Hating America

What about reporting and propagating only the bad news that comes from a zone in which the US is at war, instead of also giving fair weight to the good news? That is an American-hating move designed at swaying public opinion. Most likely its goal would be to promote one's political agenda. Sickening.

 

Wow, good question. I'm not sure we can all agree on *hating* because it's such a strong and divisive word.

I *love* my country, but many people here probably think I hate America because I hold it to high standards and expect it to act responsibly. It's because I love America that I want the best for it -- a loving mother wouldn't abandon her child when he misbehaves. She would explain why it's wrong and help the child move in the right direction.

That said, I'd be very hesitant to assign "hate" to anybody unless they commit actual treason. Waaaaaay too much gray area and subjectivity.

Should be some good responses, though.

 

What about reporting and propagating only the bad news that comes from a zone in which the US is at war, instead of also giving fair weight to the good news?

When was the last time the media gave fair weight to any good news?

Simply put, its not news.

Sure they'll throw a "feel good" story in there every now and then, but honestly, for instance who cares about the millions of commuiters that drive safely from home, school, work etc every day? Should the media pull into random shopping centers/schools etc to interview commuters that have traveled safely in order to give fair weight to the crash reports?

Should there be interviews with happy proud parents in the maternity ward of the hospitals to make up for the murder stories on the 11 O'Clock news?

Should news media have interviewed residents of geographic regions that were NOT experiencing negative weather effects to add fair weight to coverage of the recent hurricane?

I could go on, but certainly you get the point.. Negative news, is news.. and re the coverage of Iraq, the US mainstream media has been highly positive compared with the international press' coverage of it.

 

bigtexxx,

You are a funny man. The Bush Admin owned the news the 9 months or so leading into the War with Iraq. Nothing fair or unbiased here.

Now that the war is over and some of the pre-war Bush propaganda is proving itself to be grossly dellusional, you complain that the news is not balanced. Sir, what we are looking at is a train wreck of international proportions. And you are surprised that the Bush spin machine has lost its total control of the media? Go figure.

 

Your points are irrelevant. Your "good news" points are mundane activities that occur every day. A war is not one of those. I can't tell if you're just being ridiculous or are actually serious about what you posted. There are clearly interesting positive news stories coming out of a war, such as capturing key enemies, reinstating power to communities, securing areas, etc. Instead the news media focuses on the death of 1 single soldier, fueling the Bush-haters across the globe.

 

You proved my point nicely. You've formed this opinion based on what you've learned from the media. Wake up, No Worries, the media clearly has an agenda, and you have been steamrolled by their tactics. Look at the long term view of what Iraq will be, and I can't imagine you would call it a "train wreck" as your narrowminded short-term opinion now stands.

Please continue to call me sir, however. I will expect that.

 

Hating America is lying to the country to get it to waste its sons, daughters and money in useless foreign wars.

 

Hating America is just the latest made up fad by conservaties to silence dissent. Bin Laden hates America, Michael Moore like tens of millions of Americans is just pissed off and disgusted with what our country has become.

 

The media's tactics before or after the war? Methinks you want to have your cake and eat it too.

 

One could say your opinion is based on what you've learned from the media.

 

Hating America is intentionally committing acts that belie or attack the constitution. The patriot act is one such example. It's not as extreme an example as could exist, but, IMO, it doesn't hold true to the principles of the constitution.

I use hating America in a more broad sense. Criticizing a president while troops are in the field would not be hating America. That in no way goes against the liberties in our constitution. Fighting a war in Afghanistan after the tragic events of Sept. 11th also doesn't go against the principles this country was founded on.

Trying to froce democracy down someone's throat at the barrel of a gun, would be hating America. Those aren't that principles that champion freedom, or sell democracy as a beneficial thing. It goes directly against those principles.

Censorship, and a lot of the PC movement which is censorship is hating America, because it is restrictive of freedoms that this country was based upon.

 

The media also focused on the saving of one single POW, a story that turned out to be a little sketchy in details. The media also reported the toppling of a Saddam statue that made it look like all the Iraqis were happy for the soilders to be there. And I think most people will agree that the Bush had the media on his side marching into the war. No one in the media questioned our Intelligence reports on Chemical Weapons or Uranium from Africa, or the Iraqi Oil being able to pay for this conflict, or the time table for being there. George Bush has brought all recent negative press on himself.

 

I, personally, have never hated America and I take strong exception when someone tries to label me as un-American when I choose to voice my dissent on the policies and personalities that come to the forefront in the greatest country on the planet.

I think that some American ideals have been cast aside in recent years for political purposes and that disgusts me. I had a problem with Clinton going on TV and claiming that he did not have sexual relations with Lewinsky, but I have a much bigger problem with the Bushies exaggerating the threat posed by Iraq by using misleading "intelligence" in order to start a war.

IMO, America is the place for dissent, we should embrace that dissent and try to use the ideas of our opposition to come up with reasonable compromise. Unfortunately compromise is not a word that is well received in political circles these days as politics today is left vs. right, Reps vs. Dems, and black vs. white.

No matter the divide, there is always a fair compromise if everyone would get off their high horse and look for it.

 

Wow, it only took one post for you to denounce the unpatriotic america hating liberal media as if this were a Maoist struggle session. That must be some sort of record.

I don't know what the point of the original post was, but I assume it wasn't to name names, I might be mistaken though.

 

Samuel, I am not singling out the American media at all. I include other countries' media as well. And please tell me where I "named names".

Let's not continually state the obvious.

 

The media also focused on the saving of one single POW, a story that turned out to be a little sketchy in details. The media also reported the toppling of a Saddam statue that made it look like all the Iraqis were happy for the soilders to be there. And I think most people will agree that the Bush had the media on his side marching into the war. No one in the media questioned our Intelligence reports on Chemical Weapons or Uranium from Africa, or the Iraqi Oil being able to pay for this conflict, or the time table for being there. George Bush has brought all recent negative press on himself.

But see if you pretend none of this happened, and then point out some negative stories from the media, you can then say "look, the media is biased and has a liberal agenda". Isn't that more fun?

Plus, as an added bonus, you can then say that anything that disagrees with your view is just a result of liberal media bias, and you don't actually have to defend your viewpoint. Neat, huh?

 

Sorry Texxx, in journalism the cardinal rule is "if it bleeds, it leads." Death and injury ALWAYS take precedent over "good" stories. This holds true during war, peace, international, local ... it doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with the media being liberal or conservative -- it has to do with media being a big business and coming to the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that suffering sells.

 

Just adding to what Mrs JB said, the media doesn't generally care about liberal or conservative at the top of their organizations with some noted exceptions. At the tops of the organizations are big businesses worried about ratings first, journalism second.

They want people to be so terrified NOT to tune in that they'll make certain to watch the news.

They aren't interested in politics unless it has to do with presidents - DEAD presidents.

Obviously, there are some networks clearly geared towards one end of the political spectrum. That is a recent development, however. Most media outlets - particularly the one's controlling the local and big network news programs - are concerned with generating ad revenue by boosting ratings. Whether that means house fires, breast implants or dead soldiers in their stories, it makes no difference as long as the bucks keep rolling in.