Hahahaha, geez almighty, I didn't quite get the "deep throat" comment at first. I was quite taken aback 'till I realized what he meant.
Sharp thinking scott. And thanks for the encouraging words. I'm just having a good time talking back and forth about what people think about the media, and vice versa. I'm going on two hours of sleep tonight, so my rebuttles, if you will, may not be as up to speed. I am falling asleep as I type this. It would be so easy to not worry about the news right now. So keep responding so I have something to do in my down time to stay awake. Help me help you.
Wrasse, you throw some real brain teasers out there, very cool. Now, I will play devil's advocate and argue the American media doesn't spread propaganda, intentionally anyway. I think the government does though, so I cant argue for them.
Now, we don't promote any specific ideas in our stories. We might discuss them, or tell about them, but we never say "this is good, you should follow it." That would go against journalism. Journalism is unbiased story-telling. We don't ever say "We think Saddam is bad." We say "Saddam is the self-proclaimed president of Iraq, this is what he has done since being in power." Now, if the viewer thinks what he does is bad, that's their own opinion. Some people might think killing millions isn't bad. That's also their opinion. We just tell the story.
You will never see the media support or advocate a certain political party, or way of government. Now, on the "talk news shows" you might. But, they are allowed to offer their personal views. That is why we report scandals on both sides of the line. We might not report every rumored scandal because we don't have the facts to back it up. But, we will if we get that information.
Now, about the global events, I don't think we are skewing that stuff so people see it through our eyes. We are showing it how it is over there. If folks think things are scary over there, it's because they are. Terror is a daily way of life over there. The reason we don't show Europe in a bad light, is because Europe generally refrains from the attrocities the mid-east lives everyday. But, things are sketchy over there.
I don't really think we should be jumping right into war. But, I do feel that if Saddam doesnt disarm, we need to force him. He is too unstable to have the kind of weapons he has. I believe he would use them on us if he felt threatened enough. He might not even use them on us, he might use them to try and take over the rest of the mid-east like he wants to. And if he used that crap there, it would pollute that section of the globe for ages. He is too volitile to be running a country with chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.
You say your son is going overthere. I hope he does well. If he is a Marine, you don't have to worry. Those guys are harda$$es. My father was in Marine-Recon (Covert, and Special Forces) in Vietnam. Entire platoons of Iraqi soldiers have surrendered to a single unit of Marines, that's how scared and intimidated they are of them. Not to mention, they want to escape Saddam.
But, thanks, if I go, I do hope God comes with me. But, you can be sure, I want God covering me from above.... but I want those Marines covering everything else.
Oh yeah, one more thing. I actually agree with littlefishys. I think propaganda works best on the uneducated and uninformed. It is those people who are impressionable. Educated, informed people have a tendancy to know how the world works. They also form their own opinions based on fact, intuition, and wit. The other folks take what they are spoon fed and believe it. Or their head is filled with too many ideas, and they can't differentiate between them. I consider myself both educated and informed. I differentiate between propaganda and honest thoughts. Some propaganda I choose to buy into, just to save face. But, if I believe something is utter BS, I call it. You can't just throw something at me, and expect me to believe it without a good backup of facts, examples, and hard evidence.
Sammy, I think I do believe people are drawn to bloodshed. But like you say, what is going to be talked about more? Many folks consider the nice, feature stories "fluff." They don't even consider them newsworthy. But, I believe news doesn't have to be die-hard events. Sure, cover those, but I think news is also the interesting, nice stories. Anything that will have someone saying "wow, that's cool." Still news. However, I deffinitly agree with you. I think the bloodshed is often times discussed out of concern than need to see it. But, nonetheless, folks are still drawn to it for that very reason. Concern or not, they still want to know about it. When I write a mid-east story, I never think about ratings. First thing I do is look for the most important, interesting information. That is alway the focus of the story. Then I work around that. I don't seek out the bloodshed. It's just that, often, that's what those stories entail. Like the Afghani car attack last night, the reason that is pertinent, besided one soldier dying, is that they are our allies, but moreso, they were on their way to training sponsored by the US. Bloodshed is gory, but yes, people want to know why it happened. But, yup, I agree. The good news kind of cushions the rest of the harsh world events. People like it, they are grateful for the break, and they move on.
Snowbear, as for 9-11. You're dang right nothing else mattered on that day. The ENTIRE world stopped. Doesnt matter if they were mourning or cheering, they all watched. The first terrorist attack on US soil... huge event in history. Huge. I was born in New York. I am used to flying into La Guardia and seeing the Trade Center after Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty. Not seeing it is a shock. Not to mention, if you took everyone who died in both attacks, NY and DC, you could probably link at least one person to another in every country in the world. The thing was, there were new developments every 5 seconds. Shi, whoops, I mean shoot, the other tower crashed while reporters were just talking about the first. That was definitely a day I support immense continuous coverage. Now, if you want to talk about the one year anniversary, many networks tried not to blow that out of proportion. That, I think, was important. Too much of that would be out of hand. But, on the day of one of the biggest events in our history, I think the coverage was superb and not too continuous. I mean, you couldnt even make a phone call, all the lines were tied up. That was a heavy day.
As far as local news. Yeah, you hit it on the head about accuracy. When I started in local, it was basically kids reporting. Because they got paid nada. However, the sacrifice there is that you get a lot of mistakes. I deffinitly won't argue that. Local news coverage can be very frustrating to watch. When you get to the larger markets, it gets better. There are 205 markets, I started in 120, which isnt too bad right out of school. We made our fair share of mistakes, me included, but we tried. Just be happy you can tune into the networks for a little salvation. But, that doesn't fulfill your local needs. I feel you there. That one's tough, and there arent any easy solutions.
Scotts, I will explain how a story gets on the air in a little bit, I havent forgotten. But, I need to work on getting some stories on the air myself. I'll be back soon. This should give yall a little reading for a bit.
Keep it goin yall. Rock on.
