Please point out to me where I defended the TV news industry? You’ve had one day of a story about MJ. Actually, I’d call it superficial reasoning to extrapolate future news coverage from that experience.
I watched network News last night, and guess what? MJ did not lead the broadcast (Bush’s speach in London did), and MJ got maybe 1 minute. There were several news stories about the situation in Iraq. The news is out there for anyone who cares to make the (small) effort needed to find it.
rjung: You’re dislike of FOX News notwithstanding, the majority of Americans do not get their news from that channel. Care to give us a cite to back up your statement, or did you just pull that out of your ass to support your thesis:
Ironically that’s what the thread is about. Each news outlet is trying to make money. In order to attract more commercial investors to make more money, they have to garner better ratings. In order to get those better ratings, they have to attract more viewers. And in order to attract more viewers, they will run stories on whatever stories get the most attention.
And thus the media will joke (often cruelly) about Jackson, but bemoan the ongoing cost of the war longer. And the most visible cost for the majority here will be a continuing fiscal investment after the grenades stop exploding. Sure, the human cost in Iraq is more important, but that’s not the question at hand.
It’s not like any media anywhere is immune from dwelling on the more trivial aspects of life. Spare me the sacred cow routine.
I read your “They could broadcast MJ for 20 solid hours per day and we’d still have plenty of time to cover Iraq” as a defense. I took that to mean six hours of Michael Jackson to every one hour on Iraq is reasonable, in your mind. Certainly there’s more going on in Iraq than can be outlined in even four continuous hours of news.
No, up to yesterday evening, it had been just more than two days’ worth of MJ headlining on the major news channels.
I’ve been studying this for some time; MJ just happens to be a very blatant example of the soft side outweighing the hard truth of war. This kind of sensational blockbuster provides just enough distraction to keep our brethren from noticing the tensions surrounding the UK State Visit and the escalation of Iraq offensives. Heck, just this morning, MJ beat out the twin blasts in Istanbul.
(As an aside, the last time I saw a story on Afghanistan was on November 7th, The Daily Show, covering the new RED constitution.)
After many years in the business, I cannot help but think this obfuscation is intentional. Discount that opinion if you choose, but you should at least understand that our mass media is out of control. It is utterly irresponsible for “news sources” to pander to the baseness of our populace.
mrblue92: my scorn for your glibness – my disgust at your nonchalance toward dead Iraqis – is somehow ironic? How? Are you perchance referring to the pop-singer version of irony? (Now, if I had quoted Adlai Stevenson, the sources of information are the springs from which democracy drinks, that’s irony.)
Actually, it is the question at hand, since you have asserted that the War in Iraq “lasts longer for the bills.”
Sorry for missing your simul-post, rjung. Those Saddam myths are like the blood on Lady MacBeth’s hands.
rjung and Mr. B, is it your assertion that Saddam wasn’t the evil despot we were led to believe?
Is it possible he was just a little dog barking loud? Can you back this up? Other than disproving just one allegation. Are you confident enough to say that Saddam never murdered, tortured, or imprisoned Iraqis and/or Kurds.
The Michael Jackson story is still breaking news; Iraq has been a story for months. Given that there was another bombing there just today and it’s still the major national issue, I don’t think it’s going away. There’s going to be political debate on it through the next election and troops will be there for years.
rjung, a plurality of Americans might get their news from Fox, but it’s certainly not a majority.
Look. The OP’s question, asked and answered. Cry me a river, sorry you missed the sarcasm. I’m not “nonchalant” about Iraqi (or British or Afghani or American or anybody’s) dead–hell, I’m not even terribly “nonchalant” about how people will cruelly skewer Michael Jackson. I merely pointed out the reality; despite the human cost, Americans will make more noise and be more concerned about sending money into Iraq than they will be about Iraqi dead, assuming there aren’t any civilian massacres.
Debate the merits and/or evils of the press or public opinion all you want–what does it matter that I agree with you? What am I, Ted Turner? The press will do what the press does, just as the public will do what it will do. Can’t say I know for sure what that is, but I’ve seen enough to make an educated guess.
Learn to stop your knee from jerking and maybe you’ll be able to recognize friend from foe.
Oh, he was/is an evil despot, he just wasn’t an evil despot who had Grand Schemes To Destroy The United States and Posed an Imminent Threat™®. Which was what the whole war was sold on – Colin Powell didn’t go before the UN and talked for an hour about the suffering of Iraqis under Saddam’s rules, he talked about (nonexistent) mobile chem labs and massive WMD stockpiles and whatnot.
Pre-war Saddam was a pipsqueak tin-plated dictator whose star was on the decline, but was overinflated by the pro-war folks into a ten-armed beast who breathed fire, ate babies and donated anthrax to al Qaeda.
This is an argument that pops up now and then:- “People are shallow ‘cos they’re interested in A (usually tacky celeb story) when B (important news story with death and suffering) is going on” – Well, I don’t get it, personally I can deal with both, on different levels, and I guess so can everyone else.
It certainly isn’t only an American phenomenon, I would reckon Jacko’s getting plenty of coverage all over the planet – certainly plenty here in Blighty.
Anyway the really big story, which should be getting the most coverage (but gets hardly any), is the tariffs Bush is imposing on things like steel and textiles, it’s a dull dull issue, but if they lead to a trade war and world-wide recession (and according to various economists I’ve heard talk about it, this is what has always happened in the past) it will lead to far more death and suffering than the Iraq war or Sept 11.
Cite for thegas
I read your cite rjung , interesting stuff… but it confirms that the Iraqis did use poison gas…
As for the shredder… I realised as soon as I hit that ‘Submit Reply’ box…
Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that I don’t give a toss about any of that at the moment because in about seven hours time England are playing Australia in the Rugby Union World Cup Final, so Wacko and Iraq don’t really show up on my radar.
That might sound a bit blase, but we’ve been bombed by the Fenians, Kaiser Bill, Hitler, The Angry Brigade and The IRA, and fully expect to get attacked by Al Quaida (or whatever…) in the near future. We’re used to it.
We’re not used to being in World Cup Finals though…
With all due respect, I think trained experts from the US Army would know a bit more about the source of poisoned gas from a two-way fight than a bunch of non-expert civilians.
I don’t think anyone has denied that Saddam never used chemical/biological weapons – just the “he gassed his own people” stuff.
According to the CBC, he was responsible for the attacks. More specifically his cousin Ali Hassan Al Majid (AKA Chemical Ali) was:
“Tell him I will strike. I will strike with chemicals and kill them all. What is the international community going to say? The hell with them and the hell with any other country in the world that objects.” * translated from an audio tape of Ali obtained by the U.S.
Now you say he wasn’t. I am surprised by this assertion. The Kurds say he was. Pretty much every major western government says he was. The BBC, CBC, Australian Press, US press, blah blibbity blah all say he was.
Not to be rude, but can you show me cites that say he and his cousin weren’t?
Man, was that a thread hijack or what… anyways, about Michael vs Iraq… I give Iraq the win, and I hope I’m right (though I fear I will be proven wrong)… I mean…
Bleh. Just… bleh.
I wish he’d retire to some private island in some other countries jurisdiction. I turned on CNN yesterday as background and they had live coverage of his plane landing and pulling into a hanger, video from a helicopter…
It was surreal, and made me start to really fear that the whole thing is going to be a year long frenzy that will go on… and on… and on… and on… and on… and on… forever and ever. And then some more. At some point I started to cry a little I think.
I Just… I just don’t care that much about the allegations, honestly. Not anymore. I mean… if you’re a parent who lets your child SLEEP with Michael Jackson… you’re a pimp and you should be charged as such. If you’re Michael Jackson and you’re still sleeping with kids you should be shot. If you’re a kid whose parents let you sleep with Michael Jackson you should be removed for your own safety, both mental and physical, and sent to live with nice normal people somewhere far, far away.
Since we are hijacking… a little more in reply on former posts
What I like about websites like this is the way people tend to ignore or even deny the crimes of their own government(s) using the trick of pointing out the - supposed or proven - criminal behaviour of others.
On US based websites this is now concentrated on:
The Taliban, which is of course already such “old news” that it hardly comes up anymore.
Saddam Hussein, which is used to distract attention from the fact that the USA supported him while he used the chemicals delivered to him by the USA itself (and some others). In the war with Iran for certain. And “on his own people” which is - as is said here by others - at the very least a point of doubt. Because these villages were indeed in a war zone at the time and both Iraq and Iran used chemical weapons.
And whatever is been said about the so called “chemical Ali” and others has also to be checked on its historical truth. Which isn’t done and shall not be possible for some time to come.
All these attempts to divert attention only proves my point:
The vast majority of the US citizens are extremely vulnarable for manipulative brainwashing.
People who come up with “Saddam gassed his own people” , when we are talking about the criminal invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation by the USA only show that they can’t face the truth. Which is: the US citizens were and are manipulated and lied to on a scale that is unbelievable for those watching this from the outside. How many times “the reason” for the invasion of Iraq was/is twisted and altered is almost incountable.
It is indeed incredible. It is also a scandal.
But the greatest scandal is that those same people are that superficial that they are even too lazy to recognize the truth even when it stares them right in the eyes.
End hijack…
And I think I shall leave this topic because honestly, “the case of Michael Jackson” can hardly count on one second of my attention.
However, the question is: How many kids stayed already on that “ranch” and how many claim that he abused them.
I don’t think that if he was a pennyless beggar any parent would come forward with such a claim. Only my guess of course. But I still hold on to the principle that everybody is innocent until proven guilty.
But I agree that G.Bush can send him a mail to thank him for providing such and easy distraction.
Salaam. A
The attack is only a point of doubt if you want it to be. That is to say, it helps your argument, so you say there’s doubt over the attack. Well, there’s doubt that GW Bush actually lives in the White House too, but that doesnt mean the overwhelming preponderance of evidence to that can be easily dismissed just because of one or two “doubters”.
As I read more about the attack on Halajba from Human Rights Watch (who I think most people would agree is a fairly non-partisan voice on the issue), and which has been critical of American policies for years… even they say Iraq is pretty clearly responsible, although neither Iran nor the PUC come out of it smelling like roses.
Their report was published in 1994, so there’s no reason to believe it has anything to do with any excuse making by the Bush Administration.
“The book is the result of research by a team of Human Rights Watch investigators who analyzed eighteen tons of captured Iraqi government documents (10 of these documents are reproduced in the appendix) and carried out field interviews with more than 350 witnesses, most of them survivors of the Anfal campaign.” *
** 18 tons of documents on it. ** I’d say that pretty much removes any serious doubts.
I’m sorry, but your “comparison” with Bush living yes or no in the White House is ridiculous.
About these events are a lot of reports from a lot of sources and a lot of them are telling conflicting stories with a lot among them.
It shall take a very long time before everything becomes clear. If that ever happens.
When I say there is doubt I say that because nothing could be investigated the way it should be done before something can be even considered as a possible reliable report on a historical event.
So many questions on so many issues that happend centuries ago aren’t resolved and you think something that recent can be clear because there are as you claim a few tons of documents? So you think that even if there are “18 tons of documents” they are all piece by piece and letter by letter reliable historical sources?
As for the “field interviews with 350 witnesses”… I’m sorry, but you face the same problems there and even more.
I have no standpoint on this issue until I can be convinced that conclusions made by those who studied it provide me with some guarantee that they bring a report on what could possibly be the story. Which is at this moment absolutely not the case and can’t be the case.
I think it should be clear that I doubt everything I didn’t investigate myself. And when I investigate and finally write a conclusion I’m aware of it that this is only my conclusion. I defend it of course, but no conclusion is to be taken as providing absolute evidence about anything. A conclusion is only one brick in building a house. And even many bricks - even if they have the same construction and colour as others - don’t finish the house.
There are tons of documents on the most diverse issues and stored in museums worldwide, who aren’t even read since the days they were written, stored away and became history to be discovered. Tons of others aren’t even found yet. Tons of others are destroyed.
And in Iraq tons and tons of documents are indeed destroyed. Others are certainly still there but not available. Others if still there are certainly altered. The list is endless.
I’d bet on Iraq, on the basis that I still believe people are more interested in continued killings than in isolated incidents. Plus, as has been pointed out, the shock value of Jackson being a sicko was dissipated years ago.
But the Michael Jackson trial will still get major (sub-OJ-level) coverage, along with the Kobe Bryant rape case, the Robert Blake murder case, and the Phil Spector murder case, all at the same time. I was about to make a snarky suggestion about a new cable channel devoted to celebrity trials, when this came to my attention. Shoulda figured.