Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 22, 2004 Well, it's been about a week --- and shockingly enough, the Berg beheading is a non-story nowadays in the press, while the prison abuse scandal is still a huge story --- even though it stopped months ago. For a group who constantly claims to not have a bias, the treatment of the two stories is a little baffling. Then again, Newsweek's Senior Editor appeared on Franken's show and called Bush's administration "clowns" --- so it's not that baffling. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted May 22, 2004 Franken's show is still on the air? Wow, will wonders never cease. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2004 The prison abuse scandal should still be on the news, since the ramifications of it are still relevant. I am surprised however that the Berg story didn't get the same treatment as, say, Shandra Levi. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2004 Franken's show is still on the air? Wow, will wonders never cease. I doubt that Democrat-funded talk station will go away anytime soon. To go belly-up means defeat. Actually, I'm glad Democrats are pumping money into this idea -- just means less stupid commercials that will get aired come election season... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2004 That's nonsense. The Berg story had lead billing on the news yesterday, speaking about the arrests and whatnot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BX 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2004 ... Uh.. That doesn't count Tyler. Why? Because, uh. You're a stupid commie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2004 It's still regularly appearing in the paper over here. Don't know about you, Mike. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2004 The only Berg-related material I've been noticing is his dad saying that Bush is the SUQ. Then again, I don't pay much attention to Big Media anyway... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarvinisaLunatic 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2004 There've been new developments in the abuse scandal though..I heard I think it was yesterday that they were making the prisoners eat pork. I think thats worse than any of the physical abuse that has happened since thats going directly against their religious beliefs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tommytomlin 0 Report post Posted May 23, 2004 One video of dude getting beheaded = news for a week A few CD's full of prisoner abuse photos, along with some rumoured forthcoming videos = news for months It's not liberal bias, it's how the media industry works, and not just in America. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted May 23, 2004 I think it was yesterday that they were making the prisoners eat pork. OMG!!!! THEY MADE THEM EAT PORK?!?!?! I don't want to know what the terrorists will do in retaliation now -- spread Anthrax all over Boston? Seems fair to me... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest cobainwasmurdered Report post Posted May 23, 2004 It's still there beliefs. *OMG LIBERAL DEFENDING TERRORISTS....DOGPILE~!* I do agree that coverage of Berg is fading. But like previously stated the Prisioner Abuse Scandal is still on the forefront because there's still information coming forward at this time. The Prisioner Abuse Scandal has more far-reaching implications for America and Americans than does the beheading of Berg as tragic as it was. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted May 23, 2004 well you could also say that the killing of over 5000 innocent iraqi civilians has had exactly ZERO covergae. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted May 24, 2004 well you could also say that the killing of over 5000 innocent iraqi civilians has had exactly ZERO covergae. Source, please. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 24, 2004 well you could also say that the killing of over 5000 innocent iraqi civilians has had exactly ZERO covergae. Can you even BEGIN to prove this claim? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted May 24, 2004 I'm still trying to figure out how a lack of Berg coverage is liberal in nature. Are we in favor of beheading now (my avatar aside?) I guess I need to go back and catch up with the rest of the class. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 24, 2004 I'm still trying to figure out how a lack of Berg coverage is liberal in nature. Are we in favor of beheading now (my avatar aside?) I guess I need to go back and catch up with the rest of the class. The press HAD to show coffins to show people the "impact" of the war. They HAD to read off the names of the dead to help people realize the "impact" of the war. ACTUALLY SHOWING the impact of the war in a way that might not demoralize America, though, seems to be verboten. I remember the hubbub over Sinclair not airing the Nightline special. Those same critics have no problem with never showing the Berg murder --- or the Pearl murder --- or people jumping out of the WTC on 9/11. Apparently, the "sensibilities" of the viewer is not the most consistent of concerns. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted May 24, 2004 well you could also say that the killing of over 5000 innocent iraqi civilians has had exactly ZERO covergae. Can you even BEGIN to prove this claim? -=Mike if I do a show source and the story is proven true, would it make a difference in the least? Or would you just say something as classy as, "oh fucking well you liberal commie, that is the cost of war baby" I read the story about a month ago, and I am trying to dig it up now. It was something about how our government was financially compensating iraqi families for loved ones killed, and that the current claims topped 5000 so far. I am trying my best to dig this up, and trust me, I didn't just dig this up out of nowhere. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 24, 2004 well you could also say that the killing of over 5000 innocent iraqi civilians has had exactly ZERO covergae. Can you even BEGIN to prove this claim? -=Mike if I do a show source and the story is proven true, would it make a difference in the least? Or would you just say something as classy as, "oh fucking well you liberal commie, that is the cost of war baby" Lord knows I toss out the phrase "Commie" on a regular basis. And I'd love to see an actual, unbiased report of this. I read the story about a month ago, and I am trying to dig it up now. It was something about how our government was financially compensating iraqi families for loved ones killed, and that the current claims topped 5000 so far. I am trying my best to dig this up, and trust me, I didn't just dig this up out of nowhere. Then where's the gripe? The gov't is allegedly MAKING REPARATIONS for innocents killed when NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF MAN has EVER done anything like that. Heck, I wish they WOULD broadcast that --- to shut morons like Ted Kennedy up. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted May 24, 2004 The press HAD to show coffins to show people the "impact" of the war. No, the press showed off coffins because it's news. Peter Jennings' little sweeps week event, guess not. They HAD to read off the names of the dead to help people realize the "impact" of the war. Again, Nightline isn't the whole media. ACTUALLY SHOWING the impact of the war in a way that might not demoralize America, though, seems to be verboten. So, because something is not in favor of the war, it must be against it? I remember the hubbub over Sinclair not airing the Nightline special. There would have been minimal hubbub if campaign contributions hadn't come into question. Those same critics have no problem with never showing the Berg murder --- or the Pearl murder --- or people jumping out of the WTC on 9/11. So, again, this footage should be used to support the war? We should not pay any concern to the privacy and pain felt by these peoples' families? Apparently, the "sensibilities" of the viewer is not the most consistent of concerns. Sensibilities of the viewer? What about Daniel Pearl's child? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest INXS Report post Posted May 24, 2004 5000 is a little conservative. As far as i'm aware it's nearer to 15,000. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 24, 2004 The press HAD to show coffins to show people the "impact" of the war. No, the press showed off coffins because it's news. Peter Jennings' little sweeps week event, guess not. How is THAT news but this is not? They HAD to read off the names of the dead to help people realize the "impact" of the war. Again, Nightline isn't the whole media. Only the 2nd most widely watched news program, behind 60 Minutes. ACTUALLY SHOWING the impact of the war in a way that might not demoralize America, though, seems to be verboten. So, because something is not in favor of the war, it must be against it? Don't even PRETEND that these decisions are made for opposing reasons. I remember the hubbub over Sinclair not airing the Nightline special. There would have been minimal hubbub if campaign contributions hadn't come into question. No, there would've been considerable hubbub regardless because the press decided to treat that as a major event. Those same critics have no problem with never showing the Berg murder --- or the Pearl murder --- or people jumping out of the WTC on 9/11. So, again, this footage should be used to support the war? We should not pay any concern to the privacy and pain felt by these peoples' families? But the families of killed soldiers can just kiss off, right? Apparently, the "sensibilities" of the viewer is not the most consistent of concerns. Sensibilities of the viewer? What about Daniel Pearl's child? What about the families of dead soldiers? What about the families of the Abu Gharib guards? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted May 24, 2004 How is THAT news but this is not? Maybe because there has been no new leads in a story? Sheesh. Only the 2nd most widely watched news program, behind 60 Minutes. Well, I don't like either of them. But I thought Koppel's ratings were doing horribly in the comedians' time slot. No, there would've been considerable hubbub regardless because the press decided to treat that as a major event. Now, I watch a ton of news, and I don't remember that. The only show I actually saw make something out of the contributions was "The Daily Show." But the families of killed soldiers can just kiss off, right? Absolutely not, but there is a line between a series of identical coffins that could contain any casualties and one man being beheaded in full view. There's something more personal about that, don't you think? What about the families of the Abu Gharib guards? I don't care in that situation for the very same reason that you don't care about what happens to the Abu Gharib prisoners. Because these people have wronged America. When you perform illegal acts in this country, you lose quite a bit of privacy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest INXS Report post Posted May 25, 2004 I think it was yesterday that they were making the prisoners eat pork. OMG!!!! THEY MADE THEM EAT PORK?!?!?! I don't want to know what the terrorists will do in retaliation now -- spread Anthrax all over Boston? Seems fair to me... Making them eat pork amounts to abuse and could be described as torture - the reason they were made to eat pork is that it is not allowed by their religion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted May 25, 2004 Well for our sake I hope we didn't feed them pork chops and bacon during Ramadan. That'll really piss the terrorists off... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C Dubya 04 0 Report post Posted May 25, 2004 Well, living in Philly, you still hear about Berg a lot in the news, but I assume it's not a national story that much anymore. There haven't been any major developments, so what exactly do you want the media to report? It's still a horrible, horrible thing that happened, but you can't just repeat the same story over and over again. The media does unfortunately have to worry about ratings, and if they told you the same thing every night, at some point you'd turn it off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 25, 2004 Making them eat pork amounts to abuse and could be described as torture - the reason they were made to eat pork is that it is not allowed by their religion. Yes, eating food is torture. Let 'em starve. Why don't you go back to never posting? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BX 0 Report post Posted May 25, 2004 What the fuck is your problem, Mike? The guy just made a perfectly valid point, and you can't think of anything better to respond with then, "Stop Posting." How old are you really, Mike? 12? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted May 25, 2004 Perfectly valid? Eh, I'd say it's more in the gray area of validity, at best... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted May 25, 2004 Maybe, if pork was the only thing offered as a meal, it might be conscrued as insulting at worst. Torture is not being offered pork, its being beaten while tied to a pole (a Saddam favorite), having a hose turned on while its down your throat (a technique treasured in the Phillipenes), being forced to drink motor oil (a common tactic by the Iranian SAVAK), being forced to stand naked in a freezing room with the air-conditioning going full blast (done by those progressive Singaporians), spending four years sitting absolutely still on a tiny stool made of hard rope that cuts into your skin (our 2008 Olympic hosts, the Chinese), having your balls hooked up to, and shocke with, a car battery (loved by our Turkish allies), being forced to eat spoonfuls of human and animal shit (those friendly Khmer Rouge guys) and I could go on but you get the point. You ask me, I'd take pork over that sort of crap any day of the week. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
