I had CNN on this morning before leaving for the office (I know, a discussion for another time), and was really confused by good old Soledad O'Brien's reporting. She was standing in front of the aquarium in New Orleans, talking about the arrival of National Guard troops from Oregon. I wasn't really watching, though, just listening. I heard her talking about how "no one would have ever expected to see National Guard troops patrolling an American city in tanks". So of course I was interested and turned my attention to the TV. Did I see troops in tanks? No. Did I see tanks without troops? No. Did I see tanks at all? No.
What I did see were standard (and probably armored) personnel carriers. Of course they are armored, would the military have anything else? Anyway, back to the title of this post....
Was saying that National Guard troops were patrolling the city in tanks :
a) CNN Media Sensationalism?
b) Simply inaccurate because Soledad doesn't know a tank from a bier keg? (or since she was by the aquarium, a fish tank)
c) Purposely misleading?
14 comments:
Is that the best you can do?
The answer is probably a combination of "b" AND the fact if she said APC, most Americans wouldn't know what she was talking about.
Of course those vehicles all DO have gas TANKS. So technically, they are driving TANKS around. ;-)
Talk about "Is that the best you can do?".... "So technically, they are driving TANKS around."
I'm sure she doesn't know what APCs are either, but everyone knows what a tank is. I personally believe the reason is 'B', and not a combination. Good old Soledad is a pretty face providing eye-candy in the morning, and just really doesn't know what she is talking about. She can read a script, but make her think and it is all over with; just listen to her do an interview.
Hey,
Have you guys ever read the writings of Steven Milloy, Mr. Junkscience? What a frickin idiot.
His whole life is spent trying to debunk scientists. He seems to be an expert in every aspect of science and uses his immense powers to discern fallacies in years of research people publish.
I saw a photo of him, chain smoking, drinking Fab (with cyclimates), in a Red No. 2 colored shirt, feeding his pregnant wife Thalidimide. Oh yeah, he had on this great watch, with a real Radium dial. Amazing. His arm glows at night, even without wearing the watch.
Of couse, he has disabled his Air Bag (even though is is one), doesn't wear a seat belt, and drinks a shot of Mercury before he comes into work every day. Doesn't wear artificial fibers, prefers the Asbestos lined sweater him mother knotted him.
Check him out at www.junkscience.com.
Uhhhhh. I sincerely doubt she is just eye candy....
"She is a graduate of Harvard University with a degree in English and American literature. "
Well that explains it all ;-)
TV is not a very good medium for disseminating meaningful information. Displaying that the wind is blowing hard, during a hurricane, for those who weren't sure is about as meaningful as it gets for TV. When the announcer says something, the real trick is that the words spoken are not in conflict with the picture shown. Showing an APC and talking about tanks is an example of such a TV discordance.
Additionally, the press in general are fairly weak in understanding, much less presenting, iformation on matters military. Not that this is particularly military, but I can understand that Soledad is not prepared to assume that viewers actually know something about vehicles, or the roles of military, support organizations, and police in such situations. She is also inaccurate in the lede. In NYC there were fighter jets, APCs, and flak-jacketed guardsmen around the G.Washington Bridge, Holland Tunnel, and other points around the city. This is the most irritating (to me) part of the press - the assumption that we don't remember things from just a few years ago. Or is it that they don't remember things from just a few years ago?
Between the assumption that the public is ignorant and the limitations of the medium, this kind of reporting is normal, expected, and a part of the reason for the decline of viewership.
"Between the assumption that the public is ignorant and the limitations of the medium, this kind of reporting is normal, expected, and a part of the reason for the decline of viewership."
Uhhh... have to disagree.. Good news organizations are seeing how to still reach people with pertinent news and information. While "prime time" CNN only garners 750,000 viewers, they average 4.8 Million unique visitors to their site per day, and during the Katrina crisis, that number jumped to 6.8M. They are the top news site on the internet, by far.
Television "real time" news has also changed the way we see war and the effects of our foreign policy.
Are sound bites the best medium? No. But has "near live" reporting increased public awareness of disasters like Katrina? Absolutely. And then there are blogs.... ;0
And with katrina, it (TV News) has been a good thing. Do you think the powers that be would have been so responsive had we all been reading news accounts of the tragedy. I don't know about you, but when I see & hear the thousands at the superdome, and listen to their stories, it is real.
Picking nits about APCs versus tanks is not the topic. TV News is but one medium to convey information.
Einfahrt...why does it bother you so much when the press mistates something in the past, but when the cons try to change history (e.g. Rove disaster, WMD, Levee risk, etc.) you are content?
TV News is certainly an important and critical medium to convey information; I am definately not arguing that point. I also don't believe that discussing the difference between APCs and tanks is "picking nits".
I believe that something as simple and straightforward as the difference between these two devices shows the ineptness (sp?) of the media in general. In their zealousness to get headlines, they no longer report the news, they try to be the news, or heaven forbid.... make news. Or at least twist the news to their liking.
For example... DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A GERALDO RIVERA FAN ! !
How does the New York Times get away with printing, depending on who you believe, an out right lie about how Geraldo "nudged aside" a rescue worker so he could be filmed saving a woman? The facts do not back this up. At worst it is a lie that they refuse to acknowledge, and at best it is their "interpretation" of the facts without any evidence to support it.
Again... I AM NOT A GERALDO FAN ! ! !
Geraldo pushed them out of the way.
Here's a transcript of the kind of reporting he does...
Announcer: And now, a "Fox News" exclusive: "Horror in Our Hospitals."
[ dissolve to an outer hospital hall, as Geraldo Rivera enters weilding a microphone ]
Geraldo Rivera: I'm the cold, sterile corridors of Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan. A place of healing, or a place of cruel, inhuman torture? Hello, I'm Geraldo Rivera. Something is going on here in Mount Sinai, but nobody is talking. [ orderlies push a woman past Geraldo on a stretcher ] Excuse me, miss. Geraldo Rivera. Could I ask you a few questions? [ the orderlies continue to push the stretcher off-screen ] Excuse me, miss! [ unpleased ] Obviously, she's been instructed not to talk to us.
[ a woman's scream pierces from behind the door at Geraldo's back ]
Geraldo Rivera: A cry of human anguish behind an anonymous green door. Who knows what suffering waits within. This is too much, let's go inside.
[ Geraldo bursts into the room, as doctors crowd over a woman giving birth ]
Geraldo Rivera: Alright, what's going on in here, what's going on?
Obstetrician: [ outraged by the interruption ] This woman's in labor! Who is this guy?!
Geraldo Rivera: I'm Geraldo Rivera!
Obstetrician: Get this guy out of here!
Geraldo Rivera: Who are you, and what you trying to hide?
Obstetrician: [ stands and approaches Geraldo ] I'm not trying to hide anything! I'm an obstretrician! I'm trying to help this woman deliver a baby, for god's sake!
Geraldo Rivera: Oh, you're not trying to hide anything? Then why the mask, Doctor? [ pulls the obstretrician's mask off his face ]
Obstetrician: Hey, what the heck's going on?
Geraldo Rivera: And what about these rubber gloves? [ tugs at the obstretrician's right glove ] Afraid of fingerprints, huh? Is that the story?
Obstetrician: What are you doing?!
[ the obstetrician frees himself loose, as Geraldo corners an approaching nurse ]
Geraldo Rivera: Geraldo Rivera! What do you call this, huh? What do you call this?
Nurse: I-it's just something to relieve the pain.
Geraldo Rivera: Uh-huh. In other words, hard drugs. A vicious pattern at Mount Sinai. Keep the patient stoned, so they don't ask any questions. [ picks up a pair of clamps ] And what about this? Oh, God knows what these are for?
[ Geraldo stands over the woman in labor ]
Geraldo Rivera: They say you're having a baby? Is that true? Is that true, are you having a baby? [ she pants rapidly ] You can talk to me, I'm Geraldo Rivera! [ she can't form her words, panting and gasping more rapidly ] If you're afraid of these people -- look, if you're having a baby, who's the father?! Who's the father?!
[ the father moves closer with a camera ]
Geraldo Rivera: Hey, what's with the camera, pal, huh?
Father: Well.. I'm taking pictures of my baby being born.
Geraldo Rivera: Oh, what is this, child pornography, huh? You know, last year over 50,000 young girls were sexually molested because of smut like this! [ throws the camera to the floor ]
Father: I'll kill you, that was a Nikon! [ strangles Geraldo ]
Geraldo Rivera: Oh, you see! Another unprovoked attack on a journalist just trying to do his job!
[ security officers crash into the room and pull Geraldo into the hall ]
Geraldo Rivera: Go ahead, rough me up! This is police brutality! This is Geraldo Rivera, at a snakepit called Mount Sinai, reporting. [ to the officers ] Go ahead! Rough me up, rough me up --
Obviously you have no regard for the facts of this case. Typical response... change the subject.
I'm not defending Geraldo, I'm exposing the new York Times.
I watched the uncut video about 4 times on Fox. During the replay, the rescue person tries to take hold of the wheelchair from Geraldo (in his wife-beater shirt).
Geraldo nudges the trained rescuer away and states he doesn't need any help.
Geraldo will have a tough time winning the case, with his own video.
OK, Back from golfing. A typical con pastime.
1) The post above refered to decline in viewership, and the medium being useless for meaningful information dissemination. With lefty deftness, you've on one hand admitted that TV viewship has declined into meaningless numbers (less than 1,000,000 in a country of over 230,000,000) and simultaneously tried to make some new point on web sites and blogs as refutation for TV being meaningless. Meaningful information can be shared through web and blogs, but that is not refutation for my original point. Setting up your own strawman and then defeating it does not argue against my point.
2) The point about the press not remembering, or assuming the public does not remember was and is my second point. Your point on the rewriting of history is not refutation, nor on point. The example was Soledad saying she "never thought she'd see the day where tanks are in an American city" when clearly there have been numerous examples of strong military presence in American cities before. Does she think we are dumb? no memory? Think Kent State; and DC in '68; Oh. Sorry, you weren't born yet. OK, think NYC in 2001.
Now as for rewriting history - the press does not get to declare their version of history to be correct and then be immune to those who have a more accurate version of history. So: I don't know what Rove disaster you are refering to, unless you mean the election results for Democrats in 2000, 2002, 2004, and soon 2006; I don't know what history has been rewritten with WMD; and the "levee weakness" seems clear to me. You'll need better examples.
Rove disaster is GW stating that he would fire anyone implicated in the Plame scandal, then changing the adjective to convicted. Puleeze. Rove should be history. He violated National Security by leaking the name of a CIA agent and is a security risk. He is not to be trusted! He did it for political payback. It is sleazy, no matter how you look at it. Why should he ever talk to a reported about a CIA agent? What purpose does it serve?
Also, you state: "Soledad saying she "never thought she'd see the day where tanks are in an American city" when..."
How do you know what she thought? Clearly her impression, and stated (by you) as such.
Ok guys break it up...it's funny though when I read the transcript of the CNN report, the first thing I thought of was Kent state. I personally think these anchors try to adlib a lot, and suck at it....maybe they should take fewer English courses and more acting courses.
Post a Comment