And Now, Exclusively On Fox...

[Chicklet]

I hear there is a great show about a war on the tv all day long....

-don't you hate how they're advertising the war to us?

THE WAR ON IRAQ AT 12 ON NBC

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEWS WITH THE GENERALS ONLY ON 20/20

 

[LadyG]

I was thinking the same thing.

"War TV".

Uggh..I remember this throughout the Gulf War as well.

 

[Coca~Cola]

Yes, everyone at my office is comparing how long they watch 'the War' last night and on in to the morning. I had it on (muted) for about thirty minutes while I was talking on the phone...
I don't that counts (hoping)
I think that the media coverage is discusting, but just my opinion

 

[Chicklet]

I think that the media coverage is discusting, but just my opinion

My boyfriend's mother sits in front of her tv all day and watches it. it disgusts me. If you want to know what it's like, join up and go.

 

[Xstatic]

I actually think it's a little frightening...

Most of the coverage is annoying - commentators endlessly re-hashing what's happened - and we're hanging there almost screaming 'I KNOW that! Tell me what's happenING!!!'

(I know, I know - they can't control when things happen. It's just a nagging thing...)

But what worries me is that I've seen at least three attempts by reporters to get specific info on what is GOING to happen.

Hello??!! Have they never heard of 'operational security'? Whatever happened to 'Loose lips sink ships'? Do they not realise that what they air is probably in Iraq only a little later than it's in Washington (I haven't heard any soundbites about CNN or BSkyB cutting off broadcast coverage to the warzone)?

And perhaps even more insidious - what time (US) did the deadline expire? By my calculations it was about 10pm - just about right for the evening news programs...

 

[Chicklet]

do other countries televise? i mean, it would almost be a little bit amusing if we entered world war three and could watch what other troops for other countries were doing...

"OOOH, OOOH! C'MON, LET'S GET OUT OF HERE! THAT LOOKS LIKE OUR HOUSE!"

 

[celiaKitten]

Flipping thru channels, I stopped on CNN Headline News. They were showing the weather. They switched to showing the weather for Iraq. The headline above it said:

Weather Showdown Iraq

What was wrong with just putting Weather Iraq? What's all this *Showdown* business? Makes it sound like they were looking at the weather for a sporting event. Not exactly the tone ...

 

[Chicklet]

lol

 

[Guest]

 

[celiaKitten]

The thundering headline graphics alone must take hundreds of man-hours to create.

And the menacing, dramatic music playing with it ... are they trying to make this seem like a movie? War should be portrayed as it is - horrific and dangerous. I'm only afriad that this packaged glitz will only help people glaze over those things, and actually dismiss those horrors, like it was a movie.

 

[cocktail42]

Keep in mind that Fox News Network is the equivalent of yellow journalism of Hearst's day. They are the mouth piece of the administration (having declared Bush a winner even before the election numbers indicated it (over a month later) - in their world of fair and balanced news facts are there to support your preconception). It is a pity that they are the best news network precisely because they have a point of view, even if it is an abhorrent one. CNN should take the hint and become significantly left wing.

 

[brunhilda]

Earlier this week the radio station we were listening to had advertising they were supposed to read "in case of war." The guy was like...have we gone to war yet? He didn't know, so he read both.

*The war, brought to you by Citibank, blah, blah*

Sheesh.

 

[cocktail42]

Earlier this week the radio station we were listening to had advertising they were supposed to read "in case of war." The guy was like...have we gone to war yet? He didn't know, so he read both.

*The war, brought to you by Citibank, blah, blah*

Sheesh.

It's pretty bad when you don't know whether you are at war or not. It's worse that advertisers are massaging their messages to fit a national trauma - drink Coke because you like it; drink Coke for our boys overseas.

 

[brunhilda]

It's pretty bad when you don't know whether you are at war or not. It's worse that advertisers are massaging their messages to fit a national trauma - drink Coke because you like it; drink Coke for our boys overseas.

In their defense, it was a Canadian radio station. But yes, it was really sad.

 

[cocktail42]

Earlier this week the radio station we were listening to had advertising they were supposed to read "in case of war." The guy was like...have we gone to war yet? He didn't know, so he read both.

*The war, brought to you by Citibank, blah, blah*

Sheesh.

It just occured to me why they don't know if we are at war yet - Bob Hope hasn't gone to entertain the troops yet.

 

[Chicklet]

well, damnit bob...get your ass over there!

 

[cocktail42]

well, damnit bob...get your ass over there!

He is, it's just taking him a little longer than in the big one: that would be Dubleya Dubleya i i - sounds a lot like this one.

 

[cocktail42]

In their defense, it was a Canadian radio station. But yes, it was really sad.

Are we at war with Canada - holly shit! You can't stop those maddened Canucks.

 

[Azwed]

The only thing that pisses me off more then people glorifying war is people just saying stupid factualy wrong shit.

Example.

Last night on CBS I think they had a guy on talking about F-117's saying they carry one 2000 lbs warhead.

ACkkhh False

F-117's carry TWO 2000 lbs bombs. Big difference between bombs and warheads. Warheads go on missiles.

Just a minute ago some commentator mentioned, in relation to cruise missiles, that they were using unarmed weapons.

WTF we are using unarmed weapons god damn must be Clinton's fault taking all the weapondry off our weapons.



Of course what he meant to say was unmaned weapons.

 

[Topher]

Something bothers me about the style of the coverage too. It is very sensationalist. That portrayal does trivialize war; I agree.

But I don't understand the complaint about having coverage per se. Isn't that a higher purpose for television than airing a rerun of Friends?

 

[Topher]

... granted that the elements of propagandizing and marketing are taken out of it.

 

[SilvaTungDevil]

Anyone know where I can buy ad time for the war coverage. I'm bringing out a new line of asspants for spring and I think a war tie in would work very well indeed.

 

[celiaKitten]

Something bothers me about the style of the coverage too. It is very sensationalist. That portrayal does trivialize war; I agree.

But I don't understand the complaint about having coverage per se. Isn't that a higher purpose for television than airing a rerun of Friends?

I have no complaint about there being coverage. Quite the opposite.

My grumblings are due to how that coverage is packaged, and man is it packaged.

 

[Azwed]

I have no complaint about there being coverage. Quite the opposite.

My grumblings are due to how that coverage is packaged, and man is it packaged.

FOX is the 24 hour tabloid news channel. I swear they modeled all their graphics and such after Iniside Edition.

 

[Olivianna]

Coverage of war, historically, has tended toward the sensational. Read war memoirs/records from the 14th century - anywhere - and you'll easily read the biases, slants, and exaggerations.

Regarding packaging - same thing. We happen to live in a late-capitalist society colored and styled by a vast corporate culture. So, there it goes - you get your spiritual enlightenment from Pepsi and your war news a la McDonalds.

Things are always packaged to a certain extent - it's just a matter of the different textures and colors of the outside wrapping, which, further, presents a litmus test of who or what is in power. That is, whether it's packaged by Louis XIVth or Corporate Culture - that's what I mean.