Quote:
Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Dec 10 2004, 09:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Dec 10 2004, 09:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Dec 10 2004, 02:06 PM
Well, I'm not sure what how a newspaper chooses to report a story has to do with Americans being gullable....but....
|
It's not a newspaper, it's the mainstream media. And I use the term "gullible" because the mock outrage of the Drudge Report has turned attention away from the real story (ill-equipped soldiers in a war that Rumsfeld heartily cheered on) and towards a piddling, inconsequential journalism ethics question at a Tennessee newspaper. Who buys this blatantly obvious flim-flam? Gullible people led by a gullible and apparently hopeless media.
No matter who wrote the question, it brings up several serious questions, none of which seem to be getting asked or answered.
American people should be very angry over two things (at least) now. The soldiers are ill-equipped and the news media is useless. If they aren't angry about this they are gullible. [/b][/quote]
While I agree this is an inconsequential event and totally agree with your "navel-gazing" comment, you'll have to demonstrate it has actually superceded the real issue, the lack of preparedness for the insurgency in Iraq and the continued catching up on armouring vulnerable vehicles.
The prominent story on the New York Times site right now is:
"Armor Scarce for Big Trucks Transporting Cargo in Iraq"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/10/internat...artner=homepage
The reporter issue is nowhere to be seen at the Washington Post site. If you want to go looking inside the Washington Post, its great media commentator, Howard Kurtz, devotes part of his column to it, but that's basically his job. I'm sure Kurtz will have it on his media program on CNN on Sunday morning as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/natio...ns/kurtzhoward/
There's no notice of it at the LA Times site.
It remains in a prominent position at the USA Today site, over a story "Plans for Armor." Your argument has legitimacy at that site at least. The underlying link at USAToday:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ary-armor_x.htm
The Chicago Sun-Times has a brief, non-committal story on the facts of the matter in its Iraq section, by and large probably the normal treatment.
On television media sites, at MSNBC.com, The Bloggerman opinion piece deals with it but is not prominently displayed. No news story on the reporter there.
CNN headlines its site right now with "Army seeks more armoured humvees" and a picture of a worker preparing one. Underneath, a secondary story on the reporter issue - basically the opposite treatment given the thing by USA Today. They have a video link to a story about a lack of armor on military vehicles. CNN also has a story on morale problems in the Army. You certainly can't say the "right" issue is being buried there.
The news story on the reporter issue has already disappeared from FOX's site, although one columnist opines on it briefly in a notes section lower down.
There doesn't appear to be anything about it at the CBS site main page.
At ABC News there is a headline: "Military said to be working on armor upgrade" lower down on its site. There's also a video link to "Vulnerable Vehicles." No display of the reporter controversy.
Its mentioned in the Americas section of BBC.com but not on the main page.
I agree its media navel gazing but your probably overstating its prominence.. Dan Rather TRULY submarined the GW Bush national guard records story. You'd be right on with that one.
This appears to mostly have already come and gone or disappearing fast while the armor issue remains as per the above references.
My observation anyway.
Cowperson