posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 03:17 AM
Is anyone here old enough to remember a time when the News Media differentiated themselves by getting more information faster? I'm not. I wonder if
ANYONE is. Has it always been this way?
The media, particularly FNC in my experience, seem to beleive that catch phrases and jargon will make them stand out and seem more informative far
better than getting more facts ever could. (sadly enough, I know plenty of people who fall for it.)
You'd think that having your head emersed in a certain other body cavity might make it difficult to put your foot in your mouth, but you'd be
The biggest one in recent memory had to be "homicide bomber". I'm not completely sure it was the first time, but I think I saw the broadcast where
that phrase was coined. I was SHOCKED when that stuck. What kind of bomber DOESN'T mean to commit homicide? What is noteworthy about a SUICIDE bomber
is that he doesn't have the common sense to throw the bomb before he sets it off.
How could a journalist miss this??? Doesn't EVERY journalism professor in the country use the same stupid line about "If a dog bites a man, that's
not news. If a man bites a dog..."
I also remember the strange switch in terminology during the invasion of Afghanistan when they finally figured out the cities were named in Persian
and Mazar-al-Sharif sudden became Mazar-e-Sharif. It took them a couple of weeks to look at an atlas???
I was of course laughing my butt off during Operation Swarmer, when they ran with the "air assault" jargon, not knowing that an air assault is not
the same thing as an air strike. I could understand that in print, but they were showing us pictures of transport helocopters and ranting about
dropping bombs in an urban area. Didn't anyone stop and say "wait a minute... what the hell kind of bomb gets dropped from a Blackhawk?"
Now its another one. "Bush is rumored to be considering using STRATEGIC nuclear weapons on Iran." REALLY? Last time I checked you use TACTICAL
nuclear weapons are short range weapons of limited yield used for specific battlefield purposes, such as eliminating critical threats. STRATEGIC
weapons are larger, longer range, and generally of strictly deterrent value- they are good for wiping out cities and such.
You throw an ill-defined adjective into the mix and the viewers think you've told them something- and for jesus sake the people who buy this nonsense
are allowed to vote!