The Path to 9/11

[turbo36]

It won't be long and the Islamic News Network will gain a foothold in North American news broadcasting for all their religious followers.

So the first amendment does not apply to Muslims?

 

[turbo36]

Ahh, we finally got around to THEM.

Some people say the Democrats are the problem. Others says its the Republicans.

They are both right but they missed the Real Problem, which is the press. I have NEVER seen a story about which I had some knowledge that the press got right or at a minimum they left out important information. And then you get into the press carrying the Flag Of Journalism which purports to be fair and unbiased. There have been study after study after study regarding news stories and how they are biased strongly to one side. The last study I read about came out of one of the CA universities.

In the early 80s PBS had a series of shows about the Media. The format of the show was that there was a narrator, for a want of a better word, and a panel full of experienced people The people on one show, about the Media and Military, included exPresidents, high level Congress Critters from both houses, Historians, Law professors, media anchors/editors, Judges, and high ranking generals/admirals.

This was when tension was high regarding Nicaragua. The narrator threw out a scenario about a country in Latin American whose name as very similar to Nicaragua but which I'll call X since its easier to type. On the panel was Dan Rather and either Jennings or Brokow. Can't remember which pretty much the same anyway. The following questions where asked to the "journalists".

You have a source. The source is high level and always right. The source tells you that the US will have a surprise invasion of X in 24/48 hours. Do you report this story?

Rather and the others said yes. No hesitation.

The narrator continues. Your source tells you that even if the invasion is reported it will go on regardless of the loss of surprise. Do you report the story?

Rather and the others said yes. No hesitation.

Your source tells you that the if X knows of the invasion US forces will suffer 10,000 dead and wounded. Do you report the story?

Rather, without hesitation, said Yes. The others waffled and said they would have to think about it.

At this point, it was a good thing the panel was sitting at tables because the only thing stopping the generals/admirals jaws from hitting the floor was the table tops. I think most of the people where shocked at the medias reaction. Even the, we have to think about it response, was appaling. Rather was most insistent that it was his duty to report to the American people this news. The fact that there would be huge causualities did not bother him at all. I find it enlightening his casualness about killing US service people in light of the press's focus on casualities during the current war. I guess casualities are ok if they make ratings.

The problem is the press...

If you are given bad information how can you make good decisions?

Later,
Dan

So you are saying the press should get the approval of the government before reporting all the news or just some of the news?

 

[SkyPup]

So the first amendment does not apply to Muslims?

When news, views, and religion are comingled into one, as they are in all Muslim societies around the world, don't you think that may be a conflict of interest or should religion and the state and law all be one, as they are in Islamic states?

 

[turbo36]

I'll take your bet. I enjoy Rush, he has been making my day since October of 1984. Millions of us enjoy him and the many well educated people that call in. I have attempted to listen to Air America, but it just does not do it for me. It seems so angry and whinny over there. I also have the opportunity to listen to Tom Sullivan weekly, another great AM show. Rush is an entertainer, a superb, well educated one at that, just look at the ratings.

You don't think Rush is angry????? What a laugh! It's the same old stuff day after day; stupid liberals, government handouts, welfare babies, drug addicts (oops, can't use that one any more) blacks are inferior, gays, blah, blah, blah. Rush always talks about family values and how they are important to America yet he doesn't practice what he preaches, how many times has he been divorced?
There are better and more honest conservative talk show hosts out there like G. Gordon Liddy to listen to.

 

[livincountry]

So you are saying the press should get the approval of the government before reporting all the news or just some of the news?

I think the point is to weigh common sense over ratings. That's what got Dan Rather fired anyway.

In the example noted, what does the public gain in the knowledge of a raid that justifies the deaths of many soldiers?

To broadbrush any situation with "need government approval?" is not appropriate and illustrates the root of today's dilemma.

 

[turbo36]

When news, views, and religion are comingled into one, as they are in all Muslim societies around the world, don't you think that may be a conflict of interest or should religion and the state and law all be one, as they are in Islamic states?

Yes I think it is wrong but it's their country and it's up to the citizens of these societies to decide the role of religion in their government not us.

 

[MikePA]

You don't think Rush is angry????? What a laugh! It's the same old stuff day after day; stupid liberals, government handouts, welfare babies, drug addicts (oops, can't use that one any more) blacks are inferior, gays, blah, blah, blah. Rush always talks about family values and how they are important to America yet he doesn't practice what he preaches, how many times has he been divorced? There are better and more honest conservative talk show hosts out there like G. Gordon Liddy to listen to.

You obviously have not listened to him very much.

 

[turbo36]

I think the point is to weigh common sense over ratings. That's what got Dan Rather fired anyway.

In the example noted, what does the public gain in the knowledge of a raid that justifies the deaths of many soldiers?

To broadbrush any situation with "need government approval?" is not appropriate and illustrates the root of today's dilemma.

Freedom of the press is not as simple as it seems is it? During WW2 there were more then a few cases were the Government asked the press too hold a story until the right time and they did. The difference today is the amount of secrecy and the length of time of that secrecy, can we really have a free socity if the government is secret and not open to scrutiny by it's people or press?

 

[SkyPup]

Yes I think it is wrong but it's their country and it's up to the citizens of these societies to decide the role of religion in their government not us.

But there are millions of Muslims in the USA right now, and it is against their religion to use currency that states, "In God We Trust", it is against their religion to put their hand on the Bible in a courtroom and be tried under our Justice system instead of their Shia law, their women have about the same rights as an uneducated cow, infidels should have their throats cuts, torture is tolerated as a way of life, etc. etc.

How can all that and a whole lot more be rectified when they live here and are protected by the Constution and Bill of Rights?

 

[livincountry]

Turbo36, you're doing it again....broadbrush the issue and tactics rather than a solution to a specific issue. The guy defeated in the last presidential election did the same thing. "I will do it better" was a typical response to any problems Bush encountered. That's too easy to second guess and it really doesn't make you appear any smarter.