19
   

MSNBC's top programs provide more than 18 times as much coverage of Haiti earthquake as Fox News' to

 
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 02:59 pm
@BigTexN,
While you're waiting for CNN to go bankrupt do yourself a favor and be sure not to hold your breath.

How sad that you seem to need to tune into Beck so that he can tell you what your opinions are. Personally, i try to get as much reliable information as i can, and then i form my own opinions.
Robert Gentel
 
  5  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 03:03 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Because MSNBC has a greater degree of coverage of the Hatian earthquake than Fox, doesn't mean that the degree of Fox coverage is inadequate or inappropriate.


I've not said it's inadequate. But I do think there is a political reason for their popular shows giving it short shrift, and the reason is because many on the far right oppose our involvement in Haiti. Glen Beck has criticized Obama for paying more attention to this than the attempted airline bombing in December and the differences in coverage are political in nature.

Quote:
Who has called it an non-event?


Hawkeye said it wasn't newsworthy enough for more than 10 minutes of news coverage, which is ridiculous.

Quote:
And I'm sorry Robert but Americans are going to be more concerned with an American catastrophe than a foreign one. I don't know why you find this so unseemly. It's perfectly natural.


This is perfectly normal, but usually when the scale of the death reaches certain points national lines usually become less important and the sheer scale of death brings people together.

So when 5 people are killed in Haiti it may not be newsworthy at all in the US (though it would certainly lead the news if it was your hometown) and this is normal. But their death toll is at 70,000 and may reach as high as 200,000. How many single events in all of human history can you name where more than 70,000 people lost their lives?

I bet you can't even name 5 without some research. And this is the perspective I think some here have lacked. This is death on a scale that you can find little to compare with and those who dismiss it as lacking in "newsworthiness" lack any sense of historical perspective about such matters.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 03:18 pm
The amount of hostile reaction to assumed opinions on the part of conservatives showing up in this thread is just amazing. Now, maybe someone can read back and find an example, but i don't recall that any American who has responded to this thread has said anything but that this is non-story, and that of course Fox is covering the story. Yet the righwingnuts are lining up to pick a fight. You guys crack me up.
BigTexN
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 03:29 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
While you're waiting for CNN to go bankrupt do yourself a favor and be sure not to hold your breath.


Truthfuly, I would be disappointed to see CNN and MSNBC go completely bankrupt. It's always fun to have a good whipping boy! LOL!

Death by a thousand cuts is so much more pleasurable.

I love watching Shivers Up My Leg have meltdowns on his show about Sarah Palin. I can't wait to see his reaction to her FOX show having higher ratings than his!! LMAO!!!
Ticomaya
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 10:41 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Yet the righwingnuts are lining up to pick a fight. You guys crack me up.

Who's picking fights?

BigTexN posted and said nothing to you ... and certainly nothing that could be considered a personal attack. Your response: "Apparently, you're just as stupid as Rapist Boy."

Yeah, you're here to make friends and influence people.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 10:54 pm
@BigTexN,
Well, i don't watch any of them. Mostly because i don't watch the teevee much at all (probably an average of between a half hour and an hour a day). If i want specific news, i tune to CNN. For televised news on a regular basis, i watch BBC. For news in general, i read online editions of newspapers, although i occasionally will buy a paper. I never watch the pundit shows, they bore me. So i don't know to whom you refer with your shivers nonsense, and don't care. As i pointed out, i don't need someone else to form my opinions for me, and even if i did, television would be the last source i'd choose.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  4  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 11:55 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
...I do think there is a political reason for their popular shows giving it short shrift, and the reason is because many on the far right oppose our involvement in Haiti. Glen Beck has criticized Obama for paying more attention to this than the attempted airline bombing in December and the differences in coverage are political in nature. ....


That is a very interesting & a very illuminating insight. I have wondered & have been genuinely perplexed (from a long way away) at some of the US posters' reactions here to what I (& most, I believe) perceived as an enormous catastrophe for fellow human beings in Haiti. So the far right of US politics has used this situation to push its own (internal/US) agenda? Really? If this is correct, then all I can say is (and I absolutely mean it!) a response like this is beyond contempt. Utterly despicable. The far right of the US appears to be completely out of touch with what makes the rest of the world (& most of the US, I'd confidently guess) tick!
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 12:06 am
@msolga,
ding.


(please pick up your prize on the way out...)
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 12:29 am
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
I've not said it's inadequate. But I do think there is a political reason for their popular shows giving it short shrift, and the reason is because many on the far right oppose our involvement in Haiti. Glen Beck has criticized Obama for paying more attention to this than the attempted airline bombing in December and the differences in coverage are political in nature.


Good bloody grief.

A massive human disaster, where the US would, I think, normally offer whatever it could (especially given Haiti's proximity to the US) becomes subject to partisan politically based bickering?

I just went and looked up Glen Beck. he should be ashamed.

0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 12:31 am
@msolga,
Quote:
So the far right of US politics has used this situation to push its own (internal/US) agenda?


what the far right will use is the fact that this cluster **** which is the relief effort was caused in large part by Obama and Haitian unwillingness to put in enough American troops to tamp down the security problem and to provide logistics. The Military is the only group that has the ability to go into this situation and make it work, and it was not done.

The last few days have proven the Right to be correct more than they have supported Obama's version of reality.
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 12:35 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
So the far right of US politics has used this situation to push its own (internal/US) agenda? Really?


Unfortunately, yes and to top it off they did so by accusing Obama of using this for political gain.

Rush Limbaugh said this was a crisis "made to order" for Obama so that he could boost his "credibility" with the "light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country".



He also went on to say, "we've already donated to Haiti, it's called US income tax."

Glenn Beck said that Obama is "dividing the nation" by reacting "so rapidly on Haiti" and went on to compare it to the time he took deciding strategy in Afghanistan as if helping out in a natural disaster is that tough of a decision.



Thing is, Obama has pledged less than Bush did after the tsunami so far, so it's very clear that this is just political hay being made. They will speak to the racists and the "tough love" conservatives who think if we don't take a stand and let a bunch more Haitians die they'll just never learn to abandon the abject poverty they seem so fond of, but ultimately if it were a Republican doing it they'd spin it positively, so this is just more political bullshit.

Media Matters isn't an objective media watch dog, it's a liberal organization with the mission of "correcting conservative misinformation" so the coverage statistics that started this thread are overzealous minutiae in their quest for "gotchas" they can call out conservatives for. But there really is something to this story beyond the coverage statistics because some of the folks whose coverage is being criticized are actually expressing political opposition to aiding Haiti.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 12:50 am
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:

Rush Limbaugh said this was a crisis "made to order" for Obama so that he could boost his "credibility" with the "light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country".


Has there been any kind of general condemnation of him for this stuff?

Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 12:55 am
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
Has there been any kind of general condemnation of him for this stuff?


Just the usual, because really this is the usual from him. The next day he told an outraged caller that it was an intentional daily "tweak" of the media and that he is playing them like violins.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 01:06 am
@hawkeye10,
Interesting that you are attempting to explain the "far right" perspective, hawkeye, because that's how I've seen your "contribution" to this discussion so far ...

Quote:
what the far right will use is the fact that this cluster **** which is the relief effort was caused in large part by Obama and Haitian unwillingness to put in enough American troops to tamp down the security problem and to provide logistics.


You are quibbling over details. Have you even considered that Obama's reaction might actually have been a very serious attempt at humanitarian relief , at extremely short notice, in response to a completely unforeseen event? Have you even considered that such relief might not be perfect (despite the best of intentions) in the extremely difficult circumstances?

Earlier on in this discussion you were arguing quite differently. You were arguing against relief to Haiti. Go back & read your earlier posts.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 01:28 am
@Robert Gentel,
Sorry, Robert, I am so gobsmacked by those two videos you supplied I don't know what to say any more. I am am utterly speechless. That this passes for run of the mill media commentary ... well, I don't know what to say. The blatant politicizing of the unimaginable misery of the people of Haiti for political grand standing is beyond my comprehension. I have never seen anything like this before. I am stopped dead in my tracks.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 01:30 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

Sorry, Robert, I am so gobsmacked by those two videos you supplied I don't know what to say any more. I am am utterly speechless. That this passes for run of the mill media commentary ... well, I don't know what to say. The blatant politicizing of the unimaginable misery of the people of Haiti for political grand standing is beyond my comprehension. I have never seen anything like this before. I am stopped dead in my tracks.


Do you think we have the same awful stuff here...but not on TV?

I am thinking of the radio shock jocks in particular.

Or is the political/media landscape REALLY different in Oz, and this scheiss is confined to specialist web sites?

I wonder if Rupert M doesn't run those sort of blatant shows here because he'd noty make enough money, or he thinks Oz is not powerful enough to bother with, or if their audience would be just too small? (ie a smaller percentage of the populace than it is in the US?) and there would be a more significant reaction of condemnation?

msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 01:42 am
@dlowan,
No, nothing quite to this extent of indifference to the suffering of people outside of one's own country & the blatant political opportunism of those videos. Honestly. I'm an avid media watcher.

It appears to me (if this has been the typical response from the US right to Haiti) that there's something very sick & out of touch on the far right of US politics.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 02:04 am
@dlowan,
And I can say, in all honestly, that I never once saw as much as one quibble from the Oz media to Australia's extremely generous response to the 2004 Indonesian tsumai crisis. ( In our immediate "neighbourhood", as Haiti is to the US) From a conservation Australian government (John Howard's Liberals) to a country that we certainly had been experiencing definite "strains" with. A humanitarian crisis is a humanitarian crisis. Simple as that. It's about alleviating the suffering of ordinary people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_response_to_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 02:29 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
Sorry, Robert, I am so gobsmacked by those two videos you supplied I don't know what to say any more. I am am utterly speechless. That this passes for run of the mill media commentary ... well, I don't know what to say.


This isn't mainstream media though, most of the country thinks these folks are nuts. There's a healthy component of doing this for the sake of getting a rise out of people and much of the country refuses to pay much attention.

They have big audiences because the USA is a big stage but they command a relatively small mindshare. For example, it would not surprise me if not a single of the Americans on this thread were aware of these comments.


Quote:
The blatant politicizing of the unimaginable misery of the people of Haiti for political grand standing is beyond my comprehension. I have never seen anything like this before. I am stopped dead in my tracks.


This is everyday talk show shtick, they don't need big tragedy to do this. Limbaugh's last comment on Haiti was something to the effect that it was a place where you couldn't even pick up a prostitute without getting AIDS. They are routinely outrageous on purpose for attention. This was actually the point I was trying to convey about the Young Turks as well. They are a smaller scale (of both audience and idiocy) of the same formula of sensationalism and courting controversy.

It's like the tabloid press in other countries, this isn't the mainstream stuff and is only representative of America in the context of a marginalized fringe, this is the stuff the whole country professes to hate but that there are enough idiots in society to support and these idiots make money not just on the ditto heads who agree with them but the even larger demographic that is outraged by what they say.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 02:31 am
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
Or is the political/media landscape REALLY different in Oz, and this scheiss is confined to specialist web sites?


I think America takes the concept of free speech further than most other countries and is a more receptive society for offensive speech than anywhere in the world.

Edit: I should clarify that I mean receptive in that the right to the speech is accepted, not that the speech is.

Edit 2: I think there's also more acceptance of crass commercialism, which is what these folks are too. Every story is an opportunity to twist into ideological dollars if you are just willing to give up all scruples.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/20/2021 at 10:16:00