Media bias...
 

Take this Bob Woodruff incident for instance.

Two men are injured in the explosion of an IED in Iraq. It seems like the type of blurb that you find at the end on an article or hear at the end of a news broadcast but this time one of the men is Bob Woodruff and now the media is all over it. Stories about his injury, stories about him being evacuated to Germany and more stories about his return to the United States.

Why is there all this fuss?

It's like the press has just discovered that people get hurt and die in Iraq. All the press coverage this story has gotten disgusts me. I can't watch CNN or open a newpaper without hearing about it. People die every day over there and it doesn't receive a shred of the coverage that two men getting injured does. On average there are sixty-five US military personnel killed in Iraq every month. One hundred seventy-four troops are injured troops per month. How many more Iraqis are wounded and die every day? Not enough to warrant news coverage.

So will people ever get tired enough of the media's blatantly biased coverage and say enough is enough? And if they do will it even have an effect on the media conglomerates out there? I'm have to say that I think people will eventually get annoyed enough that the media will straighten up for a short period of time and then go right back to their old habits.

It isn't a bias it is better seen as an "angle".

They could cover every single incident that occurs in Iraq and around the world but what would that do but inure people to the slaughter.

In this case, the story has legs. Not only is it someone getting injured but it is a journalist, someone who is supposed to be "neutral". It is a hook that makes the story interesting and allows them to tell a fresh story. Watch the coverage. How many times during this story do you also recieve information about the number of other deaths in Iraq?

New hook let's journalists tell an old story.

They're not supposed cover the flag draped caskets
remember the white house throwing a fit about that?

Besides this is one of their own.....what could you expect?
Yes! absolutly, Bob Woodruff is more important to his
friends and co-workers than someone they don't have
a personal relation with.

Anyone would be more upset with the death of a
loved one, friend, or, co-worker.
Than with the death of someone they don't know.
It's human nature.

well first off if we cover every soldier who dies in this manner we're accused of not supporting the troops, we're unpatriotic, we're focusing only on the negative. So, now that we have a chance to show what really happens over there by covering an injury that DOESN'T involve a soldier, we still get harped on. I'm starting to think some people will only be happy if we only cover the latest about Jessica Simpson.

...oooo Jessica! How is she doing anyway?

I think some people do tend to believe that they have a personal relationship with someone such as Bob Woodruff. He comes right into your home and gives you the low-down...good, bad, happy, sad. He may have to deliver tragic news to you, and he has to deliver it in a manner that you can accept and process. This is an important relationship to many. Not that Woodruff being injured is any more important than what is happening to so many others, but most people don't have a relationship with the soldiers and personel being injured and killed. This incident brings it a little closer to home to those who don't have friends and family members involved.

Do you think she and Nick will make amends? Will there be another season of Newlyweds? Did she really get implants for those Daisy Dukes?

*Ahem*


I've always found that the media covers stories about other jouranlists with a bit more detail and emotion than others simply because they're colleagues. I don't think that could be called bias. People in different professions tend to look out for their own more than they look out for others. It's not bias, it's sociology.

It's interesting because I've heard liberals say this proves that the media is biased against them and is trying to cover up the true costs of the war. Then I've heard conservatives say that this proves the media is biased against them and doesn't care about the troops dying (I even heard Rush Limbaugh say that the media enjoys it when troops are killed). Personally I think the replies in this thread have been much closer to the truth.

Not only that, but think about it from an access standpoint. It can be very difficult to convince people to go on TV. A lot of 'em don't want to - they're shy, embarassed, whatever. They certainly don't want to go on TV after they've been in a wreck, or injured in war, or had some other horrible thing happen to them.

But when something happens to someone in the media, the access is much greater. Ray Farkas (one of the best storytellers on the planet) let a TV crew document his brain surgery (parkinson's disease) and is working on a documentary of it. It can be kinda tough to find someone who wants to give you access like that, so he did it himself. It's one hell of a story too. (and if you're curious, and want to see a "preview" (20 minutes) of it, and a GREAT example of what TV storytelling should be, check http://www.offcentertv.com/ , click on more videos, then click on summer 2004 brain surgery)

That fact is perhaps the No. 1 biggest reason I totally abhore the war mongers in the white house right now.

This fascism has to end and the sooner, the better.
Over 2 thousand young soldiers have died for a "fake trumped up" War and we can't even honor our military dead...?

Be prepared, because we'll be invading Iran and quite soon.

I've always gotten the impression that journalists consider themselves more important than everyone else.

That theory certainly won't be disproved by a paragraph that includes the names "Katie Couric" or "Dan Rather."

Something I hadn't considered so I was incorrect to call it a bias. I did review the print media stories I could find on the web and caught a few satories on it about CNN and MSNBC yesterday evening and in about half of the cases the casualties were mentioned as more then a footnote.

How did you know? You're so right. We sit around every night lighting cuban cigars with flaming $100 bills and chortling over brandy about how unimportant our viewers are. :rolleyes:


Well they learned a very good lesson from viet nam. It was all the images of the ridiculous numbers of flag-draped coffins that showed the public the REAL cost of the war. If they let the public see that again this time, the public will rise up, again, and demand an end to this absurd, unjust, illegal, and unnecessary war. Again.