Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

ABC journalists suffered 'very significant injuries'

Um. So what?

They were embedded with the US Army. They were in the lead vehicle in an armored convoy, in what is essentially a war zone (declared or not.)

Did they deserve it? No. Should they be surprised? No.

And what about the other people in the vehicle? Why don't they get headline billing as well? What about all the troops who are injured or killed on an almost daily basis? Why don't we get hourly updates on their status? Why are a pair of journalists so much more important that we have to hear about them in every news segment? Do we care more about them than we do about anyone else over there?

Sorry, CNN, ABC, NBC, Fox, etc. I'm sorry your journalists are being attacked, right next to the troops they're embedded with. However, I have absolutely no respect your decision to provide us with hourly updates on their status, when you won't do the same for everyone else who gets attacked.

This morning, the story is the headline story on CNN.com. In the "More news" section, "US Secretary of State says the US will not support the democratically elected Palestinian government because the US government doesn't like who won."

(Note: This post is not anti-war and should not be construed to reflect any anti-war sentiment.)



( 16 comments — Leave a comment )
Jan. 30th, 2006 03:10 pm (UTC)
I'm glad my dad is finally out of there. We have been keeping up with the updates of the soldiers of the 1/155th Batalion, so we tend to know sooner than others if something happens. We need more media, especially possitive, for our soldiers. You have to look for positive media about the US Army. It sucks... I'm anti-war, but pro-soldier. Thanks for reminding us about what's important...*Huggles*
Jan. 30th, 2006 03:28 pm (UTC)
Personally, I think that we should send the politicians over there.
Our Politicians, against their terrorists.
Either way, we solve half our problems.
(Deleted comment)
Jan. 30th, 2006 09:26 pm (UTC)
Well, it'd look bad for AMERICA if they reported every US soldier killed in iraq all the time..
(Deleted comment)
Jan. 30th, 2006 10:48 pm (UTC)
Off topic:

Hi, Galen. ^_^

Jan. 30th, 2006 11:15 pm (UTC)
From a great song I know of..

"Why don't presidents fight the war?"
Jan. 30th, 2006 11:59 pm (UTC)
A saying from my grandpa's land and generation: "Rich man's war, poor man's fight."
Jan. 31st, 2006 02:11 am (UTC)
And within the same song...

"Why do they always send the poor?"

Seems like they know what they're talking about..
Jan. 31st, 2006 02:30 am (UTC)
Yup. The Georgians, before Atlanta's phoenix-like rebirth in this last half-cantury, knew better than most Americans what it was like to be victims of leadership. Especially those who raised my grandpa's generation.
Jan. 31st, 2006 03:05 am (UTC)
Well, in "fairness", the press is sort of, to my mind, like the red cross (neutral service-providers), or at the very least like civilians. Granted you take some risks when you go hang out with troops, and so there are risks, but the other side should make reasonable efforts to avoid hitting them.

Likewise, Iraq's big thing used to be putting military bases in hospitals, or other civilian-filled places. And then saying "look, you killed civilians" when they were hit in coincidental fire.

Though I will agree that we really need more neutral media. I generally try to get news from a couple other english speaking countries "just in case" since they're a little less biased if not anti-biased on American issues. Guess that's always an option.

That's what happens when your populace expects entertainment rather than news, and when your funding is from commercials (ie, ratings... ie, viewers... ie, entertainment) rather than quality or value. Perhaps they need a pay-subscription news channel, though that wouldn't really reach the "uninformed" -- at least they could do something like little teasers to the public and full stories for those who paid. Or something. I'm rambling.
(Deleted comment)
Jan. 31st, 2006 05:09 am (UTC)
I think it's been a long time since a newspaper was wholly supported by its purchase price, rather than ad revenue. Probably our best bet is the internet, but in the case where anyone "can" make news, chances are anyone "will" which then causes nobody to be any further along.

Not that I'd ever question the journalistic integrity (or capacity for correct grammar) of the average net citizen....
Jan. 31st, 2006 06:14 pm (UTC)
Granted you take some risks when you go hang out with troops, and so there are risks, but the other side should make reasonable efforts to avoid hitting them.

Then why don't we get daily updates on the status of other civilians who are injured by roadside bombs? We hear about the kidnapping victims, but that's it.
Feb. 1st, 2006 12:29 am (UTC)
More than likely, that depends on the availability of that news, and the fact that network news only has X amount of time to address a planet full of news, so they make decisions based on what they think people will "want" to hear (so as to keep watching).

Cable news should have solved that problem, but has turned into just another form of entertainment, not unlike the trite but applicable example of MTV turning from "video radio", to being an entertainment network, to attempting to define pop culture.
Jan. 31st, 2006 06:34 pm (UTC)
People on TV are always more important than anyone else. It's like, the law. You didn't know? Just imagine if the host of American Idol got hurt and ended up in the hospital. There'd probably be a call for a nationwide moment of silence.

Blah, like so many over-hyped "news" stories this one makes me ill. I'm glad I gave up on commercial news outlets long ago. I see I'm not missing much.
( 16 comments — Leave a comment )