|
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
i still stand by that original arguement. just becuase you dont hear of something doesnt mean its not happening, there are tons of news worthy stuff happening on the continent of africa, just becuase its not being reported doesnt mean its not happening. |
Just as I still stand by mine. If it’s not reported – as far as the conscience of the general public goes - it’s as good as not happening. Granted yes, in reality things are physically happening but in essence, from the publics perspective it’s not.
| quote: | | i guess what i said was also to be taken on a personal level as well. if you cared about afghanistan you would have found out that there are plenty of articles one can read about the daily proccess in afghanistan, let me start you off if you need a stepping stone. http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=...cat=Afghanistan (a collection of current articles from agencies such as AP, Rueters, NY times, CBC, etc... specifically about news from afghanistan) |
Ok, so from a trawl of the internet you can come up with some related stories. However, I’m referring to proper news coverage – updates on the campaign on every news broadcast, large sections in the printed press. Though I can’t comment for other locations, perhaps I was wrong to imply that in my initial post, in the United Kingdom, you don’t see any longer. It all just kind of fizzled out and died. Also on a personal level, the majority of the public are not going to bother to go out of their way to find out what’s going on, they want it delivered to them, spoon fed, so they don’t have to think too hard. Thus, even though it’s important, if it’s not getting “vital” news coverage, generally speaking who’s going to go out of their way to try and find out? A very small minority. This again kinda ties in with the false consciousness thing I was on about with the media again, that they could engineer what they want public attention towards.
| quote: | | Modern news agencies do not nessicarly report on what is happening but rather report on the issues that will draw them the biggest audience (which in return gives them higher advertisment dollars). right now the majority of the world would rather hear news about the upcoming war with iraq rather then the reconstruction of afghanistan. |
Oh I agree, the Media will report with greater emphasis on what will generate the highest ratings and this is what is inherently wrong and why I have such an issue with the media. It’s immoral in every sense. I don’t want to be told news that I find more interesting – I want to be told news that’s more important. Take celebrities for example, I couldn’t give two hoots which Hollywood actresses have stolen what form which overpriced shops, I want to know what is going on in the world, politics reports, war reports, famine updates, hospital waiting times, crime rates etc. That time that’s wasted by reporting useless brain dead rubbish could be used more constructively, but it’s not. The sooner that everyone realises that this constant strive for personal economic gain, which is what the media want, more viewers equates to more money, the better for the whole world and it’s population. And morally I ask you – what’s more important; Facing up to the destruction and rebuilding of a land that we helped in, or the latest who’s sleeping with who celebrity bulls**t gossip? Yes I do think that the Iraq “crisis” deserves the lion’s share of attention (unless something bigger comes up), but Afghanistan should not be forgotten like it is.
| quote: | | i still dont see then how you can say that bush jr. will help his re-election. how do you know it wont hurt it? your example with bush sr. is a good example of what could happen. how can you comfortably predict the future outcome of peoples opinion with regard to this war when there are so so many variables at stake. |
I’m working on two levels here, firstly my run down of the Iraq “crisis” was written from a Bush perspective how I see it. That is what I wrote is how I think Bush’s mind is working over Iraq. Secondly it also has “in all probability” elements to it. Granted, the Iraq campaign could go all wrong like Afghanistan, however in all probability we’ll see a generally successful campaign. Granted, Bush could make the same mistake as his father, but in all probability he won’t be stupid enough to leave Saddam where he is. So going on these likelihood’s, a successful campaign will help his election prospects. Besides, not once have I categorically said that if Bush wins in Gulf Wars Episode 2 he will win the next election, I said he’d use it as a lever in the next election. (And before you point this out, I am well aware that Winston Churchill was not re-elected directly after the second world war  )
| quote: | Originally posted by JM
some of you take this forum waaay too seriously |
And In all honesty JM, people don’t take this forum seriously enough. Politics, in general is not taken seriously enough. These are important issues that affect everyone. Yes, we may not all agree, but the only way we will come to any solution is through debate and discussion.
|
