*
The mass media seems to be getting a lot of flak for alledgedly downplaying any military successes we may or may not be having, reporting that we are failing, and public support is waning.
While it’s the media’s job to report the news, do they not play a role in public morale as well?
There seems to have been a distinct effort to keep the media at arms length from the details of the war in Afghanistan. I wonder whether these reports are an effort to force the Pentagon/White House to release more info, or just the result of limited info. I seems to me, from the word go our leaders have repeatedly said that this will be a long, ardous campaign. Yet reporters seem increasingly impatient, and if no dramatic victory is presented, we must be losing or having a harder time than we thought we’d have.
Do they have a valid point, is it just bored reporters creating news, or is it leverage to open gov’t mouths about the details?
And, if the latter two, is it worth the country’s morale?
Mike
Replies
*
Well, my take is that this war is hard for the media because our mil is scant in handing out information to the media. In other words, the mil is in control of information.
But having little or no news to report won't keep a reporter quiet. Perhaps, in retaliation for the 'handling' by the mil of the media, they have an agenda to raise the hackles of the military. Then the media can neogotiate for more information.
In this 'war' between the military and the news agencies (Big Bucks, no, HUGE bucks) the public's perception is 'collateral damage'.
*I think it's important to remember that these "news" agencies sell advertising time to the highest bidder. They are constantly trying to attract viewers so they can sell that commercial time for more money. To a large extent it's show business, baby. That's why, when we watch the national "news" at 6pm, we can count on seeing a few teases for "news" shows like 20/20, Primetime Live, and 60 Minutes. Many of us grew up in the 60's listening to machine gun and mortor fire on the nightly news while we ate dinner and chatted about the day's events. You can bet your bottom dollar defense industry advertisers paid more to advertise for "news" like that, than coverage of race and peace riots, which wouldn't generate them any profits. Mass media is a powerful, powerful tool. Just look how many of us think less of ourselves because we don't fit the thin, hip profile Mitsubishi uses in their car ads, or aren't the specimens we applaud when we watch professional atheletes. Scary stuff, for sure. Good question, Mike.
*Can you imagine how hard it is for CNN to keep a constant barrage of information going when there is none? You know, the "late breaking news" that really isn't, just another slant on the same old thing.
*Like any profession, we are all susceptible to the skinny-kids syndrome (gotta do our jobs, or we have skinny kids). So, builders build, movie makers make movies, news media makes news and legislatures legislate (professional legislature = constant production of laws). So, I would doubt there is an organized, vast left-wing conspiracy. More like they have to make money (as was stated). One thing I've been thinking about since Sept 11, though.The WTC was in NYC, up the street from most major media orgs. A plane also landed in Washington, near our darling electeds. Now anthrax is in both Washington and NYC (elsewhere, too). If this had all happened in Des Moines and Indianapolis, do you think Dan Rather would have cried on TV?I think the terrorist made a tactical mistake hitting these groups. Most legislatures and media types were relatively friendly to these goons. Now, even Peter Jennings doesn't like 'em! But, perhaps in the end, advertising dollars still rule the day.
*A lot of journalists in the mainstream media have not only reported the news recently, they have been the news. Most reporters (especially those at the White House) seem to think that national security is just a figure of speech. I remember local reporters in the vicinity of the Navy base I was on constantly calling and asking ridiculous questions about the mission there--hoping to get someone on an "off day" that would reveal all about Echelon's purpose. Each time, they were denied information, but they kept coming back. A great story is their career, and it can make or break one.
*The reporters aren't bored, they are stupid. Our leaders told us from the outset that this wasn't going to be fast or easy. I distinctly remember The President saying that it could take years. So what the hell are they doing. Why are all the networks complaing about us loosing the war. I guess there are still a lot of the Nam generation around who don't want us to get bogged down in another one of those. But the main problem is the public and the media needing to stay in touch 24/7. That takes a lot of news. Another thing that pisses me off is these idiots are showing some of our secure sites, mapping them out, providing detailed information about what's there, how it is being guarded, and so on. Why don't they just email bin laden and saddam, kadafy, and the rest of the pond scum over there. They might as well with all the intellengance they are spredding around.
*Reporters aren't bored or stupid - they're in the business of keeping you informed, and this time around their hands are tied by a military that won't talk and a situation that isn't exactly friendly to on-the-ground journalism. There's also the huge fact that the news agencies in North America are all owned by a handful of corporations who all have their hands in each other's pockets. We're not getting the journalists' take on the news - we're getting Ted Turner's or AOL/Time Warner's spin on same - and that spin depends on who they're sucking up to this month, or who's paying what bills this week. Fortunately, it's not really all that hard to get a broad perspective on things - thank God for the Internet, and for the fact that just about every major news organization in the world (plus a lot of smaller but still credible ones) have a web presence, and update their pages regularly. For one really interesting, and well-written, take on the situation in Afghanistan, try the Afghan News Network at http://www.myafghan.com/Or just in case you suspect that there might be something else going on besides the War on Terrorism, you can check out the International Herald Tribune at http://www.iht.com/articleindex.html, or The Independent at http://www.independent.co.uk/Another thing that pisses me off is these idiots are showing some of our secure sites, mapping them out, providing detailed information about what's there, how it is being guarded, and so on. I don't think anybody's showing or telling anything that isn't readily available to anyone with a computer and an Internet connection. It's also worth considering that, given the secretive nature of the military brass this time around, that what is getting out is all disinformation - it wouldn't be the first time!
*I hate to break your guys collective bubbles buttttall those reporters do is get up in the morning go to work get their make up done, hair done , ward robe selected and placed in front of a teleprompter. They sit there and read all that mess and act like there experts on everything. I absolutely hate that.
*Ron, that's how it works on U.S. news - I hate it too! Canadian news is a bit more down-to-earth in that our newscasters tend to be real, on-the-street journalists, and not just talking heads.
*Really, if that's the case, then I envy you!!I don't think I've ever seem canadian news broadcasts. I have caught some European shows, and IMHO, have found them to be not as phony as ours, but just as clueless. To me, it's interesting as all get-out to watch foreign news, kinda gives you a reality check for world events/opinions, etc.
*Oh man, did you ever hit the nail on the head. IMHO, cable news has become far more reliable than network news specifically for that reason. Network news has sold out to ad$, as long as they think you'll tune in and give them the ratings points, they'll tell you(or not) anything. Not that cable news doesn't compete for ad$ too, but they seem more able to change format or presentation instead of the information they're doling out. Seems to me the big three network news programs are clones. To differ, and attract viewers, they've got to edit, color, embellish, be incredibly PC.Speaking of PC, I just became aware that ABC News has not reported on the massacre in a catholic church in Pakistan. "All the news we think you need..."I deeply respect the freedoms of speech and press, but the way Cosmo, Ms, Glamour, etc. make a living by feeding insecurities is appalling.I don't see any conscience in traditional mass media at all.
*SandraMYou're absolutely wrong! It's not each other's pockets and it's not their hands which are thereAside from that: Yes, i YES, b YES!
*Mike, I don't know if you can pick up CBC (Canadian Broadcast Corp) television where you are - possibly one of the cable channels? But go here if you're interested...http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/us_strikingback/multimedia/index.htmlI've mentioned this here before, but it's worth repeating - a friend and colleague of mind has put together an excellent blog (a personal weblog) called Blowback. Well worth checking out just for the many links to international sources, even if you don't (and you probably won't) agree with his editorial stance: http://blowback.blogspot.com/
*Excellent!! Thanks!!Gotta go read up...
*Sandra, thanks for this link.......Why wouldn't Mike agree with his editorial stance?
*Thanks for the links (all of them)--now I need to find some free time :-|Our local NPR used to broadcast tons of BBC stuff latenight weekends, and a fair amt of CBC early mornings--so much better than U.S. Alas. However, I do like some of the CNN talking heads or hosts/moderators/whatever they are--Aaron Brown, Greta van Susteren (sp?), and Jeff Greenfield are all I can think of now--and some of Larry King's guests, of course. Haven't developed a particular fondness for any reporter in the field yet.Nice to see ya around, Sandra :-)
*Hi Kai, just taking a break from the CT board for a while. I'm too obsessed with 9/11 and the fallout to not talk about it - and seems opinions/thoughts on the subject aren't too well received over there these days.
*Exactly. I'm here more than I've ever been for that same reason. I will seek the info I need, the outlets to speak that I need--I don't need to walk on eggshells here, although I do my best not to aggravate. Maybe they'll feel better at CT now that we're carpet bombing.This is also new for me, because I used to discuss politics w/my GFs almost exclusively, so I appreciate the male input, but I'm really glad there are women here, too.Somehow, I seemed to miss almost three weeks after 9/11. Between me and my coworker, on 9/12 we revved a document, mailed it out, and have no copy of the source file! Thankfully, it's only 2 pgs, not 300, and the next rev is all new info (bizarre how we cater to the engineers' wishes).Hope your work is going more smoothly than mine!
*Tara:"Most reporters (especially those at the White House) seem to think that national security is just a figure of speech."I suspect that's true for at least some reporters, but don't forget that politcal and military types have a documented tendency to classify stuff when there is no real national security reason to do so.It is my understanding (obviously second and third hand) that there is a natural and understandable tension between journalists and government types in this area.It is also my understanding that many political and military types also have a tendency to "leak" things when they have a purpose; sometimes "merely" political, sometimes with a real national security objective."A lot of journalists in the mainstream media have not only reported the news recently, they have been the news."I find that regretable.
*Bob:There are times I suspect that our nation's leaders and our military has been more than a little hesitant in supplying information to the media.However, drawing from my experience in the mainstream media in DC, I can honestly say there are reporters out there that only want a story, not caring if the facts are correct or if the story is even worth printing.Not sure if you remember the ridiculous questions that were asked of General Powell and Stormin' Norman during the Gulf War?Idiotic questions about target coordinates, where our special forces were located in enemy territory, etc.This time, different reporters are asking about the same line of idiotic questions.i It is also my understanding that many political and military types also have a tendency to "leak" things when they have a purpose; sometimes "merely" political, sometimes with a real national security objective. Lately, it seems that certain members of Congress has "leaked" info, and President Bush nipped that in the bud.I still love the free press; but sometimes I think if the media hounds ask a stupid question, they should be taken out like the weakest link.
*...Good answer......Be good to one another......n...
*"However, drawing from my experience in the mainstream media in DC, I can honestly say there are reporters out there that only want a story, not caring if the facts are correct or if the story is even worth printing."I used to work in international banking, and sometimes the sort of stuff I worked with would become "news." I'd read the story and wonder where on earth the reporter got his/her info. Then I realized that they really couldn't be expected to know everything about every little nook and cranny of life, and that they'd use their sources for a quick education. By the time you allow for (i) mistakes and errors by the source, (ii) the reporter's potential misunderstandings of what they'd been told, and (iii) the editor's hatchet jobs on the reporter's efforts, at best a news story indicates something is happening some where in the vicinity of whatever the report is about.I've no doubt that some (many?) of the reporters you've known and experienced have been as stupid and vain as they come. In my experience, the world is blessed with an over-abundance of stupidity and "vainfulness" and I'm sure no occupation if free of them.I suspect that the news industry in today's environment may be more "blessed" than othersMy own experience with reporters has been genrally positive, although I haven't dealt much with with them in the area of news and reporting. I was "investigated" by one of the local TV station's investigative reporters based on a complaint from a customer of mine. Apparently the complaint didn't pan out, because I've done 5 or 6 inspoections since then for people from that TV station's news and technical staffs! One of them seemed to have more concern with his haircut than reality, but the others have seemed pretty bright. (Of course, I don't see them in their professional lives and operating within whatever pressures are brought to bear.)The experience did make me wonder, though. How come we never see an investigative report: "We received x number of consumer complaints last week. Of them, 10% were from obviouly disturbed people to whom we've given referrals to mental health professionals. Of the remaining y complaints, we checked them out and in only Z% did the consumer have any reason to complain. In the other Q%, the complaints were without any basis."As the system works now, all we see are the small(?) percent where there seems to be a basis for the complaint (without getting into the issue of how many of them are hatchet jobs!) but the impression that's created is that 100% of the time the businesses investigated are crooks.Kind of like the politicians: "The guys on the right are all crooks and greedy bastards." "The guys on the left are all stupid and unamerican." Don't the politicians realize that a certain number of people are going to believe both sides and give up on the system?In my more cynical moments, I wonder whether politicians deliberately try to turn people away from the political process in disgust so as to retain their positions.
*> the world is blessed with an over-abundance of stupidity and "vainfulness" and I'm sure no occupation if free of them.Absolutely correct.Rich Beckman
*In today's society, there seems to be an overabundance of the media--from mainstream to small town.Everyone wants his/her day in the sun, and if they fudge a couple of stories to bring up ratings, then that is the game they play.Generally, it is all about ratings. Reporting just the news isn't a positive influence on the media of late.With so many different channels to choose from, a reporter has to get a biting story---and unless there is some sort of grit to turn the viewers heads, their story goes from a package w/sound bite down to just a one sentence.Scandal. People love it.They also love the Head Shaking News--media's version of a story of feel good optimism that leaves the viewer all warm and fuzzy.i Kind of like the politicians: "The guys on the right are all crooks and greedy bastards." "The guys on the left are all stupid and unamerican." Don't the politicians realize that a certain number of people are going to believe both sides and give up on the system? i In my more cynical moments, I wonder whether politicians deliberately try to turn people away from the political process in disgust so as to retain their positions. I agree to some extent.To be able to distinguish themselves from the opposer, the candidate does resort to mud flinging. Again, it is the scandal. It seems that if both of the candidates bring great ideas to the table, what makes them different?Their skeletons, of course.Weeding out the opposition quickly, no matter the cost. Just get elected, no matter how.Of course, if I were running for office and were elected, I would be more concerned with what I do once I get there than how I got there.Once the candidate is elected however, the feel they can relax, at least till the next campaign.I don't think that politicians turn their voters away perse, but I do believe they rally to win over certain minority groups and genders to win the election--sometimes promising things they know will never happen--but it looks good on paper doesn't it?I don't think that our politicians have deliberately turned people away from the political process, but voters see that those who are elected are buffoons sometimes.The general population becomes disinfranchised by the whole political process and decides not to cast a vote at all, rather than involve themselves.A perfect example of this is when Bill Clinton was going through the impeachment hearings. Polls were taken throughout our nation, and the general concensus was that most didn't know what impeachment really meant.In today's society, the problems with the media doesn't just ride on their shoulders. The public is at fault to some extent. Viewers don't want just the news in all of its rawness. They want to be entertained also. News isn't supposed to be a song and dance show. Or is that what it has become?
*Viewers don't want just the news in all of its rawness. They want to be entertained also. There's definitely that trend towards "infotainment" that really puzzles and saddens me. Whatever happened to the days when newscasters were trusted - anyone remember Walter Cronkite? - and journalists did important work - Woodward and Bernstein, anyone?Seymour Hersh? I think that dynamic is still out there - certainly there's some great journalism and some really thoughtful commentary going on - Robert Fisk, Molly Ivins, Naomi Wolf are just a few names that spring to mind. But none of it is happening on television - television really is just a vast wasteland. Don't know where this fits into the discussion, but FWIW -- recently a woman my DH works with took her daughter, who has spina bifida, to Disneyland, courtesy of the Make A Wish foundation - she said it was the most horrible experience she could imagine - the whole time she couldn't turn on a radio or a television without getting terror news - all the time! Very upsetting to her daughter! Not that terror shouldn't be reported, but surely there should also be some sort of balance - I mean chances of actually contracting anthrax are pretty miniscule, compared to the risk of driving to the corner video store! And surely something newsworthy has happened in the world, and in your own home town, in the past two months that isn't related to 9/11, bin Laden, or suicide bombers.
*"News isn't supposed to be a song and dance show. Or is that what it has become?"Sure it has, in the States. I keep going back to a statement, pretty sure it was Rather , to the effect he doesn't work for a news organisation, he works for the news division of an entertainment organisation. I think there are some good reporters that try and buck that, but it's an uphill battle. There is a constant stream of American journalists in the Canadian media talking about how difficult it is to get information out to the public in the US, if it departs from the party line.All governments use the media as a tool to form a public opinion that supports the actions they want to take. The natural reaction of a journalists should be to resist that....not to weight the scales in the other direction, but their responsibility is to present a balanced, factual report so The People can make up their own minds. The nature of government is that they don't want us doing that.A case in point was a discussion I heard on CBC radio a few weeks about; one Canadian journalist, two Americans, all very solid veterans. The discussion revolved around dissent, and what the government was trying to do (which is to essentially control all the information; this particular government is using the same tactics as the same people did in Bush Sr.s administration.....they have a reporters pool, which you either get into or you don't. If you get in.....which means they think you will toe the line, you get the info they hand out. If you look like you might have a mind of your own, you get nothing. They also pointed out that the American press filed a class action suit against the Bush administration during the Gulf War because of this restriction to information; it was dropped when the war was 'won').They talked about how, immediately after the WTC attack, what everyone was presented with, from officaldom, was one person after another, often military, talking about what the military reponse was going to be....no other alternative or dissenting views were put forth, and that became public opinion for most people. The U.S was going to war. (I'm not trying to get into whether there were other alternatives that would have worked, just that nowhere in the mainstream media was there made available any venue to hear them). The media bosses did exactly what the government wanted; they put out the message that the government wanted them to, uncritically. Both the American reporters agreed that that was a huge difference from the Gulf War period; there was no resistance at the top, they were pushovers, and the only stories that got into print basically confirmed and supported the government direction. And the public opinion numbers came back high, so the government could point to them and say "Look, that's what the American people want us to do."It got to the point where it was practically impossible to buck the trend; I believe there is only one member of Congress that has ventured a dissenting opinion.....hard to blame them when it's political suicide to swim against a tide that strong. We saw the same thing here at BT; if you didn't think Bush was the man for the job, or that maybe the powers that be weren't proceeding in the smartest way, you were unAmerican or not a patriot. I think things have cooled now to a degree, and there is more room for debate, and I think that's a good thing. But what I see in the American media is still an attempt to take an extremely complex situation, and reduce it to black and white. It isn't, and it weakens us all if we can't look at the situation head on with a reasonable access to what is really happening. Government works for us. They would like us to forget that, and good journalism comes into play at that point.I'm not a fan of the American media,or journalists in general really, but there are some good people. And if this all sounds like America bashing, it isn't; the same thing is going on here....our government is trying to push down our throats an anti-terrorism bill that is even more of a threat to our civil liberties than the American version is to American rights. And we have a pretty wretched history of governments trying to cripple legitimate journalism in Canada. Taking everything I hear with a grain of salt. Orry about the long post.
*Sandra, I remember all of them!! Still can't get Hersh's stories on Cambodia out of my mind......Daniel Schoor comes to my mind, eighty some years old and still has a handle on the news......For all of its inaccuracies, we still have the luxury of being able to receive news from all sides and are able to decide for ourselves who is right, who is wrong and where we stand on issues......
*Great quote about working for an entertainment company.I just watched an interview with Jack Welch, the ex-General Electric CEO. GE owns NBC, and when asked if NBC news was all about the ratings, responded: "I would think so, although they would probably deny that."The rest of the interview isn't a condemnation of network news, but it does confirm the idea that news programs consider ratings very important.Maybe more importantly than they should. It occurs to me that news should almost fall into the category of public service. IMO, news reporting programs should be removed from the quest for the almighty dollar and it's influence. Or more importantly, from the political influnces abound in big business.
*FWIW, the CBC is not a commercial interest, it's a federal corporation of some sort, but it is run autonomously . There are no commercials on radio, but there are some on TV. TV programming tries to find a balance between attracting viewers and providing intelligent shows to watch; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Some claim it is full of lefties; it may be, but I find the reporting is usually balanced and professional. I think the foreign reporters are some of the very best anywhere.
*No kidding, maybe that's why I've heard so many rave about the CBC. Now I'm really gonna try and watch/listen to some.The idea of gov't owned/run/involved radio or tv scares the hell out of me, but then again the BBC has given us Monty Python, AbFab, Young Ones, and the BBC news appears pretty fair.
*The idea of gov't owned/run/involved radio or tv scares the hell out of meIt's not that much different from a news media owned and controlled by GE or AOL/Time-Warner, really, except that every few years you get to vote the gov't out, while you've got no say, and not even any window into, the goings on of a mega corporation. CBC has its flaws, and many of those flaws are a direct result of being largely gov't funded, but for news delivery and public affairs, it truly is head and shoulders above any American media I've seen. And for Canadians, the win-win part of the situation is that the private sector equivalent, CTV, has to work hard to be almost as good, because newshour ratings are critical to their survival.
*Bill,Bite me. People died here, pal.Tom
*Have you paid attention to the news lately Bill?Anthrax is in Indiana, and Nebraska, as well as recently showing up in Pakistan.Dan Rather cried because he was scared.He was a wuss, that it is true. But he was a wuss before September 11th--just more people know it now.Common sense would dictate that the terrorists targeted our mainstream media because of the immediate impact it would have on our nation.What better way to inform the media of your terroristic intent than to involve them in it?NY and DC are a couple of our nation's largest infostructures. What good would it do to shower anthrax at a station in Iowa?Think about it.
*Mike:"The idea of gov't owned/run/involved radio or tv scares the hell out of me .... "A friend of mine in another forum, the WordPerfect Universe, put it much better than I ever could:"That we would trust the public interest to giant corporations rather than government over which we might exercise some degree of influence is incredible to me, but that's where we are."This very thread discusses the deleterious effects of commercial, business considerations on "the news."Compare NPR's "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered" to i anycommercially broadcast news and then see if you continue to hold the same opinion.First, of course, you'll have to i listento it. Take any blinders off and any hold back any pre-conception you might have about NPR's political leanings. (I mention that because I've found that many conservatives consider NPR to be liberal, but those who hold that view don't listen in. I know several conservatives who regularly listen to NPR and who don't consider it to be "slanted.")
*...CBC RADIO RULES......n...
*I don't feel I have any blinders on, nor any political leanings that prevent me from being objective. That said,I should add to my previous statement by saying:The idea of gov't owned/run/involved radio or tv scares the hell out of me as much as commercially run frustrates me. I don't care for either.I've heard great things about Canadian news orgs, and will definitely give them an open ear. I realize now that I was generalizing, and inadvertantly included programs I'm not familiar with. Sorry for the confusion. The bulk of my experience is with American news programs.What I was getting at(not elegantly), was that I think American news has drifted away from the original intent of news broadcasting in general.It occurs to me that news, by nature, should be objective, factual, and be swayed by NO agenda.IMO, this is not the case today.I think news reporting agencies should almost be considered non-profit organizations. Here's some ideas:No commercials. No big business. No gov't connections. Semi-annual audits to establish above.Pros, cons?Mike
*A wuss? I dunno. Does he know who pays his salary? Definitely.I think his tears were real. I'm sure he was as affected/hurt by what happened as anyone. I got teary too, it doesn't make me a wuss.I definitely agree with your 3rd point.Terrorists targeting media people is just a case of getting your letter's worth. Instant and constant media exposure to cause terror.Mike
*Mike,I wasn't trying to assume you had a bias against NPR; just asking that you give it a fair shake if you did have some pre-conceived ideas. Sorry if I created the wrong impression.QUOTENo commercials. No big business. No gov't connections. Semi-annual audits to establish above. Pros, cons? ENDQUOTEb No commercials: NPRb No big buisness: Was NPR until the Republicans forced it into accepting "corporate sponsorships"b No gov't connections. I believe it gets some funding; much of its budget comes directly from listeners and corporations.b Semi-annual audits to establish above. Don't know, but haven't heard of any NPR scandals.I also haven't seen any credible claims it's biased.
*NPR is great--used to listen all the time when I worked in DC.Can't seem to keep the station clear long in Jersey. All the garbage must be clogging the signal.
*No offense taken Bob. NPR sounds good to me, I'm gonna check it out.Thanks,Mike
*Mike, I'm not 100% sure, but I think NPR carries some CBC features - you might want to look for them. If possible, see if you can find a program called CounterSpin (it's television, alas, which means you probably won't find it on NPR.) CounterSpin is possibly the most balanced and intelligent talk show I've ever seen - usually features at least one American POV, and a balance of Canadian POVs on issues that affect both sides of the border.
*Note on NPR.....Science Friday is a great program and a lot of the current topics(anthrax,bio-chemicals, innoculations, etc.)are being discussed.....Give it a try, Mike.....Just thought of another program - REWIND, funny and topical.....
*Did I mention you can stream NPR? Start w/San Diego's http://www.kpbs.org and press Listen Now. Play around w/the sources--this technology isn't perfected yet. I like the Chaincast option because I can choose Boston http://www.wbur.org/ and NY stations, as well as others (not all news formats). Rewind is a hoot! http://rewind.kuow.org/ Unfortunately, our station carried it for only a year.
*Tara,you shoulda warned me: first I come home from "Monsters, Inc" to hear the Steelers lost, then you and I agree once again!Each affiliate station picks its own programs. Some stations only pick up the morning and evening news with, typically, classical or jazz as the main programming, some carry mainly NPR talk and news.The Ann Arbor, MI carries the "BBC Hour" from 9-10 AM and is mainly talk and info type stuff.If you've (collectively) never listened to Click and Clack, the Tappet Bros. on Car Talk, Saturday's at 10, strap in and prepare to laugh!Tara, if you're in Northern Jersey, don't miss the public radio jazz station from Newark (I forget its call sign.) It carries (at least used to) "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered" and is the best jazz station I ever heard.
*Thanks for the tip Bob. I will see if I can pull the station in. Hey, was "Monsters, Inc." any good?
*I took my 11 year old and a friend of hers; we all enjoyed it. There were some genuine adult type yuks in it, although I doubt if I'd want to see it again.Now, as to the trailor for Harry Potter.....
*Kai, that's exactly what I was looking for!!Thanks all, for the info!
*I haven't had the opportunity to read any of the Harry Potter series, but I have paid attention to the fervor over it all.I am in management in books, so I think I might pick up a couple of them soon and see what the big deal is.I saw the movie "Cats and Dogs" a couple of weeks ago on DVD. That was a great movie!Have you seen the trailer for "Lord of the Rings" yet? I just finished reading it for the 3rd time. Love it.
*LOL! Could be a first, Mike--the only post where I've actually "given" something! Hope you enjoy; hard to see why you won't find something of interest and education. Cartalk is another great NPR show--even non-automotive afficionnados (sp?) will get many belly laughs. Also check out Talk of the Nation, a live, call-in show re current events. You'll be floored by the variety of topics: http://www.npr.org Since I worked for KPBS when they first started (albeit on the TV side), and it's my hometown station, I'm biased, but they've won more awards than any other public radio station in the U.S., and they do it year after year. Mightly fine reporters, locally.They play classical music starting at 7pm :-| so I can replay The View--an ABC daytime talk show w/some current event topics during the first ~10 minutes. Worth checking out, for 4-5 very outspoken women's POV.
*The View!! Indeed.The only time I ever gave that show was to check out debbie snuffaluppagus, and usually I turned the sound off!Barbara Walters is worth listening to, when she's not asking "what kind of tree would you be" questions, but the other gals bore me to tears.Mike
*Well, I've gotten sucked into HP; my 11 year old and I have read each of them at least twice. (Just finishing up the last one; couple of more nights to go.)I generally dislike movies made from books I have liked and read previously, (with "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" being a rare exception) but the HP trailor made it look like they'll stay pretty close. My major objection is that I've always pictured the wise headmaster wizard as looking a lot like I would if I had a long white beard Saw the "Lord of the Rings" trailor, but it didn't make much of an impression one way or the other. I don't know if it was the trailor or if I just wasn't paying attention.Started reading LR with my kids 4-5 years ago, but they were too young (actually, I think we tried "The Hobbit.")Now that I think of it, we sequed from the Hobbit attempt into an improvised "Angela Eagle" which I made up as we went along, with help from the kids in deciding plot twists and details: "And then, what do you suppose they did? .... Right!, that's exactly what they did!"It would never be published, but was a total blast doing. We probably did 20-30 "episodes" as our night time story; the kids still remember old' Angela.
*I agree with the book version being better than a movie attempt. One of my favorite authors is Stephen King, and his movies never came close to the terror I felt reading his books.
*
The mass media seems to be getting a lot of flak for alledgedly downplaying any military successes we may or may not be having, reporting that we are failing, and public support is waning.
While it's the media's job to report the news, do they not play a role in public morale as well?
There seems to have been a distinct effort to keep the media at arms length from the details of the war in Afghanistan. I wonder whether these reports are an effort to force the Pentagon/White House to release more info, or just the result of limited info. I seems to me, from the word go our leaders have repeatedly said that this will be a long, ardous campaign. Yet reporters seem increasingly impatient, and if no dramatic victory is presented, we must be losing or having a harder time than we thought we'd have.
Do they have a valid point, is it just bored reporters creating news, or is it leverage to open gov't mouths about the details?
And, if the latter two, is it worth the country's morale?
Mike