Re: CNN: All the news that we see fit to print

[RadioTony@aol.com]

The coverage has been there ... in the last two days. 

For almost the entire time the war has been going on, there has been extremely limited coverage of civilian
casualties in the American media. Dan said it was because the regime kept the press from the hospitals. But the
foreign press, like the Guardian, the Canadian Broadcasting Company [via C-SPAN], and the BBC, has been reporting
the casualties since the beginning. I don't think it is too much to ask that in a supposed free society that we
get the same amount of coverage that the foreigners are getting.

Lastly, this has nothing to do with politics. Whether I support the war or not, I would be saying the same thing.
If fact, if any of you recall, I was saying similar things about the coverage of Clinton in 1998 the last time
this stuff was happening. My concern is about complete coverage and news. And yeah, I would like less strategy on
the war and more impact [negative and positive] on the war. 

In a message dated 4/11/2003 8:25:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, joepappalardo2001@yahoo.com writes:

> The coverage is there....  
> 
> It's just not to his preference for depth, time/space
> placement, and 'reality' scenes of death.
> 
> I believe he would like less reporting on 'strategy'
> and more reporting on 'death counts'.
> 
> Every issue that you have brought up HAS been covered.
> It appears you would just like MORE OF the stories
> you think are important.
> 
> Most American's, and that is who the major media are
> talking to, are concerned with "are we gonna win?" 
> and  "Let's get this over as soon as possible, so the
> carnage can stop". 
> 
> Can I guess your political leanings or opinion of the
> war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> =====
> Joe Pappalardo
> 
> joepappalardo2001@yahoo.com
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and 
> more
> http://tax.yahoo.com