email from Nightline... ________________ Now I want to tell you about this Friday’s broadcast. We’re going to do something different, something that we think is important. Friday night, we will show you the pictures, and Ted will read the names, of the men and women from the armed forces who have been killed in combat in Iraq. That’s it. That will be the whole broadcast. Nightline has been reporting on the casualties under the heading of “Line of Duty.” But we realized that we seemed to just be giving numbers. So many killed in this incident, so many more in that attack. Whether you agree with the war or not, these men and women are serving, are putting their lives on the line, in our names. We think it is important to remember that those who have paid the ultimate price all have faces, and names, and loved ones. We thought about doing this on Memorial Day, but that’s a time when most media outlets do stories about the military, and they are generally lost in the holiday crush of picnics and all. We didn’t want this broadcast to get lost. Honestly, I don’t know if people will watch this for thirty seconds, or ten minutes, or at all. That’s not the point. We think this is important. These men and women have earned nothing less. One point, we are not going to include those killed in non-hostile incidents. There’s no disrespect meant here, we just don’t have enough time in this one broadcast. But they are no less deserving of our thoughts. I hope that you will join us for at least part of “The Fallen” on Friday. Leroy Sievers and the Nightline Staff Nightline Offices ABCNEWS Washington D.C.
This is an appropriate memorial, though I would prefer it if they had time to read all of the names rather than excluding some (like those classified as accidents or suicides).
conspicuous by their absence are the names of those killed in afghanistan- they're not heroes too? is ABC making a statement on how the war on iRaq isn't part of the WOT? this is just a political stunt by ABC to grab ratings during sweeps month, masquerading as a "Tribute." what liberal media?
A dead soldier is a dead soldier, regardless of political border. I agree with basso on this point -- all people who died serving our country deserve equal respect and mourning. Friday's tribute to Iraq's fallen heroes is a good start. But I don't think Friday's tribute for these heroes isn't an exclusion of others either. It's timely, relevent and politically charged. It will definitely cause Americans much discomfort. As it should. We should never feel comfortable sending sons and daughters off to die.
Yeah, I feel basso is somehow right. Most likely, if they have time constraints keeping them from listing non-hostile deaths in Iraq, than they probably don't have the time to do Afghanistan too. I think it is a laudable tribute all the same, but I have to wonder if there aren't some execs hoping the show will push public opinion too.
Remebering the soldiers who died in a conflict for grief, pain, sadness, rememberance, memorialization, honor, gratitude, joy...that is great. We should do it more often. Its when you do it for politics that annoys me.
I just heard that they have expanded Nightline and as such, will be reading the names and showing the pictures of all of the soldiers who have been killed. I don't know if they are including soldiers killed in Afghanistan, but it is nice that they are going to honor all of our fallen heroes.
don't forget there are Haliburton employess who have died as well. of course, you probably consider them mercenaries for a corrupt corporation, but they still died trying to make the overall mission succeed. I'm not suggesting they're deaths are somehow equivalent to the deaths of soldiers, but making snarky comments about haliburton in this context is in extremely poor taste. and as to andy's point about nightline honoring "all" the fallen, i'm assuming they mean all those who died in iRaq, including the 200 or so who died in non-combat operations. if it doesn't include afghanistan, then it's a fairly clear indication that this is just a political stunt.
One take on it, from a rival network's website: 'Nightline': Tribute or propaganda Some affiliates opting not to air Friday's war dead showThe Associated Press Updated: 2:56 p.m. ET April 29, 2004“Nightline” is calling Friday’s program a simple tribute. Others call it anti-war propaganda. And one TV-station group is pre-empting it. During the ABC News broadcast (11:35 p.m. EDT), anchorman Ted Koppel will read aloud the name of a U.S. service man or woman killed in the Iraq war, as a corresponding photo appears on the screen along with that person’s name, military branch, rank and age. Expanded by 10 minutes from its usual half-hour, “Nightline” will include more than 500 killed in action in Iraq since March 19, 2003, as well as 200-plus non-combat deaths. “These people have paid the ultimate price in our name,” said “Nightline” executive producer Leroy Sievers, “and it’s important to remember them, whether you think the price is worth it or not. “It may not be great television. But it’s the right thing to do, and that’s why we’re doing it.” Sounds simple enough. But with the war much in dispute during a highly charged election year, nothing, it seems, is accepted at face value. So some observers think there’s more here than meets the eye. 'Motivated by a political agenda' Sinclair Broadcast Group, a Maryland-based media company whose holdings include 62 TV stations, announced Thursday it would pre-empt “Nightline” on its eight ABC affiliates, including stations in Columbus, Ohio, St. Louis, Mo., and Tallahassee, Fla. The company said Friday’s program “appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq.” The company called the broadcast a political statement “disguised as news content,” pointing to the producers’ omission of “the names of thousands of private citizens killed in terrorist attacks” since 9-11. In its own statement, ABC said its news division had reported “hundreds of stories on 9-11” while noting that, on the first anniversary of that tragedy, it aired the victims’ names. Friday’s “Nightline” broadcast “simply seeks to honor those who have laid down their lives for this country,” ABC said. “I think it’s intellectually dishonest to deny the partisan nature of this broadcast,” said Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center. “Of course, it’s partisan! What’s the purpose? There’s only one goal in mind: It’s to turn public opinion against the war.” “I think it’s probably fair to say that ‘Nightline’ is against this war in Iraq,” political pundit Fred Barnes agreed. Vietnam comparison “Koppel is drawing from a Vietnam analogy,” added Barnes on Fox News Channel. “The country in 1969 was turning against the Vietnam War.” Barnes was referring to a Vietnam War-era issue of Life magazine, which “Nightline” has cited as the broadcast’s inspiration. Like many other readers in June 1969, Sievers said he was stirred by an 11-page spread titled “One Week’s Dead” consisting of photographs of the more than 200 servicemen killed in the Vietnam War in a seven-day period. Readers were urged to “pause to look into the faces ... of one week’s dead” who, Life wrote, “are suddenly recognized by all in this gallery of young American eyes.” When that Life cover story appeared, anti-war sentiment was strong and growing stronger. For many readers, “One Week’s Dead” was more than a tribute — it was a timely contribution to the anti-war movement. Thirty-five years later, Bozell is among those claiming bias in “Nightline,” which, he complained, will illustrate the tragic outcome of war, but without mention of the accomplishments by its fallen heroes. “Nightline,” he said, should “tell you what they’re dying for. If it doesn’t do that, it’s nothing but anti-war propaganda.” Not a pro-or-con matter But even to approach the war as a pro-or-con matter is to oversimplify it, argued Bob Steele, director of the ethics program for the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. “The issue of war is not unlike the issue of abortion, immigration or capital punishment: There are multiple sides to it,” he said. “What Life magazine did was give us a very compelling composite portrait of one side of the horrors of war. To some degree, that’s what ‘Nightline’ is doing: telling us one element of the horror of war, and that’s the loss of life.” For his part, “Nightline” executive producer Sievers said: “I’m somewhat surprised that anybody would object.” He also dismissed charges of any ulterior motives behind scheduling the broadcast during the extra-competitive sweeps rating period when high-profile, audience-drawing fare is key to every network. Not only did Sievers deny knowing that sweeps — which started Thursday — is under way, he added: “We don’t think this will be a ratings winner.” © 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4864247/
Basso, we get it. When it comes to Iraq, if you donlt have anything nice to say....you're biased. If you report on anything which doesn't support the war argument....you're biased. If you criticize the war, or make statemrnts which could be construed to be critical of the war....you're biased. Honestly we get it.
Tonight's Frontline should be MUCH more interesting... Understanding the President and His God By ALESSANDRA STANLEY Published: April 29, 2004 The question is not, When did George W. Bush accept Jesus as his personal savior? The "Frontline" documentary "The Jesus Factor," on PBS tonight, raises a different issue: Do most Americans realize just how fervent the president's evangelical faith really is? "The Jesus Factor" is a little like those illustrated anatomy books where transparent plastic pages can be flipped to reveal the muscle, bone and organs beneath the skin. Stripping off the layers of patrician pedigree, Yale and his Texas business pursuits, the documentary lays bare Mr. Bush's spiritual conversion and its consequences. It is not a disrespectful look. Yet by pulling together well-known and long forgotten incidents and remarks, the program reminds viewers that this "faith-based" president has blurred the line between religion and state more than any of his recent predecessors: a vision that affects the Iraq conflict as well as domestic policy. In the wake of Sept. 11 of course the religious influence seems obvious, since Mr. Bush has invoked a higher authority who has led him to battle "the evildoers." And at a time when Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" is one of the top-earning movies, and the "Left Behind" series of books, apocalyptic Christian thrillers by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins (the Antichrist heads the United Nations), has outsold John Grisham, the evangelical Christian movement is highly visible even in places like New York and Los Angeles. But like the evangelical movement, the president's born-again faith was not as striking to outsiders in 1987, when he moved to Washington to work on his father's presidential campaign. At the time reporters mostly saw him as the Bush family bouncer, someone who kept an eye on disloyal staff members. Nor were his born-again evangelical beliefs much more than a biographical footnote in Mr. Bush's gubernatorial campaigns. Even in his 2000 presidential race most journalists placed Mr. Bush's religious beliefs behind his family lineage, career and political ideology. His faith was mostly examined in the context of a midlife crisis: a black sheep's self-styled 12-step program that helped him stop drinking and focus on a political career in Texas. "The Jesus Factor" examines Mr. Bush's faith by mingling his public pronouncements with interviews with friends; fellow members of the Community Bible Study group in Midland, Tex.; evangelical leaders; and Texas journalists who covered him. Doug Wead, who was George H. W. Bush's liaison to the religious right during the 1988 presidential campaign, says that the younger Mr. Bush was his ally, serving as a behind-the-scenes link between his father, an Episcopalian moderate, and the evangelical movement, which is a critical base for the Republican Party. Mr. Wead says his memorandums to the vice president came back to him annotated by someone who seemed very knowledgeable about evangelical Christians; Mr. Wead says he thought the candidate was handing them over to the Rev. Billy Graham, a Bush family friend. "But it turned out he was vetting them with his son," Mr. Wead says. Once the younger Mr. Bush's faith took hold, it spread to his political ambitions. <b>"I believe that God wants me to be president," is what Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, recalls hearing Mr. Bush say in a meeting with close associates on the day of his second inaugural as governor of Texas. Once elected president, Mr. Bush went to work. "We need common-sense judges who understand our rights were derived from God," he says in a 2002 clip. "And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench."</b> The documentary revisits a 1993 interview Mr. Bush had with a reporter for The Houston Post, Ken Herman, on the day he announced his intention to run for governor. Mr. Herman recalls that Mr. Bush said he believed that a person had to accept Christ to go to heaven, a view that Mr. Herman published. "The political ramifications of that were huge," Mr. Wead explains. "And so he doesn't talk about that anymore." (During the 2000 campaign Mr. Bush said he thought schools should teach both creationism and evolution, but he has not been as forthcoming about which theory he personally prefers.) <b>The imprint of Mr. Bush's faith can be seen on his appointments to the bench and on his decisions on embryonic stem-cell research and so-called partial-birth abortion. And religion also veins Mr. Bush's discussion of war. Mr. Land describes him as a believer in "American exceptionalism." Jim Wallis, editor in chief of Sojourners magazine, a liberal evangelical publication, refers to his talk of a divine mission as the "language of righteous empire."</b> "The Jesus Factor" is an enlightening look at the president and the electoral clout of evangelical Christians. But one drawback of focusing so intently on Mr. Bush's faith is that it screens out other perhaps equally important factors, like political expediencies, personality quirks and clashing interests, that inevitably influence decision making in the Oval Office. <b>And even some of the president's closest allies say they are not sure when he is speaking from the pulpit and when from the Beltway. "There is no question that the president's faith is calculated, and there is no question that the president's faith is real," Mr. Wead says. "I would say that I don't know and George Bush doesn't know when he's operating out of a genuine sense of his own faith or when it's calculated."</b>
wait, the producer of nightline doesn't know when sweeps month starts?!!!? i'd be surprised if everyone at ABC from peter jennings down to his limo driver didn't know when sweeps month was. he's either the most incompetent producer imaginable (which could explain why ABC is in fourth place among the major networks), or he's a lying idiot...
McCain's Press release... _______________ MCCAIN LETTER TO SINCLAIR BROADCAST ON PREEMPTION OF NIGHTLINE For Immediate Release Friday, Apr 30, 2004 U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) issued the following letter today to Mr. David Smith, President and CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group, in response to the preemption of this evening’s Nightline program: I write to strongly protest your decision to instruct Sinclair’s ABC affiliates to preempt this evening’s Nightline program. I find deeply offensive Sinclair’s objection to Nightline’s intention to broadcast the names and photographs of Americans who gave their lives in service to our country in Iraq. I supported the President’s decision to go to war in Iraq, and remain a strong supporter of that decision. But every American has a responsibility to understand fully the terrible costs of war and the extraordinary sacrifices it requires of those brave men and women who volunteer to defend the rest of us; lest we ever forget or grow insensitive to how grave a decision it is for our government to order Americans into combat. It is a solemn responsibility of elected officials to accept responsibility for our decision and its consequences, and, with those who disseminate the news, to ensure that Americans are fully informed of those consequences. There is no valid reason for Sinclair to shirk its responsibility in what I assume is a very misguided attempt to prevent your viewers from completely appreciating the extraordinary sacrifices made on their behalf by Americans serving in Iraq. War is an awful, but sometimes necessary business. Your decision to deny your viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war’s terrible costs, in all their heartbreaking detail, is a gross disservice to the public, and to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. It is, in short, sir, unpatriotic. I hope it meets with the public opprobrium it most certainly deserves.
scrappleface.com reports the latest on nightline's plans after this broadcast: http://scrappleface.com/ -- Koppel to Read Names of Saddam's Victims (2004-04-30) -- ABC-TV journalist Ted Koppel, who caused a firestorm of controversy with his plan to read the names of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, today announced that in the interest of balance and fairness next week he will read another list on his show, Nightline. "I would never want anyone to accuse me of bias. After all, I'm a journalist, devoted to accurately portraying world events," said Mr. Koppel. "So, next week I will read the list of Iraqis who were raped, tortured and killed by Saddam Hussein's regime after President George H.W. Bush declared victory in the Gulf War on February 28, 1991." Mr. Koppel said next week's Nightline will be a "special extended episode starting Friday and running non-stop until the day I retire from ABC."
