OT Stolen from Rec.Backcountry

"Tim J." wrote in news:10r8o6uof1hrha1
@news.supernews.com:


Hmmmm. . . haven't there been protests at *every* inauguration? Probably
not newsworthy (read: violent and loud) enough to cover.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj



Tim--

Have you seen the vid? This was many protesters throwing trash at the
presidential motorcade. It was a fairly rowdy scene, with the president
right at the center. Bush couldn't even leave the car to walk the last
bit, as is tradition. When citizens are throwing eggs at the president,
that's news. When placed in context of the level of contentiousness of the
election, the Supreme Court decisions, and so on, the absence of coverage
was inexusable.

Scott

"Tim J." wrote in news:10r8o6uof1hrha1
@news.supernews.com:


Hmmmm. . . haven't there been protests at *every* inauguration? Probably
not newsworthy (read: violent and loud) enough to cover.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj



Tim--

Have you seen the vid? This was many protesters throwing trash at the
presidential motorcade. It was a fairly rowdy scene, with the president
right at the center. Bush couldn't even leave the car to walk the last
bit, as is tradition. When citizens are throwing eggs at the president,
that's news. When placed in context of the level of contentiousness of the
election, the Supreme Court decisions, and so on, the absence of coverage
was inexusable.

Scott

yfitons
wayno (modesty prohibits recitation of further detail)

Modesty or a court order?


--
Frank Reid
Euthanize to reply

yfitons
wayno (modesty prohibits recitation of further detail)

Modesty or a court order?


--
Frank Reid
Euthanize to reply

From: Scott Seidman

When placed in context of the level of contentiousness of the
election, the Supreme Court decisions, and so on, the absence of coverage
was inexusable.


Yeah, it's that damned extreme right wing media that messed that up. Jennings,
Rather, Matthews, and that whole neocon bunch oughta be horsewhipped.

Do you suppose that some rational Democrats, (I assume there are a few around),
saw such childish, moronic behavior as embarassing to their cause, and chose to
ignore it?

Grow up Scott.


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

From: Scott Seidman

When placed in context of the level of contentiousness of the
election, the Supreme Court decisions, and so on, the absence of coverage
was inexusable.


Yeah, it's that damned extreme right wing media that messed that up. Jennings,
Rather, Matthews, and that whole neocon bunch oughta be horsewhipped.

Do you suppose that some rational Democrats, (I assume there are a few around),
saw such childish, moronic behavior as embarassing to their cause, and chose to
ignore it?

Grow up Scott.


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

Scott Seidman wrote:


Have you seen the vid? This was many protesters throwing trash at the
presidential motorcade. It was a fairly rowdy scene, with the president
right at the center. Bush couldn't even leave the car to walk the last
bit, as is tradition. When citizens are throwing eggs at the president,
that's news. When placed in context of the level of contentiousness of the
election, the Supreme Court decisions, and so on, the absence of coverage
was inexusable.


What is news? I've thought about this and it confuses the hell out of me.

I know that reporting news is money driven, like most things in the US, but
I also think that news goes beyond what sells the most papers or gets the
most viewers. Is news now solely defined by what sells?

In the US, our news is pretty much homogenized, at least in the "major"
outlets. The specific stories that make the news on a daily basis are
the same
in virtually every major paper, TV news broadcast, etc. This is even
true down to the "cutesy" stuff that is picked up.

Why, with all the events going on in the world, are only the same
handful of events covered by all the major sources?

And a couple other unrelated questions:

Why is tragedy in general news but extra ordinary good fortune not?

Why is a person that is murdered news but a person that saves a life isn't?

Don't you think that reporting "bad" things promotes more "bad" things and
wouldn't reporting of "good" things promote more "good" things?

Willi

Scott Seidman wrote:
Tim J. wrote:

Hmmmm. . . haven't there been protests at *every* inauguration?
Probably not newsworthy (read: violent and loud) enough to cover.

Have you seen the vid?

No, but I plan to watch it one of these days for amusement purposes.
There just happen to be other movies that are more appealing to me right
now (I just LOVE The Bourne Identity / Supremacy). From what you
describe, it sounds rowdy enough to make the news. What do you suppose
caused it to be missed? My guess is that it must be the (vast)
right-wing agenda of the US and international media. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

"George Adams" wrote in message
...
From: Scott Seidman

When placed in context of the level of contentiousness of the
election, the Supreme Court decisions, and so on, the absence of
coverage
was inexusable.


Yeah, it's that damned extreme right wing media that messed that up.
Jennings,
Rather, Matthews, and that whole neocon bunch oughta be
horsewhipped.

Do you suppose that some rational Democrats, (I assume there are a
few around),
saw such childish, moronic behavior as embarassing to their cause,
and chose to
ignore it?

So, the radical rational wing of the Democratic party really DOES
control the news media?

Grow up Scott.

Get your head out of your ass, George.

Wolfgang

"George Adams" wrote in message
...
From: Scott Seidman

When placed in context of the level of contentiousness of the
election, the Supreme Court decisions, and so on, the absence of
coverage
was inexusable.


Yeah, it's that damned extreme right wing media that messed that up.
Jennings,
Rather, Matthews, and that whole neocon bunch oughta be
horsewhipped.

Do you suppose that some rational Democrats, (I assume there are a
few around),
saw such childish, moronic behavior as embarassing to their cause,
and chose to
ignore it?

So, the radical rational wing of the Democratic party really DOES
control the news media?

Grow up Scott.

Get your head out of your ass, George.

Wolfgang