Re: Gasp! For broadcast media, patriotism pays

[RadioTony@aol.com]

Out of work generals have a role. But so do historians whose job it is to study war and might have a hell of a lot of more information and a different perspective to add to the discussion. 

I don't understand why the media can't invite both - or even more - diverse voices to discuss this invasion. Think about it for a second: These cable stations are broadcasting live for 24 hours. They can't allow a Howard Zinn or whoever to come on and talk about the histories of different conflicts instead of arguing about whether some stupid town in New Jersey allows government buildings to have yellow ribbons for an hour? Give me a break. 

As far as your "small groups," there is some validity to your point. But there is a large silent majority. I haven't been to one protest. I work in the media, I don't go to protests anymore. But I was say that polling before the war showed anywhere from 30 to 45 percent against the invasion, with even higher numbers against a bi-lateral action [by U.S./U.K.] sans the U.N. Since that time, the polls have shifted, because the majority of Americans believe that you have to support the war to support the troops. Sure, polling isn't reliable. But if a news agency uses "60 percent for the war and the president!" then they should acknowledge "40 percent don't." Forty percent of 280 million is a hell of a lot more than 6 million.

Lastly, so that no one gets me wrong, I support the troops. While I won't get into specifics, since this is a public board, I will say that I have a family member in Afghanistan on the front line who has had his compound shelled and I have another flying aircraft reportedly somewhere in Asia. I also have a handful of friends who have been shipped out for this invasion who I don't have contact with.

I support the troops - I want them home! I don't want them to die for oil or to "free" the Iraqi people who pretty obviously don't want to be freed, or don't want to be freed by us/U.S.

In a message dated 3/29/2003 10:02:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, paul@03038.com writes:

> 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.
> > >