broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to Karl Bode
Re: He could be right
I see Matt Drudge, who has been the top rated Internet news website for a decade
It'd be interesting to check his traffic versus NYtimes.com or various other news blogs. Drudge Report is one outlet. Those who read Drudge read a smathering of other blogs. Again, the point is there is plenty of counter-media on the Internet in "new media," ranging from libertarian to communist perspectives, with far more access to the general population than ever before. Unlike cable news and other now co-opted forms of media, there are plenty of options other than Matt Drudge. If he is indeed the most popular site, than it is truly reflective of people's sensibilities, not a limitation or bias of information in the marketplace (which is an upsetting thought in itself).
I think the thing that prevents the showing of bloody war related images is a much darker system of intentional propaganda aimed at limiting outrage over warfare and quelling humanism driven dissent.
You are no more likely to see the desecrated corpse of an enemy than you are a friend. I've worked in and studied journalism for a decade and a half. Before airing a graphic piece of footage, reporters are taught to ask "will this add to the newsworthiness of this piece?" It is quite possible that many feel that, in the current climate, showing the bodies of soldiers and others is disrespectful and not for light-stomached, of which there remain plenty in America. Having worked in the media, I also don't think "intentional" can be described as accurate. Perhaps there is subversive coloring, but I never noticed as much. In my years in the media, from trade press to the wire to daily papers, I have never been asked to "rosey up" a story critical of any administration. But again, I've worked in print media, an inherently less sensational medium. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
will this add to the newsworthiness of this piece?" It is quite possible that many feel that, in the current climate, showing the bodies of soldiers and others is disrespectful and not for light-stomached, of which there remain plenty in America
Yes, I have friends in newsrooms at local affiliates to take pride in "protecting" us from foul images. You would think there could be a realization that if we are truly concerned with accurate portrayal of reality, worrying about the sensibilities of showing carnage to a largely sheltered populace should not enter into it. Clearly there is no need to show egregious violence, but the fact that we see none seems to me to be too broad, too defining, and too significant to simply be concern over offending the public.
I believe it is more likely a concern of offending the sponsors and/or maintaining good relationships with government authorities and the various scoops the provide on less controversial stories.... |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| I disagree. When I saw Saddam's kids on TV I thought it was disgusting and added absolutely nothing to the story.
There is no reason to show carnage just like there is no need to show nudity when covering a story about sex. There is a line of decency that does not need to be crossed.
The only time I find such things helpful is when one is collecting data, not for news reporting, but for historical accuracy. Such would be a collection of footage at Auschwitz in a library.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
There is no reason to show carnage
Absolutely there is. It is the reality of being at war. It is reality. Not showing it is not reporting reality. It's part of the reason that a large portion of this country's populace acts like war is G.I. Joe toys in a sandbox.
I'm not saying go to the lengths of Al Jazeera for political effect, but we see no significant war images on the big-three nightly news. |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| said by Karl Bode  : quote:
There is no reason to show carnage
Absolutely there is. It is the reality of being at war. It is reality. Not showing it is not reporting reality. It's part of the reason that a large portion of this country's populace acts like war is G.I. Joe toys in a sandbox. I'm not saying go to the lengths of Al Jazeera for political effect, but we see no significant war images on the big-three nightly news. Even if we disagree about the sentiment and motivation, you're certainly right about the final result. |
|
I said
@frontiernet.net | reply to Maxo
Al Frankin? You mean the guy that Peter Jennings ripped a new asshole through? He should have stayed on SNL..He sucked as a funny man and he sucks even more as a political commentator! |
|
