First of I would remind everyone that perhaps the biggest reason for Fox New's success is that it focuses on the entertainment factor. Maybe a script
writer thought it would kind of ironic to put some more of that on the O'Reily factor? (Hence his apparent anger).
His argument is you shouldn’t reveal truth because the troops don't like it.
According this logic
1. So victim’s families are ether to emotionally traumatised to switch of the TV and give themselves a time of reflection.
2. They are so emotionally sensitive that they (at least on average) would rather ether press freedom or the truth itself was squashed for nation as a
whole rather than to have to endure this themselves.
3. The end does not
justify the means. The victim’s feelings are so important that they override whether or not we (as a democracy) make a
fair and balanced decision on whether or not to keep the living ones in Iraq.
On reflection if only so many people (like perhaps 90 percent of Fox's audience) didn’t swallow it, perhaps it would be almost comical?
Do you ever marvel at how the media in general, but especially Fox News regularly fails to provide-propose ANY
solution for the position they
hold? (as in this case
If the victims families views are so important; why doesn't fox news propose only broadcasting news in a detailed fair and balanced manor at certain
times of the day?
In fact when anyone famous dies why don't they legislate to give the families peace from the press intrusion? From experience I know this is what
annoys families the most, because unlike the TV you can't switch the press off (bastards follow you to the funeral, to your door step, and to family
you go stay with in an attempt to avoid them).
I don't agree with all the above, but the point is they are examples of solutions to the positions that fox news apparently holds. However Fox News
supports none of them. Hay could it be press freedom? Well they would say that but it’s quite a jump to go from not supporting reporting the truth
because it upsets the victims families to suddenly supporting press freedom(s).
So what could this kind of c*** be about then?
Well think about it; all this reporting of some of the facts from places where journalists dare venture out isn't just harming troop moral. It does
something far, far worse. It undermines the moral of the political soldier i.e. the seemingly forever remaining who still support this war.
This is why a TV station most owned by pro war Rupert Murdoch is pumping out the media rubbish.
Counter Point Three (is easy)...
"Everyone who doesn't support the war in Iraq is not doing our troops a favour because it undermines their moral"
Ok; So you’re saying it doesn't matter if they are fighting for a good reason or not because its not in the soldiers interests for the people back
home to debate it?
If you were a soldier from a country that calls itself a democracy wouldn’t you want your people to arrive through debate about what could be the
conclusion of your life’s fate? Or would you prefer instead if everyone supported you being there even if somehow it wasn’t a good idea?
What alternatives does your statement provide?
And if this is an unpopular war then do of why it is unjustly so. What is that puts your will or view before public opinion?
If you can't come up with any reasons could it be that democratic reality is making the public feel rightfully unhappy? If an effect of this is to
undermine troops moral then isn't this a better argument for withdrawing them, than it is for not talking about it-them?
Oh one last thing: Republicans blaming "left wing media" for "propaganda" is such a joke. Yes CNN is bad, both because its biased and because as
ATS frequently shows there are many genuine
anti war facts it ether completely or almost fails to broadcast. Mass media ownership is not party
political in the shape of loyalty.
It's people like Murdoch and (amongst others their weapons supported media share owners) who support this war. Murdoch alone owns over 175 newspapers
worldwide, 200 sky channels and much more. And as I’ve said before all 172 newspapers he owned at the time of the Iraq war supported it. Timewarner
is not much different; but lacks such a long serving all powerful figure head who everyone can slag of at for what he is.
Basically nearly everyone who is anti war, is anti war in spite of mass media ownership and not because of it. And as ATS'er the sooner you come
round to our side of the fence, the sooner you will come to realise. Call it whatever conspiracy you like but in the mass media there seems to be even
more money in pleasing political investors, than their is in following profitable stories that uphold the truth (especially when marketing deception
equally good at bringing the money in.
To see Murdoch’s 175 newspaper titles look here: www.ketupa.net...
(Link I’ve given before)