|This really s*cks...if true...||ClydeTri|
Feb 26, 2003 5:58 AM
It claims that some teachers in Maine are taunting elementary school aged kids who parents are going over to fight in the war. If this is true, those teachers should be fired...sad state of affairs..
check the video out they link to....
|re: This really s*cks...if true...||Bill B|
Feb 26, 2003 7:21 AM
|Even my far left, liberal sensativeties are offended by that. Fire them. I do not believe in this war but stand behind the troops, God bless them, may they all come home to their families.|
Feb 26, 2003 9:23 AM
|Don't dog our troops (or their children for gods sake!) for going to war, they're only following orders from the commander in chief that we elected.|
|Probably Conservative Media Bias exagerating as usual||PdxMark|
Feb 26, 2003 10:02 AM
|Conservative Media Bias loves a bogeyman, preferably one employed by the government. There's also a need to drum up support for GWB's meritless war.
First, does anyone see how teachers of 7-9 year olds treat their students? I do, and loving support and care is almost always the norm. Such a direct personal attack of such a young kid is dramatically beyond any sort of teacher-student interaction I see, especially for such young kids.
Second, if you watch the video, you see remarks like "relatively few" and "even some teachers," but it's unclear just what was said to what kid by what treacher. In fact, it's not even clear that this family support liason soldier, doing an important job no doubt, ever talked to any of these kids himself. The string of generalizations makes it hard to tell just what was said and whether it was done by any more than one person.
Of sourse such a personal attack of a student by a teacher would be unacceptable. But in GWB's Amerika, lack of enthusiastic support for war is equated with anti-American treason.
|Conservative Media Bias ??||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 26, 2003 11:47 AM
|Nobody said it is all the teachers, I am sure there are only a few teachers doing this. But one teacher doing this kind of thing is one too many. I am sure the number of teachers doing this is small. It is stressful enough for a child to have a parent deployed without having a teacher say your parent is evil or immoral.
The idea of a convervative media bias is absurd. Are we supposed to add Channel 8 in Augusta, the AP & the Central Maine Sentinal to the Vast Right Wing Media? It sounds like they are going out of their way not to name the school or teacher by name. Sure there are some conservative news outlets but the numbers are small compared to the liberal outlets. May I suggest you read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg.
Your GWB AmeriKa comment shows you are pretty out of touch. Nobody is being told they cannot protest, except maybe at the Grammys. People have the right to do so and millions are exercising that right.
THis is a case of something being just plain wrong. THis has nothing to do with treason or telling someone they cannot protest. THis is the psycological abuse of children.
|More like a bias towards sensationalism.||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 26, 2003 12:53 PM
|That article is pretty flawed. Obviously some who has written for Mother Jones & the Nation is going to have trouble seeing a liberal media bias. He is going to see the liberal views expressed in these programs as mainstream, which was a big part of Goldberg's book. The same would be true for someone writing for the National Review seeing a conservative bias in conservative news outlets.
Are conservatives represented in the media? Of course they are. Talk radio, though more entertainment than a news outlet, is largelt consewrvative. But the mainstream media, ABC, CBS & NBC all have a liberal tilt which was pointed out in Goldberg's book "Bias". Does throwing a token conservative like George Will on TV on Sunday morning make you balanced? No it does not.
THe liberal bias is a reality. Maybe it as bad as it has been in the past thanks to things like Goldberg's best selling book and the movement of viewers from the networks for news to the cable networks. It is forcing networks to clean up their act a little.
But saying the media has a conservatie bias is laughable.
|And Goldberg is impartial?||czardonic|
Feb 26, 2003 1:26 PM
|Please. Goldberg is playing up to an article of conservative faith in order to sell books, period.
True, talk radio is more entertainment than news outlet. But the liberal media isn't holding a gun to Rush's head and forcing him to devote his time to right-wing mouth frothing. If there are so few "news outlets" that appeal to conservatives, could it be because conservatives aren't interested in news?
The liberal media is a reality. I admit it. Eric Alterman admits it. The question is, so what? Republicans control the White House and Congress. The liberal media doesn't seem to be standing in the way of the conservative agenda.
What's really laughable is the conservative pretense of caring about the liberal bias because it distorts the "truth". If that were true, they'd be fighting it by creating impartial news outlets rather than using the liberal bias as an excuse to disseminate their own disinformation.
|Goldberg is not a plant, did you read the book?||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 26, 2003 4:48 PM
|Goldberg was forced off of CBS news because of a column he wrote in the Wall Street Journal critical of a very partial story that ridiculed Steve Forbes Flat Tax proposal. Goldberg's voting record was democratic and he was hardly a pawn of the Republicans. He saw something wrong and blew the whistle on it.
Sure he has made rounds on the radio talk shows to promote his book, but that is because he was not welcome on any of the TV networks to promote it. Does that make him take away all of his credibility? Peter Jennings did some conservative talk radio to promote books too. So did Rather. It is just part of the business.
Everyone is partial by nature. I guess I am old fasioned and think a reporter should report the news and try not editorialize. That is for the op/ed page. The Liberals are also trying to start a liberal talk radio network.
At least you admit there is a liberal bias and distinguish between Rush Limbaugh and the mainstream media. I can live with some bias in the media but sometimes they go too far and often distort the truth. That is why a lot of people are no longer watching the the network news and are going to the cable networks. For the most part, it does not bother me, but now watch Fox News most of the time. I like Tim Russert and a few others on the networks still though.
Today we had people claiming there is a conservative bias in the media, they should be called on that.
|No, he is just guy trying to sell books.||czardonic|
Feb 26, 2003 5:32 PM
|The only thing more embarassing than watching someone pander, is watching the person being pandered mistake it for sincerity.
Again, the question isn't whether or not there are biased outposts of the media. The question is whether or not it matters. Republicans control the White House and Congress, and the major networks are hemoraging viewers, apparently to Fox News. If there is a liberal conspiracy to influence the thinking of the American public, it clearly is not working.
I didn't read the book (though I did watch an hour long episode of Harball dedicated to him and his theory), so correct me if I am wrong here: Goldberg believes that the major networks offer a subtle, liberal perspective when it reports the news. He beleives that this is a problem because most of America tends to bo more conservative. His evidence that they are more conservative? They are turning off the major networks in droves and tuning in to Fox News instead!
That begs two questions. First, doesn't the fact that they are tuning out the liberal bias prove that they are wise to it? Second, if they are tuning in to Fox News instead, can we assume that they want "impartial" news coverage?
The problem with all this conservative whining about liberal bias is that their alternative is conservative bias, not impariality. So far, the market seems to be doing a fine job of determining which bias gets the most air time.
|No, he is just guy trying to sell books.||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 26, 2003 6:17 PM
|You are mostly right on your assessment from that Hardbal episode. The point was that the media bias, is largely unintentional. They are concentrated in big cities on the East & West Coast. He points out subtile things like how they will call Trent Lott or the Heritage Foundation a Conservative Senator or Right Wing Think Tank but almost never use liberal Left Wing to describe a person or group. He also states most media members friend's & associates are liberals. They are largely out of touch with a big part of America. So what many see as left wing, they see as main stream.
He also talked about how they fail to question inaccurate numbers provided by special interest groups on things such as Homelessness & Hetrosexual AIDS, the lack of stories on Minorities on News magazine shows, compared ratings of black & White viewers among other things. He also points out, rightly so, that when there is tragedy like 9/11, people go to the networks and they do a good job.
It is a dry read, but not a bad one. I read it two weeks ago on the plane to Europe.
Not everyone is going to Fox. They are going to the Cable Networks in general including Fox, MSNBC & CNN. Fox does seem to be the fastest growing though. Network news is steadily losing their audience.
I think you are right, to a certain point, the market will correct itself. Pointing abusies in the media is not whining though. It should be done in some cases. But changing the channel is probably more effective.
|My definition of whining. . .||czardonic|
Feb 26, 2003 6:37 PM
|. . .is pointless, needless complaining.
Even Goldberg admits that this bias is unintentional, and limited to areas of the country that are left leaning anyway. More importantly, this bias clearly has a negligible impact on the views of America at large. And finally, he says that on issues of true import, they do a good job. So, where's the "abuse"?
The blatant right-wing bias of the outlets that conservatives prefer belies any claim that they want "impartial" news. So all you really have is conservatives whining about the the left-wing's shrinking share of the media pie.
|Conservative Media Bias ?? - well Mike, it was you...||PdxMark|
Feb 26, 2003 3:04 PM
|who invited me to move "over there" because I was questioning the rationale for GW2.
As for this thread, of course there's no circumstance under which a teacher, or any adult, should subject any kid to such treatment. Sensationalism is probably a better characterization of what that news channel did, actually, based on how thin the facts really were in the broadcast. But the line between sensationalism and an unsupported or overblown smear of people who oppose the war was pretty thin.
But for a President who is has gotten away with massive policy shifts with almost no public (media) debate, such as a strategic policy of preemptive war and tax cuts with ludicrous macroeconomic suport, it's interesting that you still decry a Liberal Bias.
|Who is being smeared?||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 26, 2003 5:33 PM
|I had people tell me to live in Palestine to see how the live debating Israel on this board. Trying to imagine having freedoms and luxuries taken away should be part of the debate. If Bush shot or gassed you for being anti-war the maybe you would know what life is like in Iraq if you spoke up agains Sadam. You should read that post someone made regarding the Iraqi exiles a couple of days ago. It was very intersting.
Here is the latest on the Maine schools:
WABI reporter Alan Grover told WND that reports of the harassment had come in from 12 different schools across the state. Personnel from the Family Assistance Program collected the 12 reports after interviewing 80 Guard families. Since there are 600 such families affected, the number of actual incidents likely is higher.
Are you saying 80 families made up this story and the media is sensationalizing it? My guess is that the Department of Education wanted to keep it quiet and someone leaked the letter they sent out. If it were 2 or 3 teachers it would be bad enough, the numbers are growing though.
Child abuse by nature is a sensational news story. The idea of trying to USE children as pawns in the war anti-movement is child abuse. I would have no problem with teachers being fired for that kind of conduct and if I were on the school board in one of those districts, I would pursue that action.
The media & national guard are so far not making the teachers names public. Who are they smearing? The teachers are being protected from many people who would be angry about this situation.
As for lack of public debate, Bush has had pretty strong support for most of his agenda and last years elections showed that. The public is largely on his side, including on the war effort and tax cuts. Or maybe the media was too busy with Laci Peterson for a month and a half to cover the war protest. Or maybe the public has spoken and you cannot accept it.
|Maybe when America is transformed into a thoecracy. . .||czardonic|
Feb 26, 2003 6:06 PM
|. . .and every last liberal is sent to a concentration camp to be re-educated in the virtues of war, free-markets and the Ten Commandments. . .maybe then conservatives will be satisfied that the media isn't biased.
Or maybe Bush can establish a Ministry of Truth to maintain media integrity.
|Maybe I'll learn to spell, too. (nm)||czardonic|
Feb 26, 2003 6:07 PM
|Ministry of Truth||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 26, 2003 6:32 PM
|Actually Bush was carefully photogaphed carrying a copy of Goldberg's book "Bias" onto his helicopter. That is what helped make the book sales spike as well as spike the hair on the back of Dan Rather's neck ;) I guess that was his version of the Ministry of Truth. If you cant beat them, carefully manipulate them.
|So should he tear off every label on his cloths too?||hycobob|
Mar 1, 2003 6:39 AM
|If President Bush can't even hold a book without being branded as a hawker for it, what can he do to gain your approval? If he were to endorse partial birth abortions and push for legalizing the molesting of children to apease NAMBLA, would that be enough? How about parading around like a fool, shooting his load with stupid interns and possibly raping others, would that be enough? Or maybe he should re-invent the internet to give polarized jerks like you a podium to spout your crap from, would that be enough?|
|I had those thoughts too||carnageasada|
Feb 26, 2003 11:57 AM
|although you articulated them better than I could. Can't imagine a teacher doing that to a seven year old. And I agree with you that it'd probably be better to have something more than heresay before having a hissy fit.
Having said that, I do think it would inexcusable for a teacher to voice any objections to children about a war in which their parents might have to partake. Those comments could seriously damage a child's image of their parents, thereby damaging them. If a teacher wants to protest. Great. Let them. Let them go to Washington or the town hall and wave and scream whatever they want. But leave the children out of it.
|Conservative media bias is bound to get worse||OldEdScott|
Feb 26, 2003 12:06 PM
|in coming days, as the opening shot of Bush-Cheney Hundred Years War is fired. We really need to be alert to filter it out. I'm glad people are finally starting to recognize it.|
|Do the math||ClydeTri|
Feb 26, 2003 12:37 PM
|Far Left Media: NPR
Left Media: NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC
Conservative Media: Fox
ignoring the media with very limited viewership such as BET and others since they are so small in viewers/listeners
Do the math...
|Do the reading||OldEdScott|
Feb 26, 2003 12:42 PM
|Click on Czar's little link above.
It's simply wrong, even absurd, to say there's a liberal bias in the media. On the contrary, there is a massive conservative infrastructure, not just on the lamentable Fox 'News' Network, but throughout the so-called mainstream media you so happily and mistakenly label as 'left.'
|I think they are in mourning over....||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 26, 2003 1:15 PM
|The cancellation of Phil Donahue's MSNBC show. It was inevidable. He was only drawing 1/2 the viewers on Connie Chung & 1/6 the viewers of Bill O'Reilly. Guess they need to make room for Jesse Ventura!!! I guess for soome people adding Jesse will turn MSNBC into a conservative news outlet overnight.
By the way, I do not know what people see in Bill O'Reilly. He used to fill in on our local Boston talk station from time to time. He did not play well here though and could not land a full time gig. Good for him I guess since he is doing much better now. I guess I think he talks down to or over guests he does not agree with way too much. Even Rush usually lets the liberals speak their mind.
|How does Donahue's cancellation figure in the liberal bias?(nm)||czardonic|
Feb 26, 2003 1:28 PM
|Figured it might explain the heightened sensitivity...||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 26, 2003 4:10 PM
|of some of the people on the board. It is like the loss of one of their liberal Icons. His type of talk played better during the day. I guess the sarcasm was lost on you.
|Bill is still on that horrible fm talk radio station.||inallston|
Feb 26, 2003 6:36 PM
|Today I had the misfortune of being on a jobsite(in Boston)that the guys working there listen to that crap.|
|What I've heard from actually listening to him is...||hycobob|
Mar 1, 2003 7:02 AM
|O'Riley lets people with disenting views speak, but its still his show. Nobody is going to let someone who can't support their statements rant and froth lies and distortions without stepping in, and sometimes hanging up on them when they refuse to dialogue. The rise of conservative talk radio should be an eye or ear opener for the "liberal" Democratic Party. People want to hear the truth and be able to discuss it; not be told it and branded biggoted, homophobic, religious-zealot-war-mongerers for voicing their own opinions.|
|Challenge: List for me all the liberal newspaper columnists.||OldEdScott|
Feb 26, 2003 1:43 PM
|List for me all the liberal commentators hosting TV and radio shows. I can immediately swamp you with two, three, maybe four times the number of conservative columnists/hosts.
Ah, you reply, but there is 'invisible' liberal bias in the news columns and news shows (we're talking mainstream news, not commentary). I challenge you to point out to me -- SPECIFICALLY -- one instance where, in a news report (not commentary) Rather/Jennings/Brokaw, or a New York times White House correspondent, or any other mainstream reporter included liberal bias or commentary in his report.
Oh, but it's there! It creeps in! It's invisible!
Liberal media bias is an invisible thing. Conservative media bias is very, very vivid.
|Challenge: List for me all the liberal newspaper columnists.||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 26, 2003 7:15 PM
|Molly Ivins, Ellen Goodman, Arianna Huffington is now more or less a liberal, Barbara Ehrenreich, Robert Scheer, Elanor Clif, Bob Herbert, Mary McGrory to name a few. They are plenty more out there. I guess the papers just don't buy thier columns. That is the free market working though.
As for talk radio, they are trying to establish a Liberal Talk network and sigh Franken to do drivetime. That will probably fail though. They tried to syndicate people like Tom Leykis & Stephanie Miller but they failed to capture a large scale national audience. Michael Savage & Bill O'Reilly are both growing. Once again, that is the free market at work.
Well, if you want some instances in the main stream media, how about Rather not reporting on Chandra Levy. That was bias by ommission. I remember in 1992, two or three days after Clinton was elected, Peter Jennings Lead story was "Maybe the Economy was not as bad was we had thought" after spending 11 months ripping it. In 2000 all the networks called Florida at 8:00 PM when the polls were still open on the conservative panhandle for another hour, esentially telling part of the state to go home, your vote doesn't matter. Then of course there was Eric Enberg's infamous story calling Steve Forbes Flat Tax a "the #1 wacky Scheme" in news coverage. That prompted Goldberg's book Bias.
Maybe you do not see some of the liberal bias because you are a liberal, and it seems OK to you. It is there though.
|Ed, you can't see the forest for the trees||VertAddict|
Feb 26, 2003 10:42 PM
|Geez, Ed, the reason you can't see the liberal bias in the media is because you're a damn liberal yourself! It's the same reason people in Alabama don't hear a southern accent, but everyone else does.|
|ditto...or for the Houstonians Yahoo!...nm||hycobob|
Mar 1, 2003 7:07 AM
|Don't forget about the press.......||cdale02|
Feb 27, 2003 8:04 AM
|I live in the Baltimore D.C. area. In D.C. we have two main newspapers, (Post - liberal, and the Times conservative). The Washington Post has a munch broader circulation.
I like to read both the Washington Post and the Washington Times to see the differences in reporting - I suggest you do this sometime, it is really quite enlightening.
However in Baltimore, there is no such balance as they only have one main newspaper, the Baltimore Sun. So the average Baltimore resident receives liberal print news, liberal network coverage, liberal cable news (except for Fox), liberal public radio, and conservative talk radio if they look for it.
FWIW, I am registered as an independent.
Feb 27, 2003 11:04 AM
|The Washington Times is owned by a the Moonies, a right-wing cult.|
|When did this become the Democratic/Anti-President Bush forum?||hycobob|
Mar 1, 2003 6:47 AM
|This is as bad as listening to Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon and Richard Gere...even Ted gets tired of Jane Fonda's crap!|
|Conservative bias / Liberal bias||moneyman|
Feb 26, 2003 1:47 PM
|I cannot believe it, but I may be the voice of reason in this discussion. I have seen studies (unfortunately, I don't have them in front of me)that show there is a decidedly left-leaning propensity in the newsrooms of the three major networks. Then there is Fox, which, in spite of its slogan "We report, you decide", leans the other way. To quantify the degree to which they list is a tricky maneuver, however, and to determine if liberals or conservatives are the majority in the media is trickier still. First one would have to define "media", "liberal" and "conservative". Then it would have to be decided the actual amount of influence of the particular outlet in the particular medium. For instance, I can honestly say that I have never read The Atlantic Monthly, so how can that publication be said to influence my thinking? In fact, even though I am an avid reader of opinion columns (as well as Cycle Sport and VeloNews), I would hazard to guess that there are far more columns written than I could ever read.
My own thinking behind this is that the label of Media Bias is unworkable and unproveable for either side. Also, if I were to say that my thinking is dictated by George Will or Molly Ivins, what would that say about me? In order to form my opinions, I like to think of it like ordering from a Chinese menu - one from column A, two from column B. While I tend to lean more to the right than the left, I believe that my opinions are my own, shaped by my experiences and by all those that I read. Speaking of which, I go out of my way to read opinions of those with whom I generally disagree. I find my opinions tend to have more credibility when I have seen both sides.
I believe that individual publications are biased, but I don't believe for a second that the the entire media is biased one way or the other.
Feb 26, 2003 2:00 PM
|Everyone has ample opportunity to get their news and opinion with whatever ideological tilt appeals to them.|
Feb 26, 2003 2:35 PM
|If you read my initial post..I didnt trash "liberal" media, nor "conservative" media..amazing how everybody heads off on tangets. My thoughts were that if even this occured one time, that is totally unacceptable IMHO and the teacher should be fired. A child of that age will be emotionally upset anyway at their dad or mom going off to war (no pro or antiwar rants please) and to have a teacher tell them their mommy or daddy is a bad person is way out of bounds. If true, I hope they find that teacher(s) and get them out of the school system. Again, please read..I said IF TRUE.|
|IF TRUE, Bush should be impeached for orchestrating 9/11.||czardonic|
Feb 26, 2003 3:08 PM
|Please note, I said "IF TRUE". I think we can all agree that it would be unacceptable if he did.
This story about anti-war teachers bullying the children of soldiers is the journalistic equivalent of asking liberals, "So, when did you stop beating your wife?" It is irresponsible journalism to report this kind of inflammatory story w/o clear substantiation. News, should not require a disclaimer about its veracity.
|Sounds like 12 schools involved||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 26, 2003 7:46 PM
|Sorry for heping to send the post off topic, but I had to call out someone for implying the story was part of "Conservative Media Bias in GWB's Amerika"
When I was in school I had 3 teachers telling me to tell my parents if they did not vote for a property tax initiative, my teacher would lose her job. The innitiative passed & but all 3 teachers still had a job the next fall. Some teachers will use the classromm for political purposes, but I think the acts in Maine are child abuse.
This was in one of my posts. It mentions 12 different schools being involved. It was an update on this story.
My guess is the national Media will pick up on this. One is too many to suffer this abuse. The children should not be used like this and the teachers involved should be fired. The child's wellbeing are obviously not their priority.
|Key phrase: <i>"thus insinuating"</i>||czardonic|
Feb 27, 2003 11:02 AM
|"Public-school teachers in Maine at least 12 of them have told children of recently called-up National Guard members that any attack on Iraq would be illegal and immoral, thus insinuating that the students' parents are equally immoral, according to reports by local Guard personnel."
Basically, we are expected to be incensed by the notion of teachers teaching children that war is a bad thing, and that violence is not the way to solve problems. This is child abuse!?
When kids are caught fighting in the schoolyard, is it abuse of children of National Guardsmen to punish them for resorting to violence? Should we tolerate bullies out of respect for children of National Guardsmen, who's organization sometimes has to resort to the threat of violence to deal with a situation?
|More Conservative Fact Drift in Bush's Amerika||PdxMark|
Feb 27, 2003 11:05 AM
|The original story said:
"What the kids are facing is hearing that their mother or father is a bad person for taking part in the confrontation with Iraq; comments that are coming from teachers."
Your new article says:
Public-school teachers in Maine at least 12 of them have told children of recently called-up National Guard members that any attack on Iraq would be illegal and immoral, THUS INSINUATING that the students' parents are equally immoral, according to reports by local Guard personnel.
So now we hear that teachers are not actually telling kids their parents are bad, just that questioning the moral or legal basis of the war INSINUATES that their parents are bad. In Bush's Amerika, lack of enthusiasm for a poorly considered war is equated with an direct personal attack on the children of troops. From your own article, no teacher said anything about any kid's parents.
To keep the Conservative Media Bias in the article, it ends:
"In a related matter, WABI reports that the National Guard instructed soldiers to meet with school personnel prior to deploying to inform them of the deployment and let them know that the children of soldiers may have some special emotional issues to deal with as a result. In response, according to the report, school personnel were less than cooperative, telling the soldiers, IN EFFECT, "That's your problem."
Amazing how the details don't quite live up to the hyperbole. "In effect" saying something is not the same as actually saying it.
Jeeze, if conservatives really had a basis for their positions, you'd think they could just state the facts without morphing them into hyperbolic lies.
|More Conservative Fact Drift in Bush's Amerika||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 27, 2003 11:58 AM
|Telling someone the war is illegal is a lie. Court cases claiming such are being thrown out of courts all the time.
Sure you can pick up on words like insinuate & in effect and INSINUATE there is a bias to the article. You may look at it as paraphrasing though.
THis was the only source I could find on the story last night. I am not too familiar with the website, but it is conservative news site, not a main stream media source. I will admit there is a bias on conservative news sites like this one & Newsmax.com just like there is on liberal news sites.
Here is a link to the TV station that was interviewed in the story I linked last night, along with their "Sensationalist Logo" they have assigned to this story.
But what you should be concerned about is the abuse of children by their teachers. The number of schools has increased from 2 or 3 to 12. The news story is also gathering steam. Today it was published in the Washington Times and I am sure will only reach more media outlets in the coming days. My guess is this is happenning in more places than just Maine.
People do not object to a peaceful anti-war march or demostration. What is objectional is this attempt to use the children. If you are really against this type of abuse, you should stop blaming it on the a "conservative media".
|God. Any credibility this story had was demolished by||OldEdScott|
Feb 27, 2003 12:17 PM
|that sensational little 'kids under ATTACK' photo you appended. What we have here, I think, is a simple case of TV 'news' hysteria in a sweeps month. That's neither liberal bias nor conservative bias, it's ratings-and-money bias, which is political-spectrum blind.|
|Please! Won't someone think of the hypothetical children!(nm)||czardonic|
Feb 27, 2003 12:46 PM
|WABI should have skipped the logo||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 27, 2003 1:03 PM
|I agree with you on the sensationalism in TV news. It goes to far. Big events always get their own logo & musical intro theme. And you are right, it is the last week of sweeps. I guess it is a big story up in Maine. The "Kids Under Attack" goes a little too far though. "Teacher Scandal" would have been more appropriate, or even better, skip the logo altogether. I posted it because It was absurd, too bad I could not get a wav file of the theme music to go with it ;)
Sensationalism is not always a bad thing though. A couple of years ago during sweeps they forcasted a big blizzard in Boston. My office, like most around Boston, called off work based on the forcast. The storm stalled along the coast. It never got quite cold enough for snow and it rained part og the day and did not start snowing until overnight. That turned into a 4 day weekend!!!
|Should have skipped the innuendo too. (nm)||czardonic|
Feb 27, 2003 1:37 PM