RE: Gasp! For broadcast media, patriotism pays

["Paul Hopfgarten" <paul@03038.com>]

Historians? I'm sorry, I did not know historians actually ran battles! SIlly
me. While historians play a role in showing how the supposed similar
situation was handled in the past, I do want the retired Generals (suppedly
the experts) telling me about strategy.

One thing I'd love to see is the history of peace protests (especially WWII)
in this country. I believe there were actually many protests prior to Dec 7
41 wanting the US to stay out of what was erroneously thought of as the
"Europian war".

In my humble opinion there are really just a few small groups that make up
the protesters:

#1 60's radicals trying to recapture their youth

#2 College Kids who are probably getting extra credit from their professors
for protesting

#3 The Socialist Workers Party, which is what, 0.0001% of US popultaion but
at least 25% of the signs seen at any government protest rally. (Most of the
'pre-printed' signs are SWP property)

#4 People that simply hate GW Bush/Reprublicans and would do any/every thing
to thwart the Bush admin on any issue (The 'illegal president' crowd as it
were, this is probably the biggest contingent..after all...where were they
when Clinton bombed Iraq?)

#5 It's FUN to protest! (Subject not as important as the social gathering
and comradere of protesting together)

In a country of 280+ million, if I don't see at least 6 million protesting
nationwide on ANY ISSUE (a mere 2% of the population), then I cannot really
see the protests as representative of the US population. I'm not sure we've
even seen a cumulative sum of 6 million yet, and that would include mostly
repeat protesters

Paul Hopfgarten
East Derry NH 03041
paul@03038.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org
> [mailto:owner-boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org]On Behalf Of
> RadioTony@aol.com
> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 9:34 AM
> To: bri@bostonradio.org
> Subject: Re: Gasp! For broadcast media, patriotism pays
>
>
> I would disagree slightly. Have the protesters been covered? Yes,
> much better and more thorough than 1991 [!] but that is also
> because the protests were much more impressive this time, both
> before and after the invasion.
>
> But my point isn't about how the peace movement or protesters are
> covered by the news or talk radio, it is about how the debate is
> structured on news and talk radio. How come historians aren't
> being invited to discuss the war plans or updates, but we get a
> million out-of-work generals blathering on about the battle
> plans? After Afghanistan was attacked, following Sept. 11, Howard
> Zinn was actually on MSNBC talking about different strategies the
> government could take to get the Al Quaida. It was the first time
> I have ever seen him on television and never since. Which is too
> bad since he had a lot of valid things to say.
>
> In a message dated 3/29/2003 9:16:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> steveord@bit-net.com writes:
>
> >
> >
> >  Sean Smyth wrote:
> >
> > >I agree that anti-war views should be permitted more than they
> are in the
> > >mainstream media,
> >
> > Actually, it seems the opposite to me...they seem to get
> coverage far out
> > of proportion than the relatively miniscule number of
> participants would
> > normally warrant.
> >