I would pay good money to see that, that sounds absolutely hilarious! 
I think the “Free Press” has a responsibilty to outrage Joe Six-Pack. Not for the sake of shock value, but in the name of objective reporting.
I don’t want to watch a so-called new program that is trying to pacify me or to guess my mind set, so as not to enrage me. I want different, conflicting unbiased reporting, that examines every angle possible (even the unpopular ones).
I know the commen rhetoric that is being spewed by the Administration, I want the counter viewpoint. I’m a big boy, I can handle it. Don’t tell me that my delicate sensibilities don’t want to see the carnage of a battle field. I pay for this war, I have a right and a responsibility to see the consequences of the decisions of our elected officials.
If you don’t want to see something controversial on television, turn it off. Please don’t decide what is in my best interest to see, observe and learn from.
Keep going Dan! I needed to see this interview much more than I need to see another “hard news” Presidential press conference that is scripted, rehearsed and set up to make me feel good about us starting a war.
Rather also interviewed Ariel Sharon. Many, many Arabs view him as Little Satan. So should they be as outrages at Rather as you are?
GOM I hope for your sake that you are simply a coinfused person lashing out at things he doesn’t understand. If not there’s a serious problem here, and even more serious work needed.
There is no right position in this matter. The media simply reports, and it’s their job to do so with as little bias one way or the other as possible, something that your favourite broadcasters don’t know very much about.
Hussein’s regime is guilty of running a propaganda state in which the leader is exalted on a regular basis, and all communications are carefully coordinated in order to change the masses’ perception of reality. In a sense, the news becomes what is real – and most Iraqis do not have the benefit of watching/listening/reading mature, respected news media. Most of what they get on radio and TV are pop songs about how great Saddam Hussein is, programs about his latest victories and successes, his great accomplishments for the people of Iraq, and so forth.
Have you ever wondered why most available footage of Saddam Hussein shows him being adored by his people, smiling and waving, looking strong and in control, etc.? It’s because that footage originates from Saddam Hussein’s propaganda machine, which has the specific task of exalting the leader in order to keep him strong.
Then, suddenly, we are lucky enough to have Dan Rather interview – actually interview, face to face-- this recluse of a man, and present to the world a picture that is not A) Iraqi propaganda or B) other propaganda at all (such as some of the rubbish, mostly verbal, issuing from Bush et al).
If anything, you ought to be thankful to Dan Rather for his service to journalism. I saw the interview with Saddam, and some of the questions Rather asked were dangerous ones to pose to a cornered man who has been known to kill men of his own circle of staff who had made the mistake of revealing his location to other members of staff.
So now we have a bit more footage of Saddam Hussein from an independent source, and we hear him speak and respond to several questions, some of them quite good ones that deserved to be asked. You are perfectly free to disagree with Saddam Hussein’s answers, but for you to complain about the asking of those question by independent media is not only downright stupid but also quite authoritarian/dictatorian.
[sub]Note: rhetorical questions coming up:[/sub]
Should only the people you approve of be given a voice?
Should only the leaders you like be called by their proper titles?
Should the media report fairly and evenly only on those issues you think are wholesome?
Should the viewpoints you don’t agree with be excised from broadcast?
Well thank goodness that is not the way the media in the West (and much of the East) operates. Judging by your responses so far in this thread you ought to move to North Korea; your type of thinking on mass communication will be welcomed there, in the most repressive and brutal propaganda state on the planet. Too bad that once you get over your surprise at how “well-behaved” the media is, you will probably find yourself disagreeing strongly with the political ideology involved.
As for your comment about justice versus injustice, well it is indicative not only of deep-seated misconceptions about this entire affair, but also of a fair amount of wilful ignorance. Spare us, and try to watch/read/listen to some good independent news media, not the bullshit prepackaged for whatever little political view you enjoy holding.
As long as you correct it to
“Media are too gullible.”
Notice that virtually every major news outlet in the U.S., and for that matter in most of the world, prominently featured and quoted the CBS News interview?
GOM, I think you’re in a minority of one.
The courts, specifically juries of Texas citizens, convict murderers and sentence them to death. Not the governor. The governor has the power to pardon or commute a sentence, but not to impose a sentence.
Walloon, the state convicts murders and sentences, through its judicial system, using courts and juries of Texas citizens. The Governor is the state’s top executive. The Governor has the power to pardon or commute a sentence, as you say, but also has the choice to determine whether the death penalty is sought.
Many in the free world, outside the US, find this behavior barbaric and immoral.
Personally, I don’t. I support the death penalty. But my point stands. Justice is in the eye of the beholder.
Wrong. In Texas, district attorneys and the state’s attorney general are elected officials who operate independently of the governor. If the governor tried to tell them what to do (e.g., whom to prosectue and how), they would quickly tell him what to do.
According to the official Texas state website, the nine member Texas Board of Criminal Justice is appointed by the governor to oversee the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which provides confinement, supervision, rehabilitation, and reintegration of the state’s convicted felons.
No. I am not in the least thankful that a liar and murderer got millions of dollars worth of free publicity on American airwaves.
On top of that I thought the questions were very weak for an allegedly top journalist.
Lastly, are you implying that Rather was in danger of being killed? How exactly do you believe that would have helped Saddam in his propaganda war against the US?
hmmm
Maybe somebody ought to look into raising Rather’s salary. Does he have a “hazard pay” clause?
While I suspect there is a bit of truth in that statement, I must note that it ain’t nuttin’ compared to the billions that Bush is now giving him…
[sub]In the vein of, “no such thing as bad publicity”[/sub]
In fact, many on the anti-war side point out how this whole war is a recruiting campaign for al Qaeda sponsored by US taxpayers.
Sad, but very possibly true…
