Reporting the terrorism

Shadow Sandrock · Post by **Shadow Sandrock** » Tue Oct 16, 2001 11:15 am

Why even interview if all they are going to do is force their own opinion on the one interviewed?

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Tue Oct 16, 2001 11:18 am

Emotional entertainment is IMO the fastest growing type of programming on TV. Typical examples are Ricky Lake, or lately those programs where they lock people in a building and film their every move, focusing on quarrels, conflicts, etc. "News is entertainment", was stated by a some BBC manager years ago, and it is no less true today. For some reason, people want to be upset, scared, enraged, etc by TV. Why, you ask? Beats me.

Shadow Sandrock · Post by **Shadow Sandrock** » Tue Oct 16, 2001 11:19 am

Originally posted by fable:
And over it all, about halfway through, came the voice of the BBC announcer--Julie Swallow, I believe her name is--stating, "We are listening to US Attorney General John Ashcroft live, on the anthrax epidemic."

This isn't the first time that either the BBC, or Julie Swallow, for that matter, has twisted the news to suit a particular image. Now, I'm not arguing whether there is or is not a genuine problem with anthrax in the US; but Ashcroft wasn't speaking about any epidemic. (Nor is there an epidemic. That is an inflammatory term, and it also has a very specific medical meaning.)

An epidemic is when a virus is spreading rapidly throughout a country/countries without cease. Much like flus in February. I mean, 12 people have anthrax, what an epidemic!

I remember the "meningitis epidemic" here in Rhode Island. 6 people had meningitis that year as of then, and it was November. I was 11 at the time, but I remember the news calling it a "wide spreading epidemic". I had to get an immunity shot.

Shadow Sandrock · Post by **Shadow Sandrock** » Tue Oct 16, 2001 11:20 am

Originally posted by Silur:
Emotional entertainment is IMO the fastest growing type of programming on TV. Typical examples are Ricky Lake, or lately those programs where they lock people in a building and film their every move, focusing on quarrels, conflicts, etc. "News is entertainment", was stated by a some BBC manager years ago, and it is no less true today. For some reason, people want to be upset, scared, enraged, etc by TV. Why, you ask? Beats me.

"Thrill of the moment"....

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Tue Oct 16, 2001 12:14 pm

Originally posted by Silur:
(sorry, no ref. but I wasn't paying attention)

Here, at least is the [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1599000/1599212.stm"]BBC[/url] reference.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Tue Oct 16, 2001 12:54 pm

Originally posted by fable:
Has anybody else noticed similar instances connected with this crisis of news stations "shaping" the news they were covering, to garner closer attention and higher ratings?

Boy, have I ever! After watching the news on different networks, I would almost accuse CNN of trying to start WWIII. Their coverage has been sensationalist at best. They can't even quote anyone properly.

Shadow Sandrock · Post by **Shadow Sandrock** » Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 pm

and since WWIII is all they even talk about

24 hour war coverage over what? there's nothin to cover! when there is, cover it but for now, the rest of the world is busy going to hell why don't we take a look at that... when Hurricane Iris hit belize with 145 mph winds the media barely covered it. They were too busy on that one anthrax case...

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Oct 18, 2001 1:53 pm

I've just been listening to BBC's Newshour, again. This time, they had on a "BBC Expert" on science, who was commenting upon the anthrax problem. The interview was ingenious, and here's a fair sample, taken verbatim:

Expert: If they have the anthrax, however, there's an excellent chance they can trace the DNA to a specific area of the world, since anthrax differs across the globe.

Announcer/Interviewer: (with a dramatic tone) But there is *still* a chance that they can't do that, correct?

This went on literally throughout the entire piece. Every possibility that the interviwer mentions in a minor context as being potentially dangerous, the announcer underscored and followed up.

And yet they call it news.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu Oct 18, 2001 2:25 pm

A serious question..

Read this post

Salam, sis Clare;

I've been thinking of going down to Mobile to see the Battleship 'bama and the WWII museum.

Maybe I should call al-Qaeda and see if they want to sink a battleship?

Should be easy for them --'bama being decomissioned and tied to the dock!

Salam, Clare

(and salam to you, nsa)

Hasan, "free-radical, islamist"
-and a taxpayer and a good democrat

Should I report this?

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Oct 18, 2001 2:27 pm

Um, where did that come from?

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu Oct 18, 2001 2:38 pm

Originally posted by fable:
Um, where did that come from?

The other day went we were talking about the afghan's and I post the list. I found a site while searching and book marked it to come back to. Yesterday I went back and was reading and found this post.

You want I will PM you a link to the site?

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Oct 18, 2001 2:59 pm

Not necessary, but thanks. It sounds a particularly vile and tasteless joke. If you want to report it to the FBI, though, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea--just in case there's more to it than meets the eye.