CNN defends showing American soldier shot by insurgent sniper

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Im not spinning anything. I am debating why someone wants to, in effect, control a media outlet because they dont agree with the content. I happen to agree with the content. I dont agree with alot of what I see on CNN, but it never crossed my mind to boycott or in any other form attempt to change what they do for any reason. I simply change the channel. If our media is controlled on a purely capitalistic bases, then that path truly becomes a very slippery slope. I believe that is why it is the one industry in our country that has constitutional protections.

I'm trying to control CNN? I'm pretty sure I've said repeatedly that they can show whatever they want. If they continue to show propaganda snuff films of our soldiers being shot in the head I would hope they would lose revenue, but that doesn't mean I'm in any way trying to control them.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

As do I. It is the reason for the boycott that disturbs me. And if that boycott works and CNN decides its need for money out ways its responsibility as a member of the press, then it demonstates that freedom of the press is only viable as so long as it does not step on someones sensibilities by showing something they deem inappropriate. It becomes less about the Peoples Right to Know and more about making money by telling/showing people, what they want to hear/read/see.

It becomes a much bigger picture than simply this one specific instance.

People boycott Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh for far worse. What difference does it make if I or others choose not to advance a company we disagree with on principles?

Do you regularly watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh? I'm willing to bet you don't. And why not? Most likely because you disagree with them and don't want to improve their capital. Have you run out and bout Sean Hannity's new book? No? Why not? I read some Michael Moore books, but at the library. I didn't pay for them or check them out. I didn't want to give him another book sale. Is that wrong? Am I trying to limit his speech? Are you trying to do the same thing with the media outlets you choose not to watch?

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'm trying to control CNN? I'm pretty sure I've said repeatedly that they can show whatever they want. If they continue to show propaganda snuff films of our soldiers being shot in the head I would hope they would lose revenue, but that doesn't mean I'm in any way trying to control them.

Okay, why to you hope they would lose revenue? And what is your anticipated result of that hope?

Originally Posted by JaJae

People boycott Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh for far worse. What difference does it make if I or others choose not to advance a company we disagree with on principles?

Do you regularly watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh? I'm willing to bet you don't. And why not? Most likely because you disagree with them and don't want to improve their capital. Have you run out and bout Sean Hannity's new book? No? Why not? I read some Michael Moore books, but at the library. I didn't pay for them or check them out. I didn't want to give him another book sale. Is that wrong? Am I trying to limit his speech? Are you trying to do the same thing with the media outlets you choose not to watch?

Ann Couter, Rush Limbaugh, not members of the Free Press. I dont listen to them because I dont like them not because I am attempting to decrease their revenue.

I do listen to Fox News they are a member of the Free Press. I would never hope that enough people stop watching simply because I dont care for their content.

Shaun Hannity, Micheal Moore and any other author you might want to throw out, has nothing to do with turning Freedom of the Press into a capitalistic venture.

Now if any of these new outlets began spewing out right lies about a specific topic and called it NEWS, then I would absolutely advocate boycotting.

So I ask again,,,Why do you hope they lose revenue and what is your anticipated result of that hope?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Okay, why to you hope they would lose revenue? And what is your anticipated result of that hope?

I would hope they lose revenue because I don't agree with them airing snuff films of soldiers dying. My anticipated result? Huh?

Shaun Hannity, Micheal Moore and any other author you might want to throw out, has nothing to do with turning Freedom of the Press into a capitalistic venture.

This is America. The press is a capitalistic venture.

So I ask again,,,Why do you hope they lose revenue and what is your anticipated result of that hope?

I've said it a million times. I hope they lose revenue because I disagree with them showing propaganda snuff films of our soldiers getting their heads blown off in Iraq. And I hope they lose revenue because it is the only way society can speak out against it... If enough people are offended they'll simply stop watching CNN as often, the end result of that is a loss in revenues. Unless of course their viewer base condones terrorist snuff films on their news stations. Then they'll increase. If their profits rise because of airing this film I'd be pretty disgusted, but once again you won't see me protesting or writing a letter. I'm just sharing my views on a political forum. Again, I'm just one person. You seem to be quantifying my myopic view of the situation as an entire cultist following that could have huge effects on CNN. That simply isn't the case. If enough people are turned off by watching our soldiers get their heads shot off in Iraq (and I hope we live in a society that is), CNN will lose profits. And I hope that is the case. Because otherwise we're down a slippery slope of what is "acceptable" for liberal media outlets to display.

BTW, I thought boycotting was the liberal way of handling things. How many people on this forum openly refuse to watch Fox News and speak of the station with complete hate and disgust? I haven't seen anyone question them for censorship or Freedom of the Press.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I would hope they lose revenue because I don't agree with them airing snuff films of soldiers dying. My anticipated result? Huh?


This is America. The press is a capitalistic venture.


I've said it a million times. I hope they lose revenue because I disagree with them showing propaganda snuff films of our soldiers getting their heads blown off in Iraq. And I hope they lose revenue because it is the only way society can speak out against it... If enough people are offended they'll simply stop watching CNN as often, the end result of that is a loss in revenues. Unless of course their viewer base condones terrorist snuff films on their news stations. Then they'll increase. If their profits rise because of airing this film I'd be pretty disgusted, but once again you won't see me protesting or writing a letter. I'm just sharing my views on a political forum. Again, I'm just one person. You seem to be quantifying my myopic view of the situation as an entire cultist following that could have huge effects on CNN. That simply isn't the case. If enough people are turned off by watching our soldiers get their heads shot off in Iraq (and I hope we live in a society that is), CNN will lose profits. And I hope that is the case. Because otherwise we're down a slippery slope of what is "acceptable" for liberal media outlets to display.

BTW, I thought boycotting was the liberal way of handling things. How many people on this forum openly refuse to watch Fox News and speak of the station with complete hate and disgust? I haven't seen anyone question them for censorship or Freedom of the Press.

I am also just one person stating my opinions on a political forum. Why do I even participate? I might learn something.

Why did you create this thread? For the debate? Just to find out how many agree with you? Wouldnt you agree that the debate is far more interesting than just having all agree with you especially when the forum is slow and nothing new is popping up?

I am in no way criticizing your opinion in this matter, I am simply challenging it, debating if you will. My sole point to this entire conversation is why not just change the channel? This was a NEWS piece and had it been used in any other format, then I might agree with the whole boycott notion.

Now simply answer this question inspired by your one comment....

I would hope they would lose revenue, but that doesn't mean I'm in any way trying to control them.

What do you hope the result of their lose in revenue will produce? Am I wrong in my assumption that your hope that they lose revenue will lead to them no longer airing such content. Or do you just simply hope they lose money, period?

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Let's be real...all this talk of tact is a shallow rationalization to prevent Americans from seeing things which could cause them to view the war negatively.

There's something disgustingly propagandistic about trying to make war appear santitary to the populace, regardless of how you want to justify it. It's also patently anti democratic to try and hide from voters what their elected officials are doing with their power on loan from the people.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Let's be real...all this talk of tact is a shallow rationalization to prevent Americans from seeing things which could cause them to view the war negatively.

There's something disgustingly propagandistic about trying to make war appear santitary to the populace, regardless of how you want to justify it. It's also patently anti democratic to try and hide from voters what their elected officials are doing with their power on loan from the people.

I totally agree.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Let's be real...all this talk of tact is a shallow rationalization to prevent Americans from seeing things which could cause them to view the war negatively.

Almost all press regarding Iraq is negative. I'm not complaining about negative perceptions and stories about Iraq. I'm just saying it disgusts me to know that news outlets are showing terrorists' propaganda snuff films of our soldiers getting their heads shot off during a time of war.

Show all the negative views on Iraq you want. That's fine, we've become accustomed to it. But have some tact and respect for our soldiers and their families.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Almost all press regarding Iraq is negative. I'm not complaining about negative perceptions and stories about Iraq. I'm just saying it disgusts me to know that news outlets are showing terrorists' propaganda snuff films of our soldiers getting their heads shot off during a time of war.

Show all the negative views on Iraq you want. That's fine, we've become accustomed to it. But have some tact and respect for our soldiers and their families.

Think about your last statement.

All the negative news we want?

You've become accustomed to it?

If "you" guys wanted this war, then you better start accepting all that has come with it. Including, the snipers, the car bombs, the starving people, and all that "negative" stuff that "WE" keep talking about.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Think about your last statement.

All the negative news we want?

You've become accustomed to it?

If "you" guys wanted this war, then you better start accepting all that has come with it. Including, the snipers, the car bombs, the starving people, and all that "negative" stuff that "WE" keep talking about.

Not "We". I said "Show all the negative views on Iraq you want."

I said "you." Now let's try to figure out who "you" is. Look at the subjects of the sentences of my posts that "show" news. "You" was referring to the media, specifically CNN and not a forum member. And yes, we as a society has become accustomed to seeing negative Iraqi news. Here I'll prove it. What was the last piece of good news you saw pertaining to Iraq? As a society we don't see the good and we don't question it.

I just don't feel terrorist propaganda snuff films of our soldiers getting their heads blown off is appropriate for the news. Are the British showing their soldiers getting shot in the head on their nightly news? Has any society in history ever shown their soldiers being shot in the head in propaganda films by their terrorists and run them as news during the war? Not that I'm aware of.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Show all the negative views on Iraq you want. That's fine, we've become accustomed to it. But have some tact and respect for our soldiers and their families.

So you want to keep the entire country in the dark so that one family's emotions are can be coddled? I'm sorry, but the media's duty to inform citizens in a democracy > than one family's feelings. Be angry when you see the footage, but be angry at the sniper or the people who sent the soldier there. The media didn't shoot the soldier, they just reported on it. Your anger is misplaced.

And speaking of propaganda...how is deliberately not showing footage because it'll upset people any less propagandistic than showing footage because it will upset people? That game of manipulating people's feelings with selective airing of footage is propaganda no matter how you slice it. To some extent, it's inevitable to affect people's emotions when you report, but to advocate having emotions be a major factor in journalism? That's not journalism. That's propaganda 101, and I don't know why you seem so in favor of it.

[smokie700]

honestly, this is what i think should happen now. the family should sue CNN for mental anguish and pain and suffering. They will most likely win and that will resolve this issue. A truly responsible news agency would have enough sense to think that it would be possible to sell teh story without having to show the footage of the troop getting killed.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by smokie700

honestly, this is what i think should happen now. the family should sue CNN for mental anguish and pain and suffering.

I bet my left nut such a suit would be thrown out before it ever got to a jury.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

As do I. It is the reason for the boycott that disturbs me. And if that boycott works and CNN decides its need for money out ways its responsibility as a member of the press, then it demonstates that freedom of the press is only viable as so long as it does not step on someones sensibilities by showing something they deem inappropriate. It becomes less about the Peoples Right to Know and more about making money by telling/showing people, what they want to hear/read/see.

It becomes a much bigger picture than simply this one specific instance.

Ultimately media are in it for the money. This is primarily why bias exists in one form or another.

Capitalistic entities are subject to consumer pressure and while CNN may have the right to inform people of whatever they choose people also have the right to choose not to watch CNN for any reason they choose.

If you want information about unpopular things, you need to look at unpopular sources. This also means that the information you recieve will be biased in a different way.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by smokie700

honestly, this is what i think should happen now. the family should sue CNN for mental anguish and pain and suffering. They will most likely win and that will resolve this issue. A truly responsible news agency would have enough sense to think that it would be possible to sell teh story without having to show the footage of the troop getting killed.

I am not sure about the law but I didn't tihnk you could sue someone just because they upset you.

Now if CNN had said something untrue in the report, then you may have grounds.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

WTF? The guy on Fox News Watch said CNN went to black at the moment the soldier got shot. Please don't tell me all of this whining was because of a video that didn't even show the soldier actually getting shot.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

WTF? The guy on Fox News Watch said CNN went to black at the moment the soldier got shot. Please don't tell me all of this whining was because of a video that didn't even show the soldier actually getting shot.

A little bit of nowhere man syndorme getting broken, I suspect.

When people have thier visions and ideals challanged they get very defensive and sometimes, they go on the offense in order to justify the position they have.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Not "We". I said "Show all the negative views on Iraq you want."

I said "you." Now let's try to figure out who "you" is. Look at the subjects of the sentences of my posts that "show" news. "You" was referring to the media, specifically CNN and not a forum member. And yes, we as a society has become accustomed to seeing negative Iraqi news. Here I'll prove it. What was the last piece of good news you saw pertaining to Iraq? As a society we don't see the good and we don't question it.

I just don't feel terrorist propaganda snuff films of our soldiers getting their heads blown off is appropriate for the news. Are the British showing their soldiers getting shot in the head on their nightly news? Has any society in history ever shown their soldiers being shot in the head in propaganda films by their terrorists and run them as news during the war? Not that I'm aware of.

I was putting it in the Me and You terms because the post prior was so "Us Vs. Them" When it should be, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS IN WAR.

I don't think we see enough of the massacre that is Iraq. If we did, even less of us would still support this war.