbiased? Because they are "selling" positive stories or their track record? That aside, bad news sells, good news rarely does. It is not just the bad news re the WOT and Iraq that is being reported mainly, but any bad piece of news - from home invasions, to earthquakes to murders....
Separate names with a comma.