NO SUCH THING as objective reporting

Back in my heyday (sp?), otherwise known as when I was 20, I was a part-time copy editor for a city newspaper with about 25,000 daily subscribers. Every once in a while, I got to pick stories from the Associated Press to be put in the paper. Other times, I had to cut 1,000-word stories by more than half to fit the space allotted.

What I learned:

1. There is NO SUCH THING as objective reporting.

2. Decisions on what to report is largely based on what the business believes the viewers/readers/listeners are interested in.

3. As such, newspapers with a largely caucasian/Republican base are less likely to report on a Mexican family's struggle for citizenship or a black man proven innocent after years behind bars.

4. The subjectivity doesn't end there. Even when stories are run, reporters decide what angle to take . Notice how many newspapers have a "Business" section versus how many have a "Labor" section. The little guy isn't focused on for two reasons. One, he doesn't pay the newspaper's bills, and two, she is still dreaming of when she's no longer poor and thus wants to know about stock markets and insider trading.

5. Then there's what information to share about the story that's been decided on. Say, for instance, a newspaper is going to write about a high school track coach who's been convicted of pedophilia. The story could include the following information: how to talk to your children about pedeophilia; how many cases the coach was convicted of; two students' accounts of what a good teacher the coach was; one team member's account of walking in on the coach with a fellow teammate; how many people are convicted of pedophilia each year; what the school's going to do for the high school students; what background checks and other measures the school uses when hiring. Now, the newspaper only has room for half of the information I just listed. Someone has to choose.

6. And how does that information get chosen? By people. Who are ALWAYS subjective. Say we have three reporters who can report the story. One is the mom of a child on the junior high football team. One is a sports fanatic. The third downloads porn during spare time. Think you're likely to get three different stories? Oh, yeah, baby. Now, the stories will almost always be accurate, truthful, and unbiased in the telling. But the telling of the story is only what we see. So much more goes on behind the wizard's curtain.

:)Kim Edwards

http://wooran.com

An argumentum ad populum

The mainstream media likes to keep us confused. I need no help in that department. It scares me when people blindly follow the herd. Many times the facts are never revealed to the public. More people need to challenge the information that is presented to them.

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."

Some things never change. I may be married to a marine, but I can't for the life of me see the logic in blowing things and people up. This just does not compute.

http://wooran.com

9/11/2006 RELIGIOUS TERRORIST ATTACK

The mainstream media may not have alerted you to the fact that there was another bomb attack on American soil on 9/11/2006, on the fifth anniversary of the first 9/11 attack.

If it seems strange that such an event wasn't picked up by the right wing conservative media echo chamber to fan the flames of fear in the U.S. and rally more Americans to the cause of fighting a global war on terror, the reason for this lapse is simple:

The religious terrorist, in this case, was a Christian extremist who bombed an abortion clinic.

Martín Rizzi said:

I think that most religiously motivated terrorists would agree with this goal, in fact, many of them are actively working toward the goal of having only a single religion-- theirs.

Personally, I think valuing diversity would be a better goal. I think people should not argue about things that can't be proven to exist. Carl Sagan spoke for me (you might go to my "Pale Blue Dot" thread if interested).

I dont really know about this "religiously motivated terrorists" stuff;

supposedly in Iraq these religiously motivated terrorists blow up mosques;

i dont buy it; i think that religiously motivated terrorists is just a meme.

Marcus B.

http://wooran.com

What the public believes to be true

I really don't know what to believe about Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction. At times I feel we will never know the truth.

What the public believes to be true

U.S. adults believe that the following are true about the war in Iraq:

* Seventy-two percent believe that the Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein (slightly down from February 2005 when 76 percent said this was true).

* Just over half (55%) think history will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq (down substantially from 64% in February 2005).

* Sixty-four percent say it is true that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda (the same as 64% in February 2005).

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=684

chaos and violence

We all get ripped off everyday when people cause chaos and violence. What makes them use these methods of expressing themselves?

http://wooran.com

Thanks Harry

I always say things the wrong way. I do not think terrorism or any crime can be attributed to poverty.

"The poor person is the victim of, NOT the perpetrator of, terrorism."

I disagree.

http://wooran.com

Chemical may stop alcohol craving

Scientists say they have found a way to stop an alcoholic's craving for drink.

A team from Melbourne's Howard Florey Institute discovered blocking the action of the brain's orexin system can also prevent someone relapsing.

Team members say their work could lead to the development of drugs which could act as orexin blockers.

Orexin-producing cells are also thought to play a part in regulating feeding, so the researchers believe they could also help treat eating disorders. Read More

Saddam Hussein

I really don't know what to believe about Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction. At times I feel we will never know the truth.

What the public believes to be true

U.S. adults believe that the following are true about the war in Iraq:

* Seventy-two percent believe that the Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein (slightly down from February 2005 when 76 percent said this was true).

* Just over half (55%) think history will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq (down substantially from 64% in February 2005).

* Sixty-four percent say it is true that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda (the same as 64% in February 2005).



http://wooran.com

Casualties have now exceeded 25,000

Three years and nine
months after the U.S.-led Coalition
began its war against Saddam Hussein, researchers have quietly recorded
another grim milestone in the cost of the conflict. American military
casualties have now exceeded 25,000.

Native Americans

Stephanie O'Keefe said:

Could what was done to the Native Americans be considered terrorism?

Marc Roth said: YES

Professional Soldier

I see from your profile Stephanie you are the wife of a marine

As a professional soldier your man is exposed to great danger.

thus it is with some sensitivity i address you in this thread.

It is apparent you are a good person with a mind and a heart.

Your natural empathy for the man you love makes you want to

channel your human warmth and passion into a rehabilitation facility

for injured war veterans so these persons get have their life again;

maybe not all of their life, but at least a part of the life they had.

When someone is a soldier he has no right to anything but obey.

The issue of wounded Eurasia War veterans is a very serious one.

Both the physically wounded and also the emotionally wounded ones.

Martín Rizzi

TERRORISM - Can it be eliminated? If so, how? What is your plan?

In order to answer the question, I first need to define what terrorism is according to me. It is an act of violence intended to both inflict fear in a group of people and get a specific message heard. That being the case, the Boston Tea Party was just as much an act of terrorism as 9/11 was--the most important difference being the loss of innocent lives on 9/11.

What do we then do to stop terrorism from happening?

We stop the need for it. Terrorists don't use terrorism as a first response. At no point in time did someone read the newspaper, get mad about an issue he/she just learned about for the first time, and decide to nuke a city in response. Terrorism is a last resort, something people do when they can find no other way to be heard. Terrorism comes out of anguish, turmoil, and devestation.

To stop terrorism, then, ...

--We need to teach parents like those of the students who did the Columbine shootings to look for the signs of disturbed teens and to get them help.

--We need to acknowledge that the Israel/Palestine situation is horrible and that talking isn't enough. Reparations need to be made, counselling needs to be inacted, healing needs to be nurtured, and education about cultural differences and acceptance needs to happen.

--We need to wean our children away from the selfish, immediate-gratification, anti-social worlds of television and video games. We now have several generations of people who barely know how to communicate because communication has become unnecessary when all we need to do is push buttons to exist. Every person who is living such a life is a person who is not helping in terrorism, war, injustice, and strife.

--We need to stop pretending the American way is the only way and acknowledge that we're just as big of f-ups as the rest of the world. We're full of gluttony and greed, egocentricism and Nihilism, yet Americans are affronted when people in other countries act the same way.

--We need to learn to listen to people. Truly listen. We need to know why the IRA continues to fight and why the Una Bomber, well, bombed. We need to listen not to prove them wrong, but to find solutions for the problem and for their pain. We need to listen in order to know how to listen to the next person before he/she becomes a terrorist.

--We need to start within ourselves. How many people's ideas have you felt like annihilating today? None? Really? Don't you want cannibalism to end? Racism? Genocide? Remember, the people who commit acts of terrorism have an injustice that they want to end, too. I'm not saying terrorism is ever right, but I am saying that we need to understand it before we can, well, annihilate it.

Kim Edwards

Thank You

Stephanie, thank you; your words are helpful to understanding your POV, demonstrating you are a good person with a good mind.

Martín Rizzi

I don't even get the whole using Marines to blame Bush comment.

Who is using marines to blame Bush and for what?

Most of the people talking on here have a better grip on the chronology of this whole war than I do.

Can someone refresh my memory, how many days were we from a U.N. decision on how to approach Iraq's bluff on WMD?

Does anyone want to fess up if they believed that Iraq really had WMDs in the first place? I knew they didn't if you want to know why.

Marc Roth

Wounded Warriors

I agree. I am just very protective of our marines. I understand everything you say and my head tells me you are 100% right. My heart on the other hand breaks for my boys. The fact of the matter is, these wounded men and women are the kids that grew up next door to you and me. They need help and I am here to try and accomplish that by any means possible.

Welcome to O-net

Hi Stephanie. Welcome to O-net. I like what you're trying to do to create a home for our wounded warriors.

However, with all respect for your service, Saddam had no nuclear program. He had no weapons of mass destruction. He was fully cooperating with Inspectors at the time the U.S. decided to make war. The inspectors were forced to leave to avoid being bombed by the U.S. These are all indisputable, historical facts.

Bush lied to start the war for reasons we'll probably never know unless, of course, the motive was simply more profit for Haliburton and the oil companies. But I suspect it's more complex than that.

I'm not saying Saddam wasn't a brutal dictator. I would, however, say that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam than they are now. In fact, 600,000 Iraqis would be alive now, instead of dead, had the U.S. not gone to war with Iraq.

In my opinion, our wounded warriors are all victims of the neocons' lies and deceit, and the more fully it's understood how terribly and unconscionably these soldier's loyalty to our country was abused in the Iraq mission, the sooner they can help bring the criminal neocons to justice and, I would hope, further their healing process through that endeavor.

Marcus B.

"traditional American pride"

Traditional American Pride is dying of a sick cancer.

Unions that once brought cleanliness and safety to jobs out grew themselves and became greedy petri dishes for inflated pay rates, and laziness.

Banks are spoiling us using a backwards IQ test called a credit score, which is creating a jealous rage in our consumers such that we have to work to pay off our debt, because it’s growing so rapidly.

As a means to an end good ole American logic says take a few shortcuts here, cheat there, stab that guy in the back and get ahead.

Traditional American Pride - started with a good hard day’s work that is very hard to find today.

Marc Roth

"Support" needs to be real and tangible, not just declared

I think it's the lack of tangible support that is the problem. If the veterans had a nickel for every person who has a "Support Our Troops" magnetic ribbon on the back of their car, they'd be able to afford better treatment and healthier places to live and heal. (Okay, maybe more than a nickel, but you get the idea-- the "Support" needs to be real and tangible, not just declared).

The government is not currently funding care for veterans adequately, so I don't think it's enough for people to just be taxpayers to say they support the troops (just my opinion).

Marc Roth said:

In fact I think the sentiment carried across all party lines is that we support our troops even if we don't support the war. This may be a valuable lesson that has carried forward from Vietnam, but at any rate I don't see anyone hardening against our men and women in uniform.

Marcus B.

WOUNDED WARRIORS SUPPORT OMIDYAR GROUP PROPOSED

I'd like to follow up Stephanie's project with a new group here on Omidyar specifically for exploring creative way to help wounded warriors.

Please visit the New Groups section (Groups Tab, sub-tab: New Groups) and co-sponsor this new group to help get it started. It'll take five additional new group sponsors to get this going.

The issue of terrorism is too big to solve with one kind of activity-- I think we have to break it down into specifics and deal with those specifics in order to be more effective.

I think I get now where Stephanie was coming from about people using Marines to Bush-bash (paraphrased). If we harden our hearts against veterans because of the perception that they voluntary supported the illegal war in Iraq, then we are, in effect, punishing them for Bush's crimes, and that's cruel and unfair.

So, what can Omidyar.net do for/with veterans to make good things (or at least better things) happen?

Marcus B.

Al-Qaeda already here

Until about a year ago, IDF Intelligence estimated that "Israel was not being targeted by al-Qaeda". Since these estimates were made public, reality has hit Israeli intelligence in the face. The global arena vis-à-vis Israel turned out to be rife with activity and al-Qaeda recently announced that Israel is one of their primary targets.

http://www.ict.org.il/apage/3491.php