The Kindler, Gentler WMD - Neutron Bombs

And how was their access on the other side of the fence?
As I recall the press was sequestered in a hotel and bussed around to arranged photo ops and speeches from Iraqi officials. They didn't accompany the troops using the populace as cover from which to fire weapons behind. They didn't question any of the "information" they were fed. That's controlled access.
I recall several reporters killed in combat areas while traveling in the same vehicles as the soldiers. How much more access could they have been given?
As I stated earlier, The BBC reporters were shameless in their attempts to spin what they saw. Ever watch their broadcasts or visit their website? They practically define the term media bias. They have no more credibility than Al Jazeera.

 

neither does your response, you misinterpreted just about everything I wrote

I didn't mention BBC reports, nor did I mention or even give a rat's ass about the "other side." I heard independents being interviewed on a BBC report. independents are NOT the same as a BBC employee, they work freelance and mostly on spec

Lib or hawk, most anyone I've heard bitch about spin or bias is just pissed because the news doesn't agree with their personal opinion. my point was that any military puts controls what's reported.

go back and try rereading the thread, there's a huge difference between editorial position and news content. anyone that can't tell the difference shouldn't be allowed to handle a remote or a newspaper.

you also might try an exercise in perspective--al jezeera is reporting what the"other side" wants to hear-- from their perspective we're the bad guys, and the way AJ's news is influenced by military PR tactics is really no different than ours

 

And you don't think the people who buy footage from free-lancers take into consideration what they produce? You think these freelancers who are selling a product to a consumer in order to make money don't work to create a product their buyer will approve of?
You seem to put great stock in the fact that these freelancers felt constricted in their coverage allowed by the US military but don't give a rat's ass about the restrictions from the other side?
Why not, interfere with you making your point?
As far as the difference between editorial position and news content, they are not as far removed as you seem to think. News sources and what they produce are numerous. Anyone who produces or edits a story brings bias to it. Anyone who chooses which news to include, or exclude, in their publication or news broadcast brings their own bias to those decisions
If you think a newspaper that produces left or right leaning editorials puts out an unbiased news section then you don't know much about the news business.

Al Jazeera is not a legitimate news source, they are a political tool masquerading as a news source. They are the modern equivalent of Leni Riefenstahl.
The Washington Post is an example of a legitimate but extremely biased news source. Their choice of what to cover and from what angle to cover it is very much in line with their editorial position.
Bias exists in all news reporting as well as editorialism. I have a couple years study in mass comm, I don't need you to tell me about how the media works.
Your lack of perspective concerning the US military is glaringly obvious. I don't believe everything I read or see concerning the military, neither do I dismiss it out-of-hand.
That's applying perspective.

 

well whoopie-doodie, yer an expert. I've worked either in or with the industry for 19 years. You took some classes but lack any practical experience or first-hand exposure and aren't open to learning anything that contradicts your unsubstantiated opinions.

You've repeatedly misinterpreted my statements, answering with unrelated and off-target lines of argument.

Rarely does anyone change their position in a discussion like this, but usually there's some light shed by sharing viewpoints. In this case, I feel you wouldn't see the other side with a halogen torch. You win, I quit, too busy and not worth the effort. Gloat in close-minded victorious blindness and run up the victory flag if you want, I’m done with this one

 

I didn't say I was an expert, but I am hardly uninformed. Two years of study isn't "taking some classes". Most of my teachers were still actively working in the field, they included reporters and editors from both print and broadcast media as well as political journalists, authors and advisors. Interpreting media was a huge part of what we learned. And you have no idea what experience I've had since.

And I fail to see where I misinterpreted your statements. I also didn't see the rules that denoted which facets of the discussion I wasn't allowed to include.

Going back to your original statements, you feel that the general US populace isn't sophisticated enough to know that civilians, including women and children, were being killed in the fighting.
They would have known this and stopped the war if they had just shown decimated bodies on the evening news.
Those pictures weren't shown MOST LIKELY because they didn't have those pictures.They didn't have those pictures because all those reporters travelling with the troops were tightly muzzled and controlled. You know this because you heard several people who sell stories to the BBC say as much. That is what I got from your posts.
The fact that there has never been a war so heavily and closely covered by media from around the world, whose reporters accompanied the troops and saw much of what they saw, means nothing. There ain't nothing those slick government types can't hide from us, is there?
And now I'm just too close-minded, unsophisticated and blind to see the real truth here.
I see your viewpoint, I just don't agree. The news media just aren't into graphic gore on the evening news. I remember the news in the 60's, the body counts, the corpses laid out. It was a different time and a different attitude.
When Saddam's sons were killed and the media was encouraged to show them as proof, they were highly apologetic and some refused to show them. And those were pretty tame pictures. I certainly remember stories about civilians being killed, and plenty of them. It was one of the pet stories of the reporters in Bagdahd. They showed a fair amount of covered bodies, but they didn't show close-ups of mangled corpses. News crews in this country take footage of stuff like that all the time, it doesn't show up on the evening news.
Most people already had and still have a strong opinion concerning the war. I doubt many minds would have been changed had they shown dead children on the 6 o'clock news.

You didn't refute anything I said, you just engaged in an ad homonim attack.

Oh, and I did work in and with the news industry for 7 years.
I had 3 different paper routes from age 9 to 16. So there!

 

Blah blah blah blah blah!

SHUT UP!!!!

I don't care about the media! I don't care about blue-on-blue, or girl-on-girl action, or girls on film!

I want to know about Neutron Bombs, damn it!

 

you were in diapers and missed it, it was that little thing called Viet Nam, but oh, they never declared it a war so it doesn't count.

they put burnt babies in your living room everynight. the public rose hell over the war and two presidents caught hell for he involvement. see? politicians learn from past experience, try it sometime

as I said, goodbye

 

then go start your own thread and stay out of ours you death-loving bomb freak

 

Man a Neutron bomb explosion with my eggs and coffee in the morning! Ufa! That's the way to start the day (and to get yourself a new Porsche 911 twin turbo convertible).

 

are you referring to your mid-morning egg farts?

 

Just so you know, I was in college when the war ended. Two friends died there, one accidently shot by a platoon-mate, the other while learning to disarm land mines. I remember it all quite well, thank you.
Of course, that war was ongoing for a considerable number of years and involved the deaths of over 50,000 US troops. The Iraq war doesn't begin to compare, nor are the issues comparable. The number of journalists there didn't begin to compare to the number in Iraq, nor did they have live-feeds on all-news stations 24 hours a day.
I've been around the block a few times too, you're attempts to imply I have no experience or knowledge-base from which to judge the events of today don't diminish my argument or make yours.
You are right about one thing, you and I will never see eye to eye on any of this. I'll go back to discussing neutron bombs to keep Nemesis happy.

 

really? your profile says you were born in 1969? war ended in early 70s?

 

I just checked, in case I had screwed it up, and it has the right date, July 9, 1954.
I was 49 this past July.

 

Wierd, it does say you were born 12/31/69.... But that date means something to the computer geeks! Probably a little bug...

 

We have CCSer open class novices in the wire, have thrown smoke, hit 'em with the poon gas... no effect. Hit 'em with the Neutron bomb.....

 

Midnight 1/1/1970 GMT is the POSIX epoch - POSIX systems represent time in the number of seconds that have elapsed since then. Carless programming can result in dates prior to that being mangled.

It's the next Y2K problem - the epoch ends 03:14:07 on 1/19/2038.

 

Mongo, how about booting all the old "STUCK" threads that are out of date in the other forums.........