Us Versus Iraq

[hobbes]

Originally posted by myfiles3000+30 May 2003 - 16:27--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 30 May 2003 - 16:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--hobbes@30 May 2003 - 14:29


I would like to think news reflects reality and is not motivated by political or financial agendas, but alas.....

Second, to suggest that news reflects reality is...just....crazy. Again, this is not a lefty idea, any media scholar worth his weight in trendy eyeglasses will tell you that news reality is a social construction. For example, there is a direct correlation between how much tv you watch, and your perceived risk of being a victim of violent crime. The heavy tv watchers have a horribly skewed perception, much worse than crime statistics bear out. But that&#39;s the reality they operate within. this is not limited to anecdotes: the world has far too many stories to report, so what ends up on the news follows a particular filtering process.[/b][/quote]
That is what the "but alas" was for. Yes, if the statement were to be interpreted at face value, it would be crazy.

Is a man not allowed to have an idealistic moment while sipping his moring coffee, only to be roused from this escapist interlude by the first crisis of the day.

The "but alas" acknowledges that I know my thoughts about the news being about truth are fantasy.

You must have been in a bad mood, that one was pretty obvious.

[hekterskelter]

I think it would be best for us the U.S. to return to an isolationist government. The when what ever country in the world starts ww3 we could just wait for Great Brittian to beg us for help, that is after france is overrun of course. People just don&#39;t seem to realize as Amerucans we will do what we want. I think everyone in England would feel a lot different if one of your major places was destroyed right in frony of your eyes.

[clocker]

Originally posted by hekterskelter@31 May 2003 - 08:54
I think it would be best for us the U.S. to return to an isolationist government.

Best for who?

[cyprushil]

Originally posted by hekterskelter@31 May 2003 - 14:54
I think it would be best for us the U.S. to return to an isolationist government. The when what ever country in the world starts ww3 we could just wait for Great Brittian to beg us for help, that is after france is overrun of course. People just don&#39;t seem to realize as Amerucans we will do what we want. I think everyone in England would feel a lot different if one of your major places was destroyed right in frony of your eyes.

Ask any Brit if he/she thinks we would like the Help of the US Army.

Seeing as we lost several soldiers in both Gulf Wars to &#39;friendly&#39; US fire, sometimes in broad daylight with clearly marked vehicles.

I think most of us would answer with a resounding NO..

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by hobbes@30 May 2003 - 22:25
You must have been in a bad mood, that one was pretty obvious.

quite right old boy, i did jump the gun. apologies.

but i would have written it anyway, as some people just don&#39;t realize just arbritrary the definition of "news" is. I, for one, could care less if some bus crashed half way around the world, some earthquake struck half way around the world, some hurricane destroyed a village half way around the world. this is politically useless information. there are agencies in place to provide aid. if you care about random disasters, by all means, join a club. but why the entire populace has to sit there and watch something they cand do nothing about, and has no connection to their own lives, is beyond me.

cheerio,

[clocker]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@31 May 2003 - 10:22


but i would have written it anyway, as some people just don&#39;t realize just arbritrary the definition of "news" is. I, for one, could care less if some bus crashed half way around the world, some earthquake struck half way around the world, some hurricane destroyed a village half way around the world. this is politically useless information. there are agencies in place to provide aid. if you care about random disasters, by all means, join a club. but why the entire populace has to sit there and watch something they cand do nothing about, and has no connection to their own lives, is beyond me.

cheerio,

This is the problem with television news.
Being a visual medium they need something of interest to show you.
Most real news stories are just not that interesting to look at , hence the predominance of useless but watchable stories.
I agree with you, one bus crash/ ferry disaster ( why do people get on those things anymore? Seems like hardly a week passes without another 500 people drowning...) looks pretty much like another. And, although it&#39;s a tragedy for the locals involved, it&#39;s not really news per se.

So that would leave the print media.
And we all know how many folks (anywhere&#33 read anymore...

[MagicNakor]

"If it bleeds, it leads."

Edit:

...some people just don&#39;t realize just arbritrary the definition of "news" is. I, for one, could care less if some bus crashed half way around the world...

Well, the word "news" actually is just an acronym. When newspapers were first printed, they claimed to bring events from all four corners of the globe: north, east, west, and south.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@31 May 2003 - 15:29
"If it bleeds, it leads."

Edit:

...some people just don&#39;t realize just arbritrary the definition of "news" is. I, for one, could care less if some bus crashed half way around the world...

Well, the word "news" actually is just an acronym. When newspapers were first printed, they claimed to bring events from all four corners of the globe: north, east, west, and south.

MN-

My assessment of your ongoing contribution is thus reinforced. B)

[sArA]

Unfortunately...the problem with real &#39;news&#39; is that it is infinately boring to most people..

A good example is the introduction of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, that was snuck into the British statute books with barely a mention or a whimper in the press.....

It is a direct attack on our civil liberties, allowing imense powers of search, siezure and imprisonment to authorities seeking access to computerised and in particular encrypted information and communicationand yet the issues are just of little or no interest to the average &#39;Joe&#39;....unless they happen to be affected directly of course....

&#39;News&#39; media is merely another form of entertainment, with ratings and sensationalism being more important than the delivery of important information to the masses.....ho hum......

[clocker]

Originally posted by sara5564@31 May 2003 - 18:46
Unfortunately...the problem with real &#39;news&#39; is that it is infinately boring to most people..

A good example is the introduction of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, that was snuck into the British statute books with barely a mention or a whimper in the press.....

Sad but true.

But surely Sara, you are confused about the country of origin of your example. Judging by the tenor of the board surely you are referring to the USofA?
Things like that only happen here in the sad, benighted,mongrel US, never in wise, enlightened, culturally mature Europe.

Please check your sources.
Otherwise, a lot of fingers currently pointed right up my nose will have to be redirected to their former homes up the pointer&#39;s asses.