quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Well, Bush isn't the only source of news in the US. He's also available for the press on a fairly regular basis. I think more than likely the news shows realize that the president "doesn't sell." If he's doing something really big, or really stupid, then they'll pop him on the tube, but an Irish interview where he looks stupid really doesn't sell. Look at his approval ratings...most people know he's an idiot and don't like what he's doing. Another interview proving that is not going to change many minds on him and it's not going to draw many ratings for the networks.

You seem to be missing what news reporting is all about! Not many people know what will be on the news before it's broadcast - that's why they watch it! Maybe one or two stories will get plugged during the day, but the majority won't, so your arguments about ratings doesn't really wash well. Also your argument about changing people's minds doesn't work as most news channels will have a certain audience, that may be pro- or anti-Bush/republicans. So maybe the pro-Bush ones will shy away from broadcasting it but those of a more "liberal" (as you say in America) would be more inclined to broadcast it to consolidate those opinions you referred to

This is the same song and dance americans have heard before......

nothing new here folks....move along

banned?? I think not... its already known

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono 1. So because it wasn't aired that means it was banned? 2. Who banned it? 3. Who was going to show it and didn't/couldn't? The US has many new agencies struggling to out do each other, and I don't see why them not showing an Irish interview with the president constitutes a ban. Or are we not considering every piece of media produced throughout the world that deals with Americans or American politics that is not re-aired in the US to be "banned?" This is your one and only post here, so I'm not expecting a reply, but I thought I'd throw that out there.

+1

I only got through 3 minutes until it got boring...

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi change your avatar for fucks sake.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You seem to be missing what news reporting is all about! Not many people know what will be on the news before it's broadcast - that's why they watch it! Maybe one or two stories will get plugged during the day, but the majority won't, so your arguments about ratings doesn't really wash well. Also your argument about changing people's minds doesn't work as most news channels will have a certain audience, that may be pro- or anti-Bush/republicans. So maybe the pro-Bush ones will shy away from broadcasting it but those of a more "liberal" (as you say in America) would be more inclined to broadcast it to consolidate those opinions you referred to

I think you're missing the point. News outlets, unless run by a state or non-profit group, are out to make money. Yes, they *should* be obligated to report any and everything, but they don't. People may not know what's going to be on before they start to watch, but they sure as hell can change it if they don't like it. That's why most of the news stations, except in times of "hot" news stories, jump back and forth from topic to topic; simply to keep the viewer's attention. With at least 5 major news networks, each one is fighting to keep viewers, because once they've switched the channel, they have many other news stations to satiate their news fix. As sad as it may be in your opinion, an Irish interview of president Bush just doesn't sell. In the end you can argue that the news "system" in the US is wrong because it doesn't report everything that happens in the world, but I think it would be hard to find any country that consistently broadcasts everything anyone may consider news worthy.

Back to my original point; just because it wasn't broadcast, doesn't mean it was banned.