Moderator: S2k Moderators
Lindaloo wrote:Funny that FoxNews is "the media" and they report the good news that happens over there. Guess they could careless about "ratings" which BTW, they are number one.
danwxman wrote:I've seen plenty of stories about so-called "good news" in Iraq. Just a few days ago ABCNews had a long segment about the hospitals in Iraq.
Lindaloo wrote:danwxman wrote:I've seen plenty of stories about so-called "good news" in Iraq. Just a few days ago ABCNews had a long segment about the hospitals in Iraq.
So called "good news"? There is more good than bad going on over there. I would like to see more of it on the news for a change.
Well, ABC's good news is few and far between.
rainstorm wrote:Monday, Dec. 15, 2003 11:41 p.m. EST
Katie Couric: Saddam's Capture Only Symbolic
Perky "Today" show host Katie Couric, who said at the height of the Iraq war that she hoped Saddam Hussein had successfully fled to Syria, argued Monday morning that the Iraqi dictator's capture really wasn't that important after all.
Interviewing the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, Couric insisted, "It appears that Saddam Hussein was in no position to be calling the shots or orchestrating the efforts against U.S. troops in Iraq.
"So, militarily," she continued, "how much of the enemy's capabilities have really been degraded by this capture?"
When Gen. Sanchez tried to explain the strategic importance of removing Saddam from the battlefield, Couric chimed in, "Because this is more symbolic, General Sanchez, do you think?"
While the top military man didn't deny that Saddam's capture had a huge symbolic impact, he told Couric, "At the same time I believe it will be a concrete victory on the battlefield as [the insurgents] begin to reassess what their future holds."
Still, the early morning mega-star remained unconvinced that Saddam's capture had accomplished much, pressing Sanchez on whether the arrest "may actually incite various members of the insurgency" and "create an environment in which there is more violence against U.S. troops."
As Couric was arguing that the Iraqi dictator's capture might actually be bad news for soldiers on the ground, back in Baghdad, Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling was explaining to reporters how documents in Saddam's possession had already led to the capture of several other members of the old regime's command structure and provided key intelligence on the Baathist insurgency that continues to target U.S. troops.
While speculating on Saddam's whereabouts in April, Couric asked NBC's Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski if he could "confirm reports [Saddam] was taken to Tikrit, and then Mosul, and then hopefully to Syria." [our emphasis]
A "Today" show spokesman later told NewsMax that Couric "misspoke" but had no plans to publicly clarify her remark.
Lindaloo wrote:How do I know? I have watched ALL media outlets. And YES I watch Fox now for my news because I know I will get truth reporting without the slant.
Correct me if I am wrong but you liberals are the ones that whine and complain when things do not go your way. Can you say "FILLIBUSTER?"
danwxman wrote:Lindaloo wrote:How do I know? I have watched ALL media outlets. And YES I watch Fox now for my news because I know I will get truth reporting without the slant.
Correct me if I am wrong but you liberals are the ones that whine and complain when things do not go your way. Can you say "FILLIBUSTER?"
If you honestly think that FoxNews has NO slant you are totally blind as they are biased to the right. That's all I need to say.
stormchazer wrote:danwxman wrote:Lindaloo wrote:How do I know? I have watched ALL media outlets. And YES I watch Fox now for my news because I know I will get truth reporting without the slant.
Correct me if I am wrong but you liberals are the ones that whine and complain when things do not go your way. Can you say "FILLIBUSTER?"
If you honestly think that FoxNews has NO slant you are totally blind as they are biased to the right. That's all I need to say.
Yes...but they are slanted the correct way!
streetsoldier wrote:I found myself intrigued by the assertion that the media (except FoxNews) are "politically correct, as they SHOULD be"...
I'm not certain what to make of that. Does this mean that I have no right to choose my teams nickname, put up a Nativity scene, give over my SAT and earned GPA over to some "oppressed minority" based solely on race, etc., for fear of "offending" some poor soul?
And who decides WHAT is, or is not "politically correct", anyway? Certainly not the vast majority of Americans, includning myself.
I have the RIGHT to speak my mind as I see fit, choose what to do/not do as I see fit, own or not own a firearm/firearms as I deem suitable, go where I wish and display what I want WITHOUT governmental interference (First, Second, Fourth and Tenth Amendments). And if one out of a million passersby is "offended", so what? Nobody's keeping them from walking away.
Re-explore your Constitution...it's painfully obvious that you are in dire need of a refresher course.
rainstorm wrote:poor katie, she was so hoping saddam would get away.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests
