Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: TweetyBird on August 11, 2004, 09:07:56 AM
-
I understand why the news have to report terrorist attacks, but why must they report terrorist demands and reasoning behind an attack? I'm not interested if a terrorist claims he killed peope out of some sense of duty. Its nothing but spin from a twisted thug mind. Why is the media broadening the terrorist stage by publishing their twisted reasons for murder. Isn't it enough to report the murder? No one deserves a forum for airing their ideas because they killed someone.
Yes - report terror sttacks.
No- don't publish terrorist manifestos or demands.
The major media outlets in the US have to be more responsible.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Yes - report terror sttacks.
No- don't publish terrorist manifestos or demands.
The major media outlets in the US have to be more responsible.
Then turn off the National News when they have more Kerry coverage?
-
I guess would you rather not let anyone know what is happening in our country or out side of it?
Maybe we should let the goverment tell us what they think is news worthy,.
I guess we can also let them pick what they want each person does for a living, we might as well also remove privit news all together, make it all goverment controled and owed.
:rolleyes:
-
Ripsnort - mega dittos:aok
-
I want to know whats happening - I don't want to know their resoning which is usually a lie, simplistic, twisted logic anyway. The media becomes their spin doctor. Report the murder, report that attack but not their demands or reasoning.
-
Most of the Liberal media is on the side of the terrorist. Such as they want for our troops to do poorly, so they can promote Kerry.
-
TweetyBird
I prefer to know things and not just trust that various goverment's will dictate what i should and should not know/see.
-
Tweety was not asking for the government to limit what media outlets can carry. he was asking the media outlets themselves to be more thoughtful regarding their converage, because their coverage can actually lend credibility to terrorists and help their cause. Just as one example, Fox News Channel never showed the photgraphs from Abu Graib, and doesn't refer to the street-thugs in Iraq as "insurgents", but rather calls them "radical islamic militants". Words mean things, and the words you choose to use says a lot about your political point of view. I wish our media was more careful with the words they use as well, but i would object to any government official telling them what words to use.
-
Originally posted by Edbert MOL
Tweety was not asking for the government to limit what media outlets can carry. he was asking the media outlets themselves to be more thoughtful regarding their converage, because their coverage can actually lend credibility to terrorists and help their cause. Just as one example, Fox News Channel never showed the photgraphs from Abu Graib, and doesn't refer to the street-thugs in Iraq as "insurgents", but rather calls them "radical islamic militants". Words mean things, and the words you choose to use says a lot about your political point of view. I wish our media was more careful with the words they use as well, but i would object to any government official telling them what words to use.
The media shows the things people wants to see, so there is not much chanse of them not reporting this without some goverment agency interfering..... People wants to know/see.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
The media shows the things people wants to see, so there is not much chanse of them not reporting this without some goverment agency interfering..... People wants to know/see.
perhaps I am wrong but I did not see where someone called for the media to not report on terrorism. What I read was a call for the media to not portray terrorists as "freedom fighters" and lend credence to their demands.
Rather than say:
"An assembly of jihaddists called for all westerners to leave the holy lands of Saudi Arabia"
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say something like this:
"A group of brainwashed extremists today announced that they are planning on killing thousands of innocent civilians if Saudi Arabia does not return to the way it was during the middle ages"
-
Originally posted by Edbert MOL
perhaps I am wrong but I did not see where someone called for the media to not report on terrorism. What I read was a call for the media to not portray terrorists as "freedom fighters" and lend credence to their demands.
Rather than say:
"An assembly of jihaddists called for all westerners to leave the holy lands of Saudi Arabia"
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say something like this:
"A group of brainwashed extremists today announced that they are planning on killing thousands of innocent civilians if Saudi Arabia does not return to the way it was during the middle ages"
i belive this thread was about NOT reporting the demands of the terroristst, and the reasons.
Not gonna happen unless you get a goverment that censors the media. Only other way to stop it, is for the advertisers to not support those that does. Money talks in some places.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
TweetyBird
I prefer to know things and not just trust that various goverment's will dictate what i should and should not know/see.
I think that works out to seeing what you want to see, which
is just what you accuse the various governments of doing.
Ironic, isn't it?
-
Originally posted by Rino
I think that works out to seeing what you want to see, which
is just what you accuse the various governments of doing.
Ironic, isn't it?
Read again.
Have never accused various govs of anything, and there is nothing ironic here
-
I understand why the news have to report terrorist attacks, but why must they report terrorist demands and reasoning behind an attack? I'm not interested if a terrorist claims he killed peope out of some sense of duty
If you don't report terrorist's demands how can you understand why they are killing people? How can you combat their terror without know the cause? Many terrorists actually have a legitimate cause but a distorted way of achieving it. Quite often there are plenty of people committed to the cause but peacefully, who despise the terrorists. You need to know why terrorists kill in order to combat them.
More fundamentally why do YOU wish to restrict everyones freedom to make up their own mind based on all the information available. You apparently wish that all of us be kept in the dark as to the reasons for terror.
It always amazes me that there are so many people quick to sacrifice hard won freedoms because they don't like some of the stuff they hear and see on television and in the newspapers. Knowledge is power as the saying goes.
-
weather the Govt restricts media reports or media outlets police themselves there is One common factor here.
The media is a tool for terrorists. OR more specific the more attention their cause recieves the greater chance of success.
Just wait till Al Jazera hosts "Live" executions of hostages. I dont see that being that far off.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
weather the Govt restricts media reports or media outlets police themselves there is One common factor here.
The media is a tool for terrorists. OR more specific the more attention their cause recieves the greater chance of success.
Just wait till Al Jazera hosts "Live" executions of hostages. I dont see that being that far off.
But you do think that the media should report "our" side of things? A polished version of the worlds events?
How do you think us mere mortals shal make up our minds about things and learn if we are only fed what is politically correct?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
But you do think that the media should report "our" side of things? A polished version of the worlds events?
How do you think us mere mortals shal make up our minds about things and learn if we are only fed what is politically correct?
Nilsen you got me there. I am offering a problem with out a viable solution.
I'm not a media type nore to I know the kind of "ethics" they work under.
The result of what they report is kind of like colateral damage. Its not all that avoidable.
I admit I'm not for censorship I want the whole truth to be reported to me. It still doesnt help that the terrorists learn what works by watching the news and reading the papers.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Nilsen you got me there. I am offering a problem with out a viable solution.
I'm not a media type nore to I know the kind of "ethics" they work under.
The result of what they report is kind of like colateral damage. Its not all that avoidable.
I admit I'm not for censorship I want the whole truth to be reported to me. It still doesnt help that the terrorists learn what works by watching the news and reading the papers.
Yup, thats the downside to freedom... it goes all kinds of freaky ways. The day you really start to edit things out of the news is when freedom and democracy goes down the drain.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
weather the Govt restricts media reports or media outlets police themselves there is One common factor here.
The media is a tool for terrorists. OR more specific the more attention their cause recieves the greater chance of success.
Just wait till Al Jazera hosts "Live" executions of hostages. I dont see that being that far off.
The media coverage often has the opposite effect in that their actions as seen on TV engenders disgust and anger among the viewers. Just how many of you warmed to the terrorists cause at the sight of innocent people being beheaded on video? It may draw attention to their cause but it can hardly have improved it's chances of success.
Any restriction of our freedom to access the full story IS a victory to the terrorists.
Countries where what can and cannot be said on the media include Iran, North Korea, China etc. Do you really want to join those bastions of free speech.
Again I fail to understand why you would sell your freedom so cheaply. Terrorist only win when the change the way you live your life.
-
This is not about censorship or freedom. Its about irresponsibly giving anyone with a knife or gun a forum to air their views. Imagine if the media did this with suicides. Wanna know why they don't? Because they're afraid it would encourage others to put a gun to their head or walk out on to a ledge and demand air time for their greivances.
If its wrong to cater to individual suicide stunts, its equaly wrong to cater to 6 people with dirty rags over their face simply because they're holding a knife to someones throat. I KNOW why they're doing it. They doing it because they have no value for human life and killing someone is an easy way to get on TV. I don't need the media spinning some contrived tale for the wacko.
Report the crime - not their wacko message. The wacko doesn't deserve to instantly publish his wacked out message.
I think its time the media severes their working relationship with thugs and murderers even if they happen to reside in a 3rd world country.
And no - I don't support a law to make the major media outlets get responsible - I favor boycotts.
They need to ask themselves, are they doing it interest of news or to scoop the other network.