I guess it depends on your outlook on the situtation. For those that support the war or support the troops at the war I can see why they are annoyed at this. Others disagree with the war and think it simply highlights what they have been saying. No one should ...
10-21-2006, 08:28 PM
| #61 | ||||
| Baka  Idealist Adelaide, Australia 
| I guess it depends on your outlook on the situtation. For those that support the war or support the troops at the war I can see why they are annoyed at this. Others disagree with the war and think it simply highlights what they have been saying. No one should have the right not to be offended | ||||
     |
|
10-21-2006, 08:32 PM
| #62 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur.  Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by Kytro And nobody is saying do. But at the same time people have been telling my that my views amount to censorship. I'm not trying to take away anyone's rights nor am I trying to increase mine.
But I'm not the only one offended by this. It's getting a lot of attention. One Senator has petitioned the Pentagon to remove all CNN camera crews that are stationed with our troops. | ||||
| |
|
10-21-2006, 08:37 PM
| #63 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est  Pragmatist Greensboro, NC
| If someone is offended they should learn to change the channel. The discussion might be about whether or not it's tactful, certainly it's probably not.. but I don't believe it's the media's job to be "tactful" when reporting on a blunder of a war that's been mismanaged, that's seeing worsening conditions, etc.. I think it's their job to report what's going on over there. And guess what? People are being shot in the head. People are having their cars blown up. They're being killed on the way to the market. At the market. They're being ripped out of their homes, out of cars, and even out of hospitals and then shot in the head and dumped around the country because of religious differences. The European media is much better about showing what really happens, and most of Europe still remembers seeing the consequences of war first hand, which is probably why they have such a negative view over it. But America doesn't. I think showing the cold, hard, bloody truth is something people should see if they want to watch news about war. If they don't want to see it, they shouldn't watch. | ||||
| |
|
10-21-2006, 08:39 PM
| #64 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by motivez It's not about turning the channel. It's the principle of having our soldiers getting their heads blown off in insurgent propaganda videos aired on American news. Some people take offense to that. A lot of people take offense to Coulter or Limbaugh. It's not about changing the channel or not reading their books. It's the principle people are standing up for.
If I recall correctly there was FAR more outrage over Coulter calling those women "harpies" for "exploiting" their soldier's deaths in Iraq. It's a similar princple. It's not about ignoring her, it's the principle that she said it. Ward Churchill said the men and women who died on 9/11 deserved it and weren't innocent. It's not about not signing up for his classes. It's the principle that this man is teaching at one of our American universities. Last edited by JaJae; 10-21-2006 at 08:45 PM. | ||||
| |
|
10-21-2006, 08:45 PM
| #65 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist Greensboro, NC
| I'm not sure how Coulter or Limbaugh compare. Granted, they do say some really ridiculous things that are going to offend a large number of people, but so what? I agree with Donkey that it's honestly not much different when we see specials of special forces carrying out attacks on insurgents, or we see the pictures of Zarqawi's bloodied body. We're just not offended because we think those people are monsters and deserve what's coming to them. There wasn't the same outrage over showing his bloodied corpse, or the bodies of Saddam's sons, or whatever.. and it's because people might not like those images, but it's about who's being shown as dead. Ultimately, someone can be against showing these types of videos, but it sure looks like selective outrage. If it's the principle of "insurgent propaganda videos" being aired on American television, how about the ones by Osama? Or Zawahiri(sp), or Zarqawi? Or the 9/11 highjackers? Is it the death of an American that makes it a 'principle of the..', or is it the propaganda value? Because I dont remember the outrage over those videos either. | ||||
| |
|
10-21-2006, 08:46 PM
| #66 | ||||
| I DIDNT KNOW THAT  Corpus Christi, Texas
| Originally Posted by JaJae
So it is not the video you take issue with. It is more the source of CNN's video than the content?  | ||||
| |
|
10-21-2006, 08:47 PM
| #67 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by KatKanPlay No it's the video. But the source pisses me off too. Especially given the station's history on middle eastern politics.
| ||||
| |
|
10-21-2006, 08:55 PM
| #68 | ||||
| Baka Idealist Adelaide, Australia
| Originally Posted by JaJae Yeah, I read about that. It does seem to offend alot of people.
Obviously CNN has reasons to show the video, and people can be upset about it if they so choose. I'm not in favour of not showing information just because it upsets people. | ||||
| |
|
10-21-2006, 08:59 PM
| #69 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by Kytro Either am I. They definitely have the right to show whether I agree with it or not. I would prefer they didn't and as a consumer I'll take their actions into consideration. But beyond that, it's out of my control. I'm not going to be losing any sleep tonight and I'm certainly not going to do anything about it above making this thread on a political forum. I'm not writing anybody, I'm not calling anyone, just discussing my views here.
However, our elected officials are doing their part in standing up for the people they were elected to stand up for. People are offended and many politicians are going to do their job in being the voice of their districts. We saw the same thing with Coulter, Churchill, hell even Janet Jackson at the superbowl. It's how a Democracy in capitalism works. It's how society can keep corporations and political pundits in check. We may not always agree with their cause, but it is healthy dissent. | ||||
| |
|
10-21-2006, 09:02 PM
| #70 | ||||
| I DIDNT KNOW THAT Corpus Christi, Texas
| Originally Posted by JaJae If it is the video, then you have everyright to be outraged, that is your opinion. Your outrage and their outrage and everyone's outrage should mean what? What is the purpose? CNN demonstrated bad taste and poor judgement, in your opinion. My opinion is different. But if enough of you outrage long and loud enough, then the next logical step in a democracy is Censurship. The FCC loves to push it weight around. You dont like what that channel is showing, change the channel.
| ||||
| |
|
10-21-2006, 09:06 PM
| #71 | ||||
| Baka Idealist Adelaide, Australia
| Originally Posted by JaJae Pity that does not happen more often, on more important issues.
It always easier to not get upset at something which validates your viewpoint, so I am not really unbaised. (My viewpoint bieng that this happening didn't need to happen and that perhaps the "reality" of the situation will open some eyes). | ||||
| |
|
10-21-2006, 09:07 PM
| #72 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by KatKanPlay And I will. But the next logical step isn't just censorship. It's capitalism. Many people have gained respect for CNN airing this video. Some people want propaganda videos of American soldiers having their heads blown off on the news. Some want it to be even more graphic (as pointed out in this thread). The one second black screen when the bullet penetrates the head shouldn't have been inserted in the minds of some on this forum. Many have expressed gratitude towards CNN for showing it and showing the "reality" of the war. And most conservatives already have a negative view of CNN on middle eastern politics. So if anything, this gave them good exposure and will likely help their ratings.
I personally hope it doesn't. I hope more people didn't like it and will hit them in their wallets because I personally don't want it becoming a trend to see Americans getting shot in the head on the nightly news. | ||||
| |
|
10-21-2006, 09:14 PM
| #73 | ||||
| I DIDNT KNOW THAT Corpus Christi, Texas
| Originally Posted by JaJae CNN is not the nightly news.
By hitting them in their wallet, your intention is to manipulate them to either go broke and die, or change their evil ways and see things your way, agree not to air such content again, and the rest of us can just go to hell. | ||||
| |
|
10-21-2006, 09:24 PM
| #74 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by KatKanPlay I am but one person. I don't care what anybody else does. I can say what my personal opinion is and that's that. And nowhere did I say the rest of you guys can go to hell.
But if I go to a restaurant and I get piss poor service is it not my right to not go back and to tell my friends my personal view? Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am not forcing my views on anyone else. You make it seem as if I have all the power in the world to bring down CNN and tell its viewers to go to hell. That is not my intention or my goal. If I hear about a local Hooters condoned a waitress flashing her boobs at a child and I happen to be offended by it. Is it not my right to not go back and tell my friends about it? Is it wrong for me to hope that by their actions hurt them monetarily? I am not saying anyone who goes back to that restaurant can go to hell. What I'm saying is that I disagree with their business model and don't want to contribue to it and it's my hope that others agree. | ||||
| |
|
10-22-2006, 05:54 AM
| #75 | ||||
| wait you said what....  Republican Ewa Beach, HI/ Iraq
| Originally Posted by KatKanPlay your trying to spin the hell out of what he's saying. there is a thing called boycotts and when a coprate company realizes that its customer base doesn't like the product then they have 2 options: change the product or lose the customers. If a news agency air things that people do not wish to see then they are not censured, they are just not viewed. they can still choose to air the content they wish but they do so at a chance of losing revenue. This is business and nothing else.
Reminds me of dangerous minds (the movie). she tells the class that they have a choice in all matters but they also have to accept the consequences of their choices good or bad. | ||||
| |
|
10-22-2006, 05:59 AM
| #76 | ||||
| Baka Idealist Adelaide, Australia
| If people want to boycott CNN, I certainly think it reasonable. | ||||
| |
|
10-22-2006, 10:12 AM
| #77 | ||||
| I DIDNT KNOW THAT Corpus Christi, Texas
| Originally Posted by JaJae So what is your goal.
The analogies you give are not relevent to the topic because they have nothing to do with the 1st Ammendment, Freedom of the Press, and the Peoples Right to Know. Cable news is the new Press of our time. What is the purpose of your boycott that simply changing the channel doesnt fix? I thoroughly agree that you have a right to your opinion, I thoroughly agree that you are not seeking government censureship, I just cant see what your goal is that changing the channel wont fix? | ||||
| |
|
10-22-2006, 10:13 AM
| #78 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by KatKanPlay I have no goal. I'm discussing my personal views. This is political forum no?
| ||||
| |
|
10-22-2006, 10:21 AM
| #79 | ||||
| I DIDNT KNOW THAT Corpus Christi, Texas
|
