The Way The Media Works

[kentuck]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict the media story before it even happens. The House has passed a bill outlawing torture of all sorts, including water-boarding. Bush has threatened a veto? The first question is, how should the media report this story?

Torture? Is that something that our country wants to be associated with in any manner? The answer is no. It is from that premise that the media should do their reporting. It's not an issue that requires "fair and balanced" reporting. It is as clear a black and white issue as the press will ever report. That is the starting point.

The odds are that Bush will veto the bill that outlaws torture and the majority of Republicans will back him up. How will the media report it? That is the question.

Will they say that once again, "The Democrat Fail To Over-ride Bush Veto"? Will they say that the Democrats, once again, appear weak in their opposition to this President? Will the failure to denounce torture be laid at the feet of the Democrats? What do you think?

Or should they lay the blame at the feet of Bush and the Republicans for their utter disregard for the opinion of the majority of Americans? Should they not report that "Bush And Republicans Continue To Support Torture"? Should they not report that the "Republicans Block Democrats From Denouncing Torture"? Would that not be a more accurate reporting of this one issue?

Is that not required of a free press? Otherwise, they are worthless to our people or to our society. Every issue could be reported in such a manner that there is nothing that could be declared illegal or immoral. We could continue to make it an issue between two competing political Parties and our nation could continue our slide into fascism and chaos. Or they could report it as it should be reported?

[EFerrari]

1. Democrats Seek to Outlaw Enhanced Interrogation.

How does that sound?

[mmonk]

2. Very 1930's German.

[kentuck]

3. That may as well be the headline...

In effect, that is what they will report. At least, that is the way they have been reporting for several years.

[EFerrari]

5. If Democrats objected to Bush eating a baby in the Rose Garden

they'd say, Democrats Attack Presidential Press Conference.

[kentuck]

7. But they would try to balance it out with another story...

"Democrats Say They Could Have Used Stem Cells" in the baby that the President ate. They would report that Nancy Pelosi thought it was cruel and inhumane and the House will pass a resolution banning such practices as soon as they get back from vacation.

[shadowknows69]

9. Democrats try to control Presidents diet

[EFerrari]

10. Democrats support PETA Terrorists in Rose Garden Attack.

[kentuck]

18. Good one.

[madokie]

4. I know no answers but I do know that we don't have a chance until the media

is made to do their jobs. whats the FCC for

[EFerrari]

6. I think we do, though. The net reaches a LOT of people

and the traditional media is losing readers and viewers every day. We've got that going for us if we're willing to do a little work to get news out.

[BadgerKid]

8. Plus there's *discussion* on the net

The net allows people to hash over the grey spectrum that life entails.

With the Republican-owned MSM, everything becomes a black-or-white issue or survival issue teetering on paranoia, IMO. With the web we are empowered to find suitable content for ourselves.

[EFerrari]

12. That's a good point. n/t

[madokie]

13. I agree with that, you folks who are actually doing something is great, myself all I seem to do is

read. Actually I think down the road it will be seen as a natural progression from the print and airwaves to the Internet

[EFerrari]

17. Sometimes just sending a story to people in your address book

moves that story forward. It adds up.

Cheers, madokie, for what we can do.

[madokie]

20. yes we can win this war on America being waged against us by the neocons

Hard fought victories are so sweet

[Spike89]

11. Not the FCC's job (or any Fed department)

The federal government has no role in shaping the news. In a limited way, the Feds do have the duty to ensure fair access to some of the media channels (i.e., public airwaves). They have no control (nor should they) on what the media reports. Even the fairness doctrine, when it was in effect, didn't even begin to assert government control over how the media reports news. Although the difference isn't great, I'd rather have corporate control of the media than government control. Ideally, democratic media such as the Internet, low-entry-cost radio and television, newspapers, etc. will continue to be free to tell it exactly as they see fit. As long as the truth can get a foot into the door, corporate- or government-owned media can't truly control us.

[madokie]

14. and so we're in this predictament we're in because of the corp controled media

seems to me like anyway. I'm not arguing with you just pointing out. The fourth leg of a democracy is the free press, something we don't have today, our msm for the most part are owned by only a handful of people, all repubs best I remember anyway

[librechik]

15. But we need that tool to defeat Al Qaeda! Do you know they behead people?

Torture is like a pinprick to them!

Why do you hate Victory for America?

I am quoting directly.

We have a serious intelligence problem in this country. Not enough intelligent people and too many "Hangin's too good for em" types.

[madokie]

16. when the only tool is a hammer all problems start looking like a nail

[Disturbed]

19. "Democrats want to weaken the War on Terror."

Water Boarding and other "Enhanced Interrogation" has saved thousands of lives. Placing restrictions upon Interrogation of Terrorists make America less safe.