Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Mine Rescue...Littered With Media Bashing  
User currently offlineNBC News1 From UK - England, joined May 2001, 324 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 4 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1939 times:

I've been watching CNN's coverage of this mine rescue in Pennsylvania for the last three hours (when I write this, they have three of nine men out) and although it is a very happy story, one reccuring theme has been all over the screen and is quite disturbing.

The role of the media is constantly and consistently being undermined and ignored.

For example, when they announced that all nine men were alive, one of the men heading the rescue came to the microphones to thank everyone involved. In his list of thank-you's, he stated (speaking directly to the journalists) "...and I'd like to thank SOME of you..." Insinuating that a few of the journalists had been quite a nuissance.

A more disturbing example is the fact that many of the decisions made concerning the release of information to the media.....is being dictated by the FAMILIES. Everytime some announcement is to be made, the officials state that they must consult the families first. Although the families feelings and emotions are extremely important....since when do families or victims control the release of information in a valid news story?

The media constantly gets a bad rap and is often characterized as a group of rats. And although that may be true for each individual journalist (who's looking to get the best story)....as a whole the media plays the most important role in what America and much of the world calls Freedom.

Freedom of information keeps people in check and allows society to see the wrongdoings of any particular group or person, therefore, preventing the same mistakes and injustices from happening again.

I know this is an extreme example...but why didn't we consult the families of the World Trade Center attack before showing any of that on television? Americans had a right to see what those who hated them were willing to do.
In this case....thousands of other miners in the U.S. have a right to know and see what dangers their occupation can present.

Have you ever noticed that many of the country's that have difficulty developing to the level of the industrialised western-world do not have free press? Look at the Middle-East, look at Russia (Putin's government recently took control of the country's only indepentant national TV Station....its name escapes me right now).

The families just decided to let cameras in on the rescue operation and we're able to see the miners being rescued one by one. Thank-you families for allowing us to see what we have a right ot see (Freedom of Information Act/Freedom of the Press).



21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineUnited777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1657 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (12 years 4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1881 times:

Well I just want to say to the people Pennsylvania and the US "God Bless".

The state of Pennsylvania has gone through alot especially flight 93 from Sept.11 crashing 10 miles from the mine site. Just shows how America in tough times comes together and cares!

I do agree thought CNN did a unusually bad job on this even.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (12 years 4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1877 times:

You know maybe if they could get a story about aviation right, and not some sort of sensationalist B.S. then maybe there could be some respect on this forum.

But I don't see that happening.

Besides if you had a family member down there how would you like to have a camera shoved in your face a dozen times or more an hour.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1851 times:

Being a part of the media, I can tell you we're like lawyers... everyone hates us till they need us. People bitch about the media constantly, but I don't see them rushing off to BBC shortwave radio or PBS when breaking news happens.

A brief analysis tells us why the media may be swarming in a feeding frenzy in PA......this is a made-for-tv drama. Danger, peril, lives in danger...the image of some dank, flooded mine hundreds of feet below the surface, a place cameras cant reach, so the human imagination paints the picture, working as an ally to the press. On the other end, bravery, ingenuity, nobility in the rescue effort. Talk about tearjerker. Now we find out that the ending is a happy one. Trust me, reporters careers can me made or broken on how they get the details of this story. So naturally you've probably got 5 dozen obnoxious camera crews and hairsprayed Brendas walking around getting in everyone's face. Annoying but not unexpected.


User currently offlineTwaneedsnohelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1827 times:

I am very skeptical about the media. Reporters really aren't experts in complicated subjects like diplomacy, business, finance, etc... Yeah good writers, but not experts and really their foremost obligation is to sell newspapers with great headlines.

Yeah the media is great at reporting some police shooting or a domestic violence incident or even this mine thing, but when stories get complicated, mass media isn't always your best source.

for example, this internet bubble we had over the last 4 years. All media hyped.

TNNH


User currently offlineZeus01 From United States of America, joined May 2001, 744 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1817 times:

Its this simple. THe media is a bunch of dirt dirty dirty rats. Simple. The are entitled to nothing. They have no rights, the are utterly unconcerned with others, only there own story. Families should be consulted first.

User currently offlineHepkat From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 2341 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (12 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1806 times:

Personally, I like an agressive media. The more agressive, the better I say. It keeps politicians and those in power fearfully in check. I'd much rather have the kind of media that slash each other's throats to get a story out than some sluggish, shady state controlled mouthpiece spoon feeding you what the government wants you to hear.

Some people think the media frenzy that happens after a big story is disgusting. Although I might be slightly annoyed, I see it as freedom and democracy at work.


User currently offline747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1812 times:

The media gives itself it's own black eye. Opinionated reporters (Christian Amanpour, Dan Rather for example), "yellow journaism" (the constant car chases from LA, who really cares what J.Lo is doing), political correctness, incorrect focus (giving "legends in their own mind" types a platform like Bono, Julia Roberts or Al Sharpton) and general sanctimony (they are not the judges of right/wrong) are the issue. Though the "media" may think it, no one really wants "drama" we just ant facts; perhaps they should read their own op-ed pages to realize that. Up here in NY J.lo was on the cover of a paper at the same time as a major trial was taking place. A few days later, letters on the ed. page chided the paper for not putting priorites they way they should be. Also common sense should dictate what is news worthy. I would hope it is obvious that we want concise news relating to the mining disaster as opposed to j.lo's new shag.

In this day and age, when most people have cable or sattelite, we do have more choices for news. (on our cable, we also BBC, CBC, as well as news from China, Korea, India, NKK, CTV etc as well as the usual outlets).

The mining disaster may be the fodder of a "drama"; but most people are not looking for the "gloss", just the facts. If we want "drama" we look at any movie on "Lifetime"...and also save us from the celebrity worship as well.



User currently offline737doctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 1332 posts, RR: 38
Reply 8, posted (12 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1798 times:

You know maybe if they could get a story about aviation right, and not some sort of sensationalist B.S. then maybe there could be some respect on this forum.

But I don't see that happening.


Agreed.

A quote from Michael Crichton's excellent book, Airframe:

"The irony of the Information Age is that it has given a new respectability to the uninformed opinion."



Patrick Bateman is my hero.
User currently offlineNBC News1 From UK - England, joined May 2001, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 4 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1760 times:

747-451,

I find it troublesome that you entirely dismiss a particular News Network or Newspaper only because it may have a few sensationalist pieces. CNN often gets a bad rap for reporting about people like J.Lo, but there are many other facets to CNN's reporting. I watch the network daily, and I would say that 9 out of 10 stories are vaild news stories.

I'm not saying anyone should just get their news from one source (like CNN), because they all offer pieces to the larger puzzle that makes up each story. But in order to let that puzzle be put together, we must let each individual nesgroups do their investigating and reporting, no matter how much we might dislike any particular source.

The U.S. or any country would be better off if everyone spent a few minutes a day looking at several different news websites or channels. Their citizens would be more informed, would elect better leaders, in turn helping improve the country.

Also, your trusted CBC is wholly owned by the Canadian Federal Government.
And the BBC runs the EXACT SAME STORIES as the major US NewsNet's, with the addition of a few local stories like today's headline, "Senior Tory announces he's Gay"



User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 4 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1759 times:

Slow news week.
The average person has no clue as to whats going on with Haliburton-gate or Bush-gate or Enron or WorldCom. Financial shenanigans dont go down well. Too complex, too weird, too much to grasp even for the guy with the Harvard MBA.

Miners saved from mineshafts thanking God and weeping copious tears with their wives make for a good story. Anyone from Zambia to Appalachia can get it.


User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 4 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1746 times:

I think in this instance we should all be really happy that these guys got out of there without a single fatality! Fantastic news for them, their families and every well wisher out there helping to dig them out or glued to the TV.

Something to be really happy about! The rest is irrelevant.




VH-ADG


User currently offlineAviatsiya.ru From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 4 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1754 times:

Have you ever noticed that many of the country's that have difficulty developing to the level of the industrialised western-world do not have free press? Look at the Middle-East, look at Russia (Putin's government recently took control of the country's only indepentant national TV Station....its name escapes me right now).

The Russian station you are talking about is TV6. Also, there have been many announcements on this in the last few months, that TV6 will remain independent.

But to say that Russia doesn't have a free press is going a bit far.

Just look at some of the following sites:

vedosmosti.ru
strana.ru
themoscowtimes.ru
izvestia.ru
rbc.ru
rian.ru
gazeta.ru

Look at this photo:



Does the range of newspapers which are available look like what would be available in a society which doesn't have a free press?

Also, both TV and newsprint can be quite critical of Putin at times. If the government tightly controlled the press, would this criticism really be allowed? Of course not.

And what is "free press"? Where the press is able to criticise those in power right? Wrong. There is no such thing as a free press. I doubt very much that you would see Channel Nine/Australian Consolidated Press running stories which are critical of Kerry Packer. Or News Corp running stories which are critical of Rupert Murdoch, etc, etc. Is this free press?

Also, Al-Jazeerah in the Middle East is a free and independent TV station. You may not agree with what they air, but the fact is, they are free and independent.

And what do you mean by "level of the industrialised western-world"? Is this the level to which the media denegrates itself by sensationalistic journalism, or gutter-trash stories, or kickbacks for favourable stories, or stories which are just that...stories?

Thank-you families for allowing us to see what we have a right ot see (Freedom of Information Act/Freedom of the Press).

I storm the offices of McDonalds headquarters and take 15 hostages. You, the journalist try to get access to the building, but are denied entry.

Would this be a breach of Freedom of the Press?

Or the same scenario, but in addition to this, the police on the scene refuse to give details of what is occurring inside the building.

Would this be a breach of Freedom of the Press?

You have NO rights to gain access to the building, nor to be given information on-the-spot by officials.

Freedom of Information and Freedom of the Press only extends to interference from government. Just what do you have a right to see?


User currently offlineNUAir From Malaysia, joined Jun 2000, 1181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 4 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1740 times:

Jaysit,

I agree with you 100%

News reports like CNN, Fox News and most major journals are aimed at a 7th grade reading and comprehension level...most Americans cant grasp things or don't want to attempt to understand news events more complicated then that.

Bill Clinton was married and got a blow job from an intern....now that's easy for the American public (even though it should have been at the Peoples court instead of the supreme court). OJ Simpson is on trial for murder, miners are trapped underground...easy.

The current administration is involved in a scandal that cost thousands of americans their retirement funds and led to the loss of hundreds of jobs at companies that they were heading....but the laws and procedures are way to complex for the average american to grasp so news agencies would rather concentrate on the weather or sports or some sex scandal then something that most people could less about and probably wouldn't read anyway.



"How Many Assholes we got on this ship?" - Lord Helmet
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 14, posted (12 years 4 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1737 times:

The media ARE a pack of rats. They're responsible for many deaths and injuries (both mental and physical). Princess Diana was MURDERED by journalists to get a story, and what a story they got.

Journalists would sell military deployment plans in wartime to get a good story about body bags coming home and then shove their cameras and microphones into the faces of grieving families.
Reporters constantly harass and block emergency crews to get juicy take while accident victims die needlessly.

The media is above the law, in fact they ARE the law.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineNBC News1 From UK - England, joined May 2001, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (12 years 4 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1735 times:

Jwenting,
Princess Diana's death is not all the media's fault. THE DRIVER WAS DRUNK....Oh yeah, forgot about that. Also, the driver did not have to try and get away from the reporters...they have a right to take as many pictures as they want of anyone.

Aviatsiya.ru,
Your example of a hostage situation is not comparable to this mine rescue....all the networks wanted was a live feed (which they finally got), and to be updated on information of who was surviving. They didn't want down in the hole, they didn't want cameras right up in the faces of the rescuers while they were rescuing. THE MEDIA would cover a McDonald's hostage situaion from the outside. Denying them entry to the McDonald's would not be going against Freedom of the Press because officials would not want anyone else (even journalists) to be in harm's way.

Jwenting,
I agree, sometimes the media goes too far in reporting war plans, but is it the media who should be blamed or the officials at places like the pentagon for constantly leaking such sensitive information? If a bunch of journalists could get some official to talk, you can imagine some Osama bin Laden guy in the states, posing as a journalist, could get the same information.
The media WOULD NOT sell information to the enemey just to see more death.

* * * * * * * *

All I was saying was that in this instance, the mine rescue, the media was not treated as they should have been. They should have been given all-access because there would have been no injury or death caused by having the American people know what was going on.
The only time the media should not be granted all-access is when a journalist may cause the injury or death-rate to rise (such as reporting war plans, or entering a Hostage situation (because then the journalists would be in harm's way as well).


User currently offlineWn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 years 4 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1712 times:

Yeah, I think I've really had enough of "Victim's Families" having any kind of say-so in terms of whats going on. The funny thing is that while the families involved (with many publicized tradgedies) oft posses all manner of wishes regarding media coverages, the victim him/herself often does not have any desire to censor the issue. It's just another example of people being dramatic & using their loved ones to generate a story. In most cases, they are every bit as sleazy & manipulative as the media itself, if not more so.
And guess what? I have the right to say that, by the way, because & only because there is a media powerful enough in the western world, to cow any government out of any plots to censor just about anything.
HeavyMetal is right on about media & lawyers. We can sling sludge at them (both groups), all day long, but I do shudder to think what it would be like without them.
NBC, I also agree with you. While I totally understand that there is a time & place for secrecy in the Gov't, the media are hardly to blame if the Pentagon or State Dept, or who ever can't seem to keep their own damn mouth shut.


User currently offline747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (12 years 4 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1718 times:

You say:

"I find it troublesome that you entirely dismiss a particular News Network or Newspaper only because it may have a few sensationalist pieces. CNN often gets a bad rap for reporting about people like J.Lo, but there are many other facets to CNN's reporting. I watch the network daily, and I would say that 9 out of 10 stories are vaild news stories."

I say: Yes, I'm sure that 9 out of ten news stores are legitimate. The reason I dismmiss outlets like CNN is that the news is so watered down into little "snippets" for 7 yearolds and quite opinionated (like Christian Amanpour, whose disdain for the US and its situations are so transparent) with an unbalanced perception. J.lo, Puffy, Bono etc are not worthy of "senior" news outlets. They are more the fodder for the more sensational publications and programs such as The Enquirer or Entertainment Tonight.

You say: "I'm not saying anyone should just get their news from one source (like CNN), because they all offer pieces to the larger puzzle that makes up each story. But in order to let that puzzle be put together, we must let each individual nesgroups do their investigating and reporting, no matter how much we might dislike any particular source."

I say: Most people do get their news from a variety of sources, as they should since each outlet has their own prejudices and goals (eg: CNN is horribly liberal and Fox is horribly reactionary). Most people do draw their own conclusions from what they consume. And honestly, people will be turned off by the "sneering"~~no matter how objective the report may be and that is a fact (note that news can be presented without "prettiness--I remember the days of David Brinkley(who was not a sex object) and how news was objective and businesslike as opposed to either being a fashion statement, politcally correct, preachy (Geraldo) or just plain foul( an example was Ms. Amanpour diuring her interview of Bush;her disdain for him showed in her body english, her attitude and line of questions where as she fawned over Gore and gave him an easy slide with the questions. I don't care for Bush and his politics, but fair is fair and respect is respect.)


You Say: "The U.S. or any country would be better off if everyone spent a few minutes a day looking at several different news websites or channels. Their citizens would be more informed, would elect better leaders, in turn helping improve the country"

I say: Spoken like a true arrogant, liberal media person who sells the public off as being stupid or not intellegent enough to discern facts. In this day and age a majority of people actually "do" gather their info from several places. We are better informed than you think and are at least as informed as the citizenry in other countries. And we do elect leaders we choose based on the facts from many outlets. (Exactly what do you mean by "better leaders"? Gore for instance, CNN's "Golden Child"? I think people elect good leaders based on the facts they assimilate from several sources-Mike Bloomberg in NY is a fair example-The news media here did a good job of describilng all the candidates and he won. He is no "Democrat" and no "Republican"; he is just a business man with many objectives.) Our Country is always improving and changing to meet the dynamics of the world in which we coexist and yes our view and our goals for ourselves do not walk "lock step" with what other countries would want like Canada and Europe for instance...

You Say: "Also, your trusted CBC is wholly owned by the Canadian Federal Government. And the BBC runs the EXACT SAME STORIES as the major US NewsNet's, with the addition of a few local stories like today's headline, "Senior Tory announces he's Gay"{"

I say" I Never said I "trusted" the CBC or the BBC, What I said is that my cable system carries a varity of news channels and therefore I have more perecptions to distill while creating a conclsuion. I am well aware of the ownership of the CBC; and in many countries the government owns/controls the news outlets. It's a shame however that "you" sell the CBC down the drain since it is hardly not the "TASS" of the 70's. The BBC, like CNN has it's faults such as celebrity worship but again, it is just another place to gather information. Actually, I think it is laughable the entanglements of CNN being owned by AOL/Time Warner (and TeD TuRnEr  Nuts) ; where as CBC may be "government control of facts" CNN is "crass marketing to create a profit for sagging AOL and all indebtedness".

you say: "The families just decided to let cameras in on the rescue operation and we're able to see the miners being rescued one by one. Thank-you families for allowing us to see what we have a right ot see (Freedom of Information Act/Freedom of the Press)".

I say: You have a right to report the news, however, the right to privacy is just as inmportant as freedom of the press. If the families preffered privacy, you have "no right" to infringe on their "individual situations". If you are "shut out" by the families, you have no right to pry on them other than to report the facts of the accident and also to investigate the causes of the disaster without dragging them into it. Common sense is appreciated here, not the bloodlust for ratings.




User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (12 years 4 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1695 times:

NUAir.......most Americans cant grasp things or don't want to attempt to understand news events more complicated then that

If that is a fact you can substantiate, I will accept it. If not, you have intentionally insulted us, Americans. Let's see, where are you from? .... Oh, how come I'm not surprised?

Pete


User currently offlineATCT From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2328 posts, RR: 38
Reply 19, posted (12 years 4 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1676 times:

United777,
As a resident of Pennsylvania, Thanks! I know many miners (non in the accident) and I thank God that non of them were involved in this event. As for myself, and fellow Pennsylvanians, I was happy of the news coverage but I also respect people's privacy. I have yet to make it to the flight 93 memorial (its able a 1 and 1/2 hours from me) but I plan to some time before the end of the summer. Anyways Thanks and God Bless the USA!


In His Service,

ATCT



"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
User currently offlineNBC News1 From UK - England, joined May 2001, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (12 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1689 times:

747-451,

I'm not arrogant, it's pretty obvious that a good number of Americans are uninformed and because of that are unable to make good decisions on who they vote for. I'm not just saying Americans, there is just as high a percentage of dumb Canadians and dumb Brits and dumb Germans etc,...

I remember seeing a poll during the election that showed the top issue for Americans.......something like 30% said "moral character" and like 25% said the economy.
I believe that those 30% are severely misguided. Yes it's good to have good moral character, but is it really more important than the economy?

You don't know what you're talking about with CNN because GORE was not their golden child, they gave just as much coverage to both candidates and anytime they had someone on supporting Gore, they had someone on supporting Bush. Equal time.

I actually like the CBC and would say it is Canada's best news source. Although I always have to remind myself of its ownership.

I don't understand how you can compare a government controlled news agency to a private owned news agency like AOLTW with CNN. You have to accept that someone has to own these agencies and that one private company is nothing compared to the government. The government is much more powerful and would be a much more dangerous owner than one private company.

Also....back to the mine rescue....
The media was not trying to cover the families, they were trying to cover the rescue...the families had nothing to do with it and their right to privacy never should have come into play.


User currently offline747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (12 years 4 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1669 times:

You say: I'm not arrogant, it's pretty obvious that a good number of Americans are uninformed and because of that are unable to make good decisions on who they vote for. I'm not just saying Americans, there is just as high a percentage of dumb Canadians and dumb Brits and dumb Germans etc,...

Again, your comment previously and this one reeks of arrogance. Not only do you sell short US media consumers, but those of Canada and Europe as well. Actaully, your comments are quite indicitive of where you are coming from. Who we vote for is our choice; and I believe that we make good choices. What exactly do you mean by "who we vote for?" It is clear that you are not happy woith who we have and that is your problem here. Don't blame the media or the people for making a choice which YOU feel is not correct.


you say: I remember seeing a poll during the election that showed the top issue for Americans.......something like 30% said "moral character" and like 25% said the economy.
I believe that those 30% are severely misguided. Yes it's good to have good moral character, but is it really more important than the economy?

Yes, moral charater is important; If you look at some of the fallen political figures in history, you will also obeserve that the decadence in their personal lives also effects their ability to discern right from wrong in their political life. And yes the economy is important, but as wee see "moral" descioson making has alot to do with that as well (Enron, WorldCom, Whitewater, Haliburton, Travelgateetc, etc.). there is nothing wrong with placing "values" in the same stature as other issues. I grew up in the 70's so I am no prude. ?Without morality (explicitly being able to discern the right from the wrong more than anything else) there can be no "society".

you say: "You don't know what you're talking about with CNN because GORE was not their golden child, they gave just as much coverage to both candidates and anytime they had someone on supporting Gore, they had someone on supporting Bush. Equal time."

Yes equal time, equal coverage, yet unbalaced treatment. I stand by what I say--go to the video tape.


you say: "I don't understand how you can compare a government controlled news agency to a private owned news agency like AOLTW with CNN. You have to accept that someone has to own these agencies and that one private company is nothing compared to the government. The government is much more powerful and would be a much more dangerous owner than one private company."

Actually, I find CBC one of the more balanced news both in it's CBC form and in it's "NewsWorld" presentation. Actually, both are just as bad--they both control their content to some degree, but then again in democracies like the US, Canada, UK etc. there are more checks and balances as well as several sources per country. And where as the CBC is just news, a conglomerate like AOL/TimeWarner and DisneyABC has more going on than just news and therefore more apt to gross conflict of interest, profit worries to keep itself going and competitive pressures (sensationalism for ratings) . (do you really think CNN would have a balanced view of news relating to it's parent or one of it's netwrok sponsors--I think not. )

you say:"Also....back to the mine rescue...The media was not trying to cover the families, they were trying to cover the rescue...the families had nothing to do with it and their right to privacy never should have come into play."

If the press would have had a chance they certainly would have shoved the cameras into the faces of the families. And you and I know that--get the emotions on the air...they have done this in the past.

Perhaps you should stop moralizing people for the decsions they make and the perceptions they have just because they differ from yours. I wouldn't be so judgemental as to what people choose as their priorties whether it be votes or morality. It is obvious from your posts you have a limited view of the "general population" as being complacent, non-informed and illiterate, just as I don't veiw all 16 yearolds as being "preachy, liberal, sheltered and non experienced". Quite the contrary and the controversies in the "news" (imagine that) regarding terrisism, votes, police, immigration, Bush, Enron etc all prove that don't they? Perhaps we 39 yearolds aren't as vocal as the "younger set" but we are there....









Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Media Player Came Filled With Raunchy Porn posted Thu Dec 21 2006 04:03:40 by Jetjack74
What's Up With My Windows Media Player? posted Sun May 7 2006 03:42:48 by BaylorAirBear
What's With The SUV Bashing Lately? posted Wed Dec 4 2002 05:07:42 by Boeing nut
Idiots With Money And No Responsibilty... posted Fri Jan 12 2007 03:24:54 by GQfluffy
I Agree With IFEMaster posted Fri Jan 12 2007 00:06:38 by 9V
Trouble With Web Design posted Wed Jan 10 2007 15:15:25 by FCA767
Awesome TV Commercial With Aircraft Theme. posted Mon Jan 8 2007 03:59:19 by Canuckpaxguy
How To Dump A Separated Man Who's Living With You posted Sun Jan 7 2007 11:58:41 by Aerotik
Bush's Secret Social Security Deal With Mexico posted Fri Jan 5 2007 22:59:34 by AeroWesty
3 Year Old Shoots Self With Parents' Gun posted Fri Jan 5 2007 19:49:25 by STLGph