1
   

The Media: Is ABC anchor Bob Woodruff really that important?

 
 
Reply Wed 1 Feb, 2006 02:02 am
Interesting UPI article about US Military front-line troops/grunts and their reactions to the media's coverage of the wounding of ABC anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt. Most of the soldier's questions have been centered on why the media, not just ABC, have made this such a big story.

I also question this. In fact, it has irritated the dog snot out of me. The day Woodruff and Vogt were injured, every national news organization led with the story. You would have though someone important had been injured.

Callous? You bet. But the pretty-boy talking head and the cameraman (who I actually have more respect for) are there by CHOICE. They are there for the glory, the attention, and the ratings. The rest of the media was treating the incident as if it was something that had not happened hundreds of times already; why is this specific event so special?

Does the media really thing they are so important? The self-glorification the media lavished upon itself sickened me. You know what? Bad stuff happens, as it already has to many, many military personnel.

Maybe others in the media feel "it could have been me", or some other nonsense that caused some to extensively cover the event. So what?

This is just another example of how far out of touch the media is with everyday Americans. I haven't really bought into the whole 'elite liberal media bias' drumbeat that has been going on the past few years, but I do know that those who report on the national scene have no clue as to what real life is about.

Maybe now they do.........
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 728 • Replies: 5
No top replies

 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Feb, 2006 07:18 am
This is about the press, not the "media". The press is absolutely that important.

It is impossible for a democracy to function without a strong press. Without the press a government "by the people, for the people and of the people" very simply won't exist.

There have been governments for thousands of years. All of them have had militaries, and patriotic fervour, and strong leaders facing dangerous enemies.

Why is the United States different than all of these military powers?

The innovation of the United States and its leadership in developing democracy is legal protection of the free press. It is the fact that people who are not controlled by the government or military can go and give non-biassed information to the people who are supposed to be the primary decision makers.

The fact that Woodruff is being singled out and hyped because he was attacked is perhaps a symptom of our modern celebrity culture.

The fact the press is in Iraq-- and is suffering the violence and trials-- is a core part of our Democracy.

We the people couldn't function without the independent press there.

As a citizen of a free Democracy, I appreciate that.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Feb, 2006 07:28 am
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=68357

""Why do you think this is such a huge story?" wrote an officer stationed in Baqubah, Iraq, Monday via e-mail. "It's a bit stunning to us over here how absolutely dominant the story is on every network and front page. I mean, you'd think we lost the entire 1st Marine Division or something.

"There's a lot of grumbling from guys at all ranks about it. That's a really impolite and impolitic thing to say ... but it's what you would hear over here."

At least 2,242 troops have died in Iraq since the war's start, 1,753 of them killed in action. Another 16,000 have been injured, half of them seriously enough to require evacuation from the battlefield. According to the Pentagon, 60 percent of the deaths are the result of IEDs. IEDs have injured more than 9,200 troops, nine times more than gunshots."


"Spc. Brian J. Schoff, 22, of Manchester, Tenn., died in Baghdad, Iraq, on Jan. 28, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his HMMWV.

Sgt. David L. Herrera, 26, of Oceanside, Calif., died in Baghdad, Iraq, on Jan. 28, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his HMMWV during combat operations.

Lance Cpl. Billy D. Brixey Jr., 21, of Ferriday, La., died Jan. 27 at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany, from wounds received as a result of an improvised explosive device while traveling in a convoy in Afghanistan on Jan. 25.

Lance Cpl. Hugo R. Lopez, 20, of La Habra, Calif., died Jan. 27 at Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, from wounds sustained from an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in Rawah, Iraq, on Nov. 20, 2005.

Staff Sgt. Jerry M. Durbin Jr., 26, of Spring, Texas, died in Baghdad, Iraq, on Jan. 25, when an improvised explosive device exploded near his dismounted patrol during combat operations.

Sgt. Joshua A. Johnson, 24, of Richford, Vt., died in Ramadi, Iraq, on Jan. 25, when a rocket propelled grenade struck his vehicle during combat operations.

Staff Sgt. Lance M. Chase, 32, of Oklahoma City, Okla., and Pfc. Peter D. Wagler, 18, of Partridge, Kan., died in Baghdad, Iraq, on Jan. 23, of wounds sustained that day when an improvised explosive device detonated near their M1A2 Abrams tank during patrol operations.

Sgt. Sean H. Miles, 28, of Midlothian, Va., was killed in action Jan. 24 from small arms fire while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in Al Karmah, Iraq.

Sgt. Matthew D. Hunter, 31, of Valley Grove, W.Va., died in Baghdad, Iraq, on Jan. 23, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his dismounted patrol during combat operations.

Sgt. Sean H. Miles, 28, of Midlothian, Va., was killed in action Jan. 24 from small arms fire while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in Al Karmah, Iraq.

Tech. Sgt. Jason L. Norton, 32, of Miami, Okla. and Staff Sgt. Brian McElroy, 28, of San Antonio, Texas, were killed Jan. 22, when their vehicle struck an improvised explosive device while conducting convoy escort duties in the vicinity of Taji, Iraq."

Sorry the scribe got hurt. He knew the risks. It seems very disingenuous of the media to harp on his injury and ignore the young men above.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Feb, 2006 11:04 am
Quote:

Sorry the scribe got hurt. He knew the risks. It seems very disingenuous of the media to harp on his injury and ignore the young men above.


You got it all wrong.

Bob Woodruff is in a great position to be an advocate and a voice for these soldiers.

The soldiers, as part of the military, have a very specific role thrust upon them that ignores the fact that they are real people, mostly in the twenties, in a difficult situation. Just imagine what it must be like for these kids coming back injured.

They are supposed to be heroes, and are expected to be proud. They aren't supposed to show fear or anger or resentment at their loss even those these are very real human emotions.

Even those that most typify the brave patriot stereotype that conservatives expect must feel some anger and some loss.

The advantage that a civilian reporter has is that he can express the pain, and the messy conflicting emotions.. He doesn't have to worry about obligations of the military or mess conflicts between anger and duty.

This civilian reporter can give voice to the human beings behind the soldiers. In a very real way he has suffered what many wounded soldiers are suffering.

I understand the anger at the celebrity treatment that he is receiving.

But a civilian, who has experienced the pain of facing battle and being gravely wounded, and then has a public platform to speak is a good thing for the soldiers.

In a perfect world, perhaps it would be better to give a soldier this platform. But they tried that with Lyndsey England who wasn't able or willing to take this role. A soldier, because of the need to project duty and patriotism regardless of any conflicting emotions, simply can not truly play this role.

That's why we have journalists.

Let's talk about veterans benefits.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Feb, 2006 11:28 am
There is the reality of Iraq. The reality of combat of chaos, potential death. Then there is the reality of normalcy that most of us experience. The normalcy of predictability, of safety. People like Woodward mediate between these two worlds. He is ostensively of the reality of normalcy but he goes to observe, to report on the reality of combat. When he is dragged from one world to the other, when he becomes, not by choice but by events an inhabitant of the world of chaos that is news. I am not surprised that most soldiers in Iraq would find the media attention to Woodwards injuries excessive. They inhabit the world of combat and those kinds of events are not unusual. But when the representative of the rest of us fall into that world, it is unusual and newsworthy.
0 Replies
 
edithdoll
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2006 01:39 pm
Hi: I'm not going to comment on the validity of the coverage, or other points previously made or debated here. However, I would like to point out all the US media outlets are owned now by major corporations and or conglomerates, which all the set the standard or the agenda,
whether you approve of it or not,
and whatever you want to call it:
ABC (Disney)
CBS (Viacom/Time Warner)
NBC (General Electric/Vivendi International)
CNN (A div of Time Warner/CBS-Viacom)
FOX (Fox Inc. Broadcasting/Media)
Take from that--what you will.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Take it All - Discussion by McGentrix
Cancelled - Discussion by Brandon9000
John Stewart meets Bill O'Reilly - Discussion by Thomas
Recommend good HBO series? - Discussion by dlowan
BEFORE WE HAD T.V. - Discussion by edgarblythe
What TV shows do you watch? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Orange is the New Black - Discussion by tsarstepan
Odd Premier: Under the Dome - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Media: Is ABC anchor Bob Woodruff really that important?
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/21/2022 at 05:39:05