Networks balking at Presidential debate "rule"

[transplant99]

That's right. The government controlled mainstream media...is saying NO to the section of the agreement that would not allow both candidates to be shown at once.

And it aint just one or two of them...its all of them. Fox, CBS, ABC, CNN, ABC etc.

"Because of journalistic standards, we're not going to follow outside restrictions," said Paul Schur, a spokesman for Fox News, which is manning the pool camera for the first debate Thursday in Miami, Florida.

"This is a news pool, and we are not subject to agreements between candidates," NBC News spokeswoman Barbara Levin said. "We will use pictures as we see fit."

CNN spokesman Matthew Furman said the network "reserves the right to make our own decisions about coverage during the debate, just as we always have."

ABC News and CBS News are also objecting to the limits, with a CBS spokeswoman insisting that "we will utilize any shots the pool makes available."

I wonder what all those fringe websites that claim to be "the truth" have to say about this???


Dont tell us what to do!!

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Bravo for them.

Still doesn't forgive them from messing up any number of other things. They seem likely to give George a passing grade in the upcoming debates if he can pronounce "USA" correctly, where it seems as if John Kerry will have to make George cry in order to get a winning reputation.
Bias Shmias

Some other good examples on the same site, but one side of the fence will see spin where media snippets are replayed or of less value because they are reporting with an "agenda" or some inherit bias (aka they're working with actual quotes, audio and video).

Bush is a better debater than folks give him credit for but I hope like heck he falls on face on Kerry wipes the floor with him. Or has to pronounce a sentence with the words "misunderestimated", "nuclear" or a Dr. Suess rhyme.

[Cowperson]

In the run-up to this year's presidential debates, some in the media are once again playing the "expectations game" in favor of President George W. Bush against his Democratic opponent -- the same thing that happened four years ago. In the lead-up to the 2000 presidential debates, the press downplayed expectations for then-Governor Bush, enabling the Bush-Cheney '00 campaign to easily create the perception that Bush "won" and then-Vice President Al Gore "lost."

The amusing thing here is that every network - and even our own friend CommodoreAfro - is saying in the last week that GW Bush is a vastly underrated debater.

Therefore the bar has been set impossibly high for Bush, the challenge far graver, the direct opposite of 2000.

Which kind of defeats the premise of that entire article Afro posted about media bias.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Wow!!! What a massive win for freedom and for first ammendment rights!!! The TV networks won't let anyone tell them how to produce their shows!!! My god, democracy works!!! When's the ticker tape parade down main street???



Good lord, it's camera angles. They're arguing about freakin' camera angles. I worry about some of you people.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 29 2004, 02:19 PM
Wow!!! What a massive win for freedom and for first ammendment rights!!! The TV networks won't let anyone tell them how to produce their shows!!! My god, democracy works!!! When's the ticker tape parade down main street???



Good lord, it's camera angles. They're arguing about freakin' camera angles. I worry about some of you people.

Somebody didn't learn the Nixon/Kennedy lesson that sometimes substance matters less than appearance in a debate!!

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 29 2004, 02:22 PM
Somebody didn't learn the Nixon/Kennedy lesson that sometimes substance matters less than appearance in a debate!!

Cowperson

Oh no, I'm well aware of that Cow, and I'm sure that both candidates and their handlers know this as well.

I just find it hilarious that Tranny comes out and announces it like this is a massive step forward for the media and holds it as evidence that the government is NOT controlling the information we getting. The media is standing up and arguing that they have the right to control what camera angles they get to use, hence they are right and truthful and are indeed reporting the whole story. Hey, if this is indeed the case, and the media does have control over what information they are allowed to show us, how about more information on the war veterans? How about more information about the way war is being waged over there? How about the non-sanitized images of Iraq that the public has the right to see? How about the reports on civilian casualties that take place every day? How about the grizzly evidence that would turn the American public's stomach? How about closer looks at the connections the administration has to the businesses raking in record profits? There are just certain subjects that are considered taboo and unAmerican to report on at the moment. The government is responsible for the sanitation of this information so they have the control over what people get to see and read in a lot of regards. And of course it helps when the news outlets are corporate owned and view the news business as just that, a business where appealing to the wants of your market leads to bigger profits. If you tell people that everything is okay, people are more inclined to watch your product because people want to be assured that the people running the show have a clue that they know what they are doing. That is how you keep a country behind a war that is not going well. And that is without even dipping into the whole Rupert Murdock and his support of the conservative agenda side of things.

The fact that we are arguing about the significance of a release that the media has stood up for themselves in regards to camera angles proves that the government is achieving its goal. We're arguing about a Seinfeld issue. Its an issue about nothing. We aren't thinking about the real problems that affect the country. Mission accomplished.

[transplant99]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 29 2004, 10:19 AM
Wow!!! What a massive win for freedom and for first ammendment rights!!! The TV networks won't let anyone tell them how to produce their shows!!! My god, democracy works!!! When's the ticker tape parade down main street???



Good lord, it's camera angles. They're arguing about freakin' camera angles. I worry about some of you people.

But Lanny...the government CONTROLS the media....youve said so many times youself.

What happened?

[transplant99]

I just find it hilarious that Tranny comes out and announces it like this is a massive step forward for the media and holds it as evidence that the government is NOT controlling the information we getting.

I did?? Wow....thanks for clearing that up for me.

You still believe that mainstream media is somehow controlled by some mysterious group within government....im just curious, is that group Republican or Democratic??

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 29 2004, 02:52 PM

But Lanny...the government CONTROLS the media....youve said so many times youself.

What happened?

Are you freakin' dense, or has the winds from all those hurricanes blown your brains out? Government control of the media is not literal control of the media, right down to the production values. It's the ability of the government to control the flow of information on subject matter deemed of important to guiding the decision making patterns of the citizens.

For example, the flow of information from Iraq. The government gets to select which images and what stories get to hit the news wire through the sanitation and release of stories to the media. The government has made sure that rougue reporters no longer can cruise the countryside reporting what they like. Reporters are now assigned (the term the government likes to use is the more friendly "buddied up") to units and live and eat with these guys. They not only gain a level of familiarity with the unit but also begin to fall into line with what the unit says and does. Its an interesting strategy that the military has used and has been very effective in getting out the story that the government wants in this regard. To add to the complexity of this, because the reporters are assigned to aunit the military gets to review all information to be released and has to approve everything to be broadcast, for security reasons. You only see the information that they want you to see.

Another example is the FOIA. Yes, Americans have the right to use the FOIA to gain access to government documents in regards to a tightly confined search. But this search is monitored and sensored. You don't get all the information you are looking for as many records are classified at levels that have a shelf life of a hundred years. Through the cheesy classification scheme many documents are not available to the general public to see and never will be. Maybe your children's children will get a crack at seeing these docs, but we likely won't. So goes the inner workings of government information systems. They can easily control what they want you to see based on the classification.

Believe it or not, but the information you see on the news rarely confirms with the infromation the government has. Even at the local municipal level the information is not released without being fully sanitized. Its amazing to be privy to the actual reports of an incident and see the information release in the media. Its not one and the same. The government has much more control over the information you get and have access to than you will ever want to know. Anyone who has worked with government information and record systems or in the intelligence branch will confirm this.

[transplant99]

For example, the flow of information from Iraq. The government gets to select which images and what stories get to hit the news wire through the sanitation and release of stories to the media.

Really? Hmmm....seems to me i watched a CNN report from Bagdahd last night...the guy was on a rooftop looking over the city. Was he instructed as to what he coud or could not say by the "government? Just asking.

The government has made sure that rougue reporters no longer can cruise the countryside reporting what they like.

Uhhh...OK. I dont suppose that the ritual kidnapping and beheadings of foreign nationals INCLUDING journalists is having any effect whatsoever on where a reporter goes or not huh?

Reporters are now assigned (the term the government likes to use is the more friendly "buddied up") to units and live and eat with these guys. They not only gain a level of familiarity with the unit but also begin to fall into line with what the unit says and does. Its an interesting strategy that the military has used and has been very effective in getting out the story that the government wants in this regard. To add to the complexity of this, because the reporters are assigned to aunit the military gets to review all information to be released and has to approve everything to be broadcast, for security reasons. You only see the information that they want you to see

Pure and utter BS. Prove it man. Sure DURING the march across the desert from Kuwait and other points, reporters were "imbedded" with units...its the first time we were able to watch whatever happened live and in color. Since the declaration of "major conflicts" ending...reporters are allowed to go where ever they wish.

Believe it or not, but the information you see on the news rarely confirms with the infromation the government has. Even at the local municipal level the information is not released without being fully sanitized. Its amazing to be privy to the actual reports of an incident and see the information release in the media. Its not one and the same. The government has much more control over the information you get and have access to than you will ever want to know. Anyone who has worked with government information and record systems or in the intelligence branch will confirm this.

OK...if you say so. Any proof of this, or is this just your opinion?

And again....who are these pople that control media that you peak of? Republicans or Democrats? Still waiting for the answer.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 29 2004, 05:51 PM

Pure and utter BS. Prove it man. Sure DURING the march across the desert from Kuwait and other points, reporters were "imbedded" with units...its the first time we were able to watch whatever happened live and in color. Since the declaration of "major conflicts" ending...reporters are allowed to go where ever they wish.

The American military also had concerns about embedded media, in this case calling the Iraq project a "limited success" while recommending a review to see if it should be employed again in the future.

This was written immediately after the war but contained a prescient warning:

What if there was more nationalistic spirit in the hearts of the people of Iraq and a majority of the population fought us block-by-block? This is evidenced by the "Chicken Little" reporting in the media when the Division and 3d ID paused in the attack up Highways 1, 8 and 9. Visions of Vietnam danced in reporters' heads. According to many pundits in the press we were bogged down, stopped cold by the Fedayeen. Nothing could have been further than the truth. The myth was quickly dispelled by our success against the Ba'ath Party and paramilitary fighters, but never forget how quickly the press jumped on the bandwagon of doom and gloom.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=15&ItemID=4751

We should also remember that embeds were on the other side as well.

The lowest journalistic moment of the war might have come when the BBC's Ragah Omar told an anchor back in London that it couldn't be possible the Americans were at the gates of Baghdad, that the Iraqi's must have some grand counterattack planned to wipe them out!! Talk about Stockholm Syndrome.

By the way, this is on the front page of the New York Daily News today. Was the government controlling this story?

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-203326c.html

Cowperson

[transplant99]

By the way, this is on the front page of the New York Daily News today. Was the government controlling this story?

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-203326c.html

Brutal.

The army best start caring for this guy and his family, or there will be major reprecussions. Lessons learnt in the first gulf war.

[Kobasew7]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 29 2004, 06:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 29 2004, 06:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-transplant99@Sep 29 2004, 05:51 PM

Pure and utter BS. Prove it man. Sure DURING the march across the desert from Kuwait and other points, reporters were "imbedded" with units...its the first time we were able to watch whatever happened live and in color. Since the declaration of "major conflicts" ending...reporters are allowed to go where ever they wish.

The American military also had concerns about embedded media, in this case calling the Iraq project a "limited success" while recommending a review to see if it should be employed again in the future.

This was written immediately after the war but contained a prescient warning:

What if there was more nationalistic spirit in the hearts of the people of Iraq and a majority of the population fought us block-by-block? This is evidenced by the "Chicken Little" reporting in the media when the Division and 3d ID paused in the attack up Highways 1, 8 and 9. Visions of Vietnam danced in reporters' heads. According to many pundits in the press we were bogged down, stopped cold by the Fedayeen. Nothing could have been further than the truth. The myth was quickly dispelled by our success against the Ba'ath Party and paramilitary fighters, but never forget how quickly the press jumped on the bandwagon of doom and gloom.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=15&ItemID=4751

We should also remember that embeds were on the other side as well.

The lowest journalistic moment of the war might have come when the BBC's Ragah Omar told an anchor back in London that it couldn't be possible the Americans were at the gates of Baghdad, that the Iraqi's must have some grand counterattack planned to wipe them out!! Talk about Stockholm Syndrome.

By the way, this is on the front page of the New York Daily News today. Was the government controlling this story?

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-203326c.html

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
I still say the worst media moment was Geraldo Rivera giving out the exact location his unit he was embeded with was statiioned. He drew a map to the area on the sand, on camera! What a moron...but that British reporters report about the grand attack to wipe the US out was bad too.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Kobasew7@Sep 29 2004, 06:36 PM
I still say the worst media moment was Geraldo Rivera giving out the exact location his unit he was embeded with was statiioned. He drew a map to the area on the sand, on camera! What a moron...but that British reporters report about the grand attack to wipe the US out was bad too.

Rivera was escorted off the battlefield for that one.

In Afghanistan, he had filed a heart-rending report and then was exposed to have been about 300 miles from where he said he was and hadn't seen what he said he did.

There's a guy who isn't credible.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 29 2004, 05:51 PM

Really? Hmmm....seems to me i watched a CNN report from Bagdahd last night...the guy was on a rooftop looking over the city. Was he instructed as to what he coud or could not say by the "government? Just asking.

Uhhh...OK. I dont suppose that the ritual kidnapping and beheadings of foreign nationals INCLUDING journalists is having any effect whatsoever on where a reporter goes or not huh?

Pure and utter BS. Prove it man. Sure DURING the march across the desert from Kuwait and other points, reporters were "imbedded" with units...its the first time we were able to watch whatever happened live and in color. Since the declaration of "major conflicts" ending...reporters are allowed to go where ever they wish.

OK...if you say so. Any proof of this, or is this just your opinion?

And again....who are these pople that control media that you peak of? Republicans or Democrats? Still waiting for the answer.

"Really? Hmmm....seems to me i watched a CNN report from Bagdahd last night...the guy was on a rooftop looking over the city. Was he instructed as to what he coud or could not say by the "government? Just asking."

Wow, from a roof top. Man, real indepth reporting there. And what exactly dod he say? Did he say how poorly things were going? Did he show images of the dead and wounded Americans? Did he do anything but do his talking head minute? No, of course he didn't. That would mean he had the freedom to report what he wanted to say.

"Uhhh...OK. I dont suppose that the ritual kidnapping and beheadings of foreign nationals INCLUDING journalists is having any effect whatsoever on where a reporter goes or not huh?"

And what have we had reported about that? Dick. What's the motivation? What's the outcome? Where has it happened? Where were the bodies found? Have we seen pictures of the bodies and the evidence to prove that this has indeed taken place? No, we don't get that because the American government does not want this information released and does not want any images that adversely affect the effort in Iraq and support there of at home.

"Pure and utter BS. Prove it man. Sure DURING the march across the desert from Kuwait and other points, reporters were "imbedded" with units...its the first time we were able to watch whatever happened live and in color. Since the declaration of "major conflicts" ending...reporters are allowed to go where ever they wish."

Are you dense? Why the hell do you think the Americans "embedded" these reporters? Do you know nothing of psychology and the interdependencies of teams? The US knew that through this embedding process and the adoption of the media member as team member, that the urge to report anything negative would be deminished. It was brilliant strategy on their part and help control the flow more effectively than had ever been done before. Are they still doing it? I'm not 100 percent sure, but based on the volatility of the region I'm sure that those media members are sticking close to home. That or on roof tops delivering "hard hitting pieces of journalism".

"OK...if you say so. Any proof of this, or is this just your opinion?

And again....who are these pople that control media that you peak of? Republicans or Democrats? Still waiting for the answer."

Do you have proof we are getting the whole picture? No you don't. So STFU. It doesn't matter what I say, or what proof I could possibly provide, I'm going to get hammered as a conspiracy theorist, so why should I bother? You're close minded on the subject and nothing I say is going to change your mind. You can keep thinking that what you know is the truth, but I have learned otherwise.

And who are these people that control the media? Some are Democrats. Some are Republicans. Some are even Libertarians. They are every day people who are assigned to filter information, sanitize and release it to the news bureaus. That is their job and that is what they do. The primary guidelines and directives come from which ever political party is in power, but for the most part long established protocols are in place that act as primary filters. A very small portion of the information that pertains to any story is released after the filtering and sanitizing. From there the media puts their own spin on it and further filters it. What you get is not even closely resembling how things really unfolded, all you see is the end result.

To put it into terms you'll understand, its like a trade taking place in hockey. The results are anounced, but the negotiations that took place are never known except between the parties and the league. Some information leaks out, but for the most part its not really known until one of the parties comes clean and spills the beans. We know how often that happens, not very. The same thing happens with government. A murder takes place. Information is collected and filtered. The media gets their story and runs with it. By time it hits the press it is not at all like what happened and is no where near the truth because the information has been sanitized for public consumption and twisted in 20 different directions. Its the way the beast works.

[Reaper]

Lanny, you should really try the decaf.

You are just way too tightly wound up for discussion boards.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Gee Reaper, I don't even drink coffee!

[Reaper]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 29 2004, 01:54 PM
Gee Reaper, I don't even drink coffee!

In all seriousness, you need to relax and let people disagree with you in topics like this one even if you think you are right.

Insults and rude behaviour aren't going to convince anyone to change their mind when they have an opinion that differs from the one you hold.

From what I've seen, it just looks like you get way too bent out of shape over these kinds of threads.

Try to chill out, man.

[Mike F]

I don't think that the military exercises any sort of significant control over the media (although they'd undoubtedly like to) but I do think that what we saw, and continue to see from the ground reporters from mainstream TV sources is sanitized.

Some prime examples I've brought up in the past concerning actions/injuries of soldiers come from this documentary.

See: 11 minutes into clip one, 4 and 7.5 minutes into clip 6, and the up-close interviews with Iraqi citizens throughout the film (hopefully everyone can watch these; they're available in Windows and Real Video format and high and low quality)

This has lead me to believe:

1. These types of things are being shown on the CNN's, but I never see them
2. CNN type reporters aren't getting to positions to view these type of events
3. CNN type reporters are getting to positions to view these type of events, but are choosing not to film them, or
4. CNN type reporters are getting to positions to view these type of events, are filming them but the network execs and programming directors are shelfing the stories

The only thing I don't believe is happening is that the military is confiscating or editing stuff. Let's face it, the average reporter today would scream bloody murder if that happened.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Reaper@Sep 29 2004, 08:37 PM


From what I've seen, it just looks like you get way too bent out of shape over these kinds of threads.

Try to chill out, man.

Its just my communication style online. I don't get worked up about it. I just flow it all into the thread and be done with it. No more than Cow or Tranny or Dis. Its fun to engage in a real good debate, especially when someone believes stongly on the other side as well. All it is is a game. No one gets hurt and we get to test each other's intellect. I respect the hell out of the guys that sit across the virtual table and joust back and forth. Shows that they are human as well and care about important things that most people don't give the time of day to.