You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #24: Here Ya Go.... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
otohara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. Here Ya Go....
John Tierney's media credibility plan

It all makes sense to us now.

The problems in Iraq? The insurgency that won't go away, the Iraqi civilians and security forces and the U.S. troops who just keep dying? There's an explanation for it all, and John Tierney, Bill Safire's replacement on the op-ed page of the New York Times, sets it all out for us today.

It's the media's fault.

While Tierney says that he understands that the press has "a duty to report suicide bombings in the Middle East," he suggests that it's time for the press to stop, you know, reporting on them. Reporting out the details only helps the terrorists' "media strategy," Teirney says, and it's time for the press to stop playing along. Rather than getting details about the names and faces of the people who suffered, Tierney asks, wouldn't we all just be better off if the media gave us a "box score" on each suicide attack listing the number of dead and the size of the explosion? "I suspect the public would welcome a respite from gore," Tierney says.

He's surely right about that part: The public -- the American public and the Iraqi public -- would surely welcome a respite from the reports about the "gore." But what they'd welcome more would be a respite from the gore itself. Tierney doesn't offer up any ideas on how U.S. or Iraqi forces could put an end to the suicide bombings in Iraq; instead, he suggests -- without really suggesting -- that the U.S military stop giving reporters information about suicide attacks. Failing that, he says, reporters should "reconsider" their interest in providing readers the details.

The Bush administration must be pleased as punch with Teirney's suggestion; no news is good news when the war is going badly, and a sterile listing of casualities is a hell of a lot easier to ignore than pictures of bleeding children and grieving families. As a public relations measure from the Pentagon's perspective, Tierney's ideas make perfectly good sense. But what are they thinking at the New York Times? We know that there's a separation between the news division and the op-ed page. But for a paper that seems so concerned about restoring credibility with readers, Tierney's column -- with its suggestion that the government supress the news and that the press do so if the government won't -- is still a strange way to start

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html

for more indepth on this
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505090003
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC