? ?
 
 
20 July 2007 @ 07:16 am
reprinted without permission  
"As David Muir reports, ABC News elected to air some graphic footage from Iraq on World News With Charles Gibson, including an instance in which 'troops are seen watching a Bradley armored vehicle blown up by an improvised explosive device as six American soldiers died inside.' Muir notes that hundreds of viewers e-mailed in about the footage, among them one who said it prompted nightmares and another who is the mother of the vehicle’s driver. And he writes: 'Many of you criticized ABC News and said we were focusing only on the negative, and called it "irresponsible and cowardly reporting."'

"We here at Public Eye try to be open to different points of view, but it's pretty hard to fathom how anyone could claim, from an objective point of view, that it is 'irresponsible' to show the reality of war to the public. One might make an argument that children should not be exposed to graphic real-world violence, and that the footage was therefore inappropriate for a 6:30 show. But in a culture awash in violence marketed as entertainment, where action movies and youth-oriented music glorify violence and trivialize its consequences, that line of reasoning strikes me as pretty thin. If anything, the footage run by ABC News acts as a corrective - a reminder that violence, real violence, is something other than a series of cool explosions and Bruce Willis one-liners."

-Brian Montopoli

Tags: , ,
 
 
 
Shannondj_ango on July 20th, 2007 11:49 am (UTC)
well said. Thanks.
Brian: TV Staticvwvortexer on July 20th, 2007 01:14 pm (UTC)
Well, wow. Truth is so rare these days.

Though I'm sure there will be plenty of people saying that they're just pandering to the Democrats on this one.
Patricknalroth on July 20th, 2007 01:52 pm (UTC)
I agree with this message for the most part, except that I can't help to think that at the root of it, they are just trying to make money.

If they wanted to be unbiased and show "the horrors" of war, then they would show civilians being blown up, terrorists/insurgents dying under fire, police officers dying under fire, US Troops dying under fire and the smashed up wreck of what used to be beautiful cities after a "surge" or after a group of Shiite Militia took it over. But they don't. They show what will sell the most papers or make the most people watch. Since the country doesn't like the war, they show our troops dying because that helps them sell papers and advertisements. When most of the country was "behind" the war the stories were different, with some places where the party bias shows it didn't and hasn't changed. FOX being a great example of a Republican Station in the current stages.

I certainly am not a neocon and I certainly disappointed by why we are there and how it is run. But I refuse to believe they showed that clip because they wanted "to show the reality of war to the public." or as "a corrective - a reminder that violence, real violence, is something other than a series of cool explosions and Bruce Willis one-liners."

The fact that I will never forget is almost all journalism in this country, television or otherwise, has one purpose; to make money. News is just a cash cow now and every group imaginable wants in on the exposure that the news media gives and all of them are willing to pay for it.

At the root, war is hell and people need to know that. Wars for Oil Contracts and revenge are worse because they are pointless. Now we are stuck, surrounded by enemies who we are trying to make friends, we can't even fight them to our maximum capabilities. Like I said at the beginning, the message is correct but their stated reasoning is bullshit.
PMMJ: Newscheetahmaster on July 20th, 2007 02:18 pm (UTC)
speaking as a former journalism major...
The fact that I will never forget is almost all journalism in this country, television or otherwise, has one purpose; to make money. News is just a cash cow now and every group imaginable wants in on the exposure that the news media gives and all of them are willing to pay for it.

If it wasn't for journalism, how would we ever find out anything going on? The government?

Yes, journalism does have an uneasy relationship with money. But, it's so, so necessary. And just writing off all news reports as being a ratings-grab is bullshit.
Patricknalroth on July 20th, 2007 07:45 pm (UTC)
Re: speaking as a former journalism major...
Now I didn't say all news was a ratings grab nor did I say I wrote off the news at all. You put those words in my mouth.

I actually said "almost all" and I also know for a fact there are responsible journalists out there working hard to make sure the average citizen has some idea of what is going on. I certainly do not advocate any government sponsored news, that idea is just silly. I just have very deep skepticism of most major news organizations and as I said throughout my reply, the heart of what he was saying is true. All news media organizations have a duty to show us the truth of the world.

On the other hand I know that most, if not all, major news organizations (ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS, CNN) are in a very real and unfortunately unavoidable ratings race. Since we live in a largely capitalist system they have to compete with each other for money to stay alive. So in a sense, yes, most of the news they publish is for ratings. It has to be. I don't even object too much about the subject matter, and for the most part I reject any statement by anyone that they "shouldn't" have shown (x). But to try and hide behind a statement saying they had to do something out of some sort of journalistic integrity is crap. They did it because they knew it would make more people watch them than someone else. I am glad they showed it and I wish the press didn't have to deal in money, and I still read newspapers and when I had cable I watched the news. But behind it all is a capitalist company trying to make more money than all the other news organizations. They get to decide what makes it to the news floor, not the reporter, not the talking face, not the guy who wanted to be a reporter because he felt the same way I do, it is the company behind them that decides and you know it as well as I do.

Before you think, or say, I reject the news as being a ratings grab, I don't. I would watch the ratings grabbing news if I had cable and I do read the ratings grabbing news organizations. I just read a lot of them. That is why I like Google news. It lets me read more than one perspective about the same event. For almost all the news I have any interest in I read multiple versions of the same story. I also read what you post on your journal. I dislike being mislead and misinformed about certain things, so I always try to get two or three sources.
Race Dowlingeracerhead on July 20th, 2007 02:18 pm (UTC)
Isn't it funny that when war becomes anything other than abstract, the privileged get uncomfortable.