Media on the Military II

Colleges & Universities Service Academy Parents
1

<p>No World Cup Soccer for U.S. Troops </p>

<pre><code> By Richard Sandomir The New York Times
Lieutenant Erin Kelly of the U.S. Marines, a soccer player in high school in the United States and at the U.S. Naval Academy, is in her second tour of duty in Iraq and was looking forward to watching the World Cup on television.
</code></pre>

<p>But when word came last week that FIFA’s media representative would not make a deal with the Defense Department’s American Forces Network, she wrote in an e-mail message to her father, John, “Can you believe this?”</p>

<p>Her message, which was provided by her father, was prompted by one sent by a serviceman to her and other military personnel that said: “It is a sad day indeed. AFN will not carry any World Cup matches. Not even U.S. games.”</p>

<p>The network is part of the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service.</p>

<p>Kelly, her father said, is friends with Tim Howard, the goalkeeper at her high school in New Jersey and now a member of the U.S. World Cup team. Howard also plays for Manchester United.</p>

<p>“This would have been pretty big for them over there,” John Kelly said. “They don’t have much else.”</p>

<p>Commander Greg Kicks, a Pentagon spokesman, said that although the major sports leagues in the United States provided free coverage of their games, the Switzerland-based Infront Sports and Media, which distributes World Cup rights for FIFA, world soccer’s governing body, sought a rights fee.</p>

<p>Kicks said that the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service had no budget for sports programming.</p>

<p>“We rely on the generosity of many organizations to support our military members by providing sports programming free of charge,” he said.</p>

<p>He said that many U.S. military personnel based overseas would be able to watch the World Cup on commercial cable or other outlets. But those who, like Kelly, are stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan and aboard ships are largely dependent on the network’s satellite.</p>

<p>“It’s disappointing and it’s unfortunate,” he said. About 1 million military personnel and their families watch the network in 177 countries.</p>

<p>E-mail messages to FIFA were not returned.</p>

<p>Scott Sandahl, a master sergeant at the Yokota Air Base in Japan, who is also a soccer referee, said on Monday in the military newspaper Stars and Stripes: “It’s sad that money has dictated that military service members won’t see the World Cup. This is the biggest sport in the world. For people stationed overseas, it’s a big part of the culture all around us.”</p>

<p>“This is the big-money rights holders saying they don’t care,” he added, “that the U.S. military isn’t worth donating or giving it at a fraction of the cost to AFN.”</p>

2

<p>Tell me… Do you ever post anything POSITIVE about the media and the military, or is it just that the media NEVER writes ANYTHING positive about the military anymore? </p>

<p>Just wondering… :rolleyes:</p>

3

<p>Oh, are you still here? I thought you and your radioactive buddy had left to monopolize another website, bullying and berating a fresh crop of unsuspecting posters. Do me a favor and don’t respond to my posts, because we have nothing to discuss.</p>

4

<p>Wow. What brings this on? :confused:</p>

<p>Bullying and berating? :confused:</p>

<p>Well, if that’s the way you feel, then so be it. Nothing you post ever makes any sense anyway. Your response above has shown that once again.</p>

<p>Have fun. :rolleyes:</p>

5

<p>Oh noes, I gots insulted by a growned-up on the intraweb.</p>

6

<p>Hmmmmm…</p>

<p>"Conservatives often promote the myth that the U.S. media are liberal. This myth serves several purposes: it raises public skepticism about liberal news stories, hides conservative bias when it appears, and goads the media to the right. GOP strategist William Kristol also reveals another reason: “I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.” (1)</p>

<p>In unguarded moments, however, even far-right figures like Pat Buchanan come clean: “The truth is, I’ve gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive.” He further conceded: “I’ve gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage – all we could have asked… For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that.” (2)</p>

<p>So what’s the real story? The fact is that conservatives have powerful friends in the media: the corporations that own them, and the corporations that pay for their advertising. These giant firms have been increasingly successful in bending the media’s message to suit their self-interests, which include a conservative and pro-corporate agenda. Studies show that the media are eerily silent on the issues most important to workers, consumers and other citizens adversely affected by corporate behavior. Conservatives respond to these charges with (old) polls showing that most journalists are personally liberal, but these polls are outdated. New polls show the majority of journalists are centrists. And of those who are not centrists, there are more conservatives than liberals on economic issues." </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm[/url]”>http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>It’s interesting when you start looking at WHO owns most of the major media outlets, esp the television ones…it ain’t Ted Kennedy or John McCain types.
Now I got nothing against big corporations (I work for one), but there is reality, and there is reality. The “liberal media” is a myth.</p>

<p>Zaph, its not about posting “positive” or “negative” stories, its whether or not what is written or reported is the truth. The truth is what it is. Good or bad. Expecting that somehow the “good truth” should somehow out weigh or equal the “bad truth” in the media is a fools game.</p>

<p>Was there something somehow unfactual about the soccer story posted above?–because when it comes down to it, I am only interested in ensuring the news is factual, not “good or bad”.</p>

7

<p>

</p>

<p>Yeah, but funny how the “truth” posted by some people is ALWAYS about how there is something WRONG with the military, the war effort, how the troops are treated, etc.</p>

<p>And if you think the “liberal media” is a myth, well, then you’re just not paying attention because it is blatantly obvious. Coverage of Abu Grahib, forged documents in Texas, throwing the Haditha Marines to the wolves without the investigation being complete, etc. The examples go on and on.</p>

<p>But hey, there are people running around claiming we never landed on the moon, that the Earth is 6,000 years old, and that the Holocaust never happend, so I guess we can have people who think the media is actually NOT overwhelmingly liberal. They all have proof on the internet, so it must be true.</p>

<p>Also, that site you posted is interesting. It refers to conservative radio as “right-wing propaganda”. Gee, it’s not whether it’s propaganda, is it, but rather if it’s true or not, right? So why do I get called to task by you for asking a simple question about an obvious trend, but then you link to an article obviously written by a leftist on a website with only a person’s name and using terminology like that? Do you actually consider that article to be “balanced”? Does the fact that coservatism"dominates the talk radio spectrum" in any way offset that liberalism dominates TV, newspaper, wire, and magazine media?</p>

<p>So if we happen to have dominated ONE type of media we control ALL the media? Just because Fox News is the one channel where Conservatism gets a reasonably fair shake, we can ignore CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS (falsifiers, TWICE), etc?</p>

<p>OK. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Whatever. If you guys want to continue posting negativism, and then defending it by talking about whether it’s the truth and whatnot, knock yourselves out, but you’re fooling no one.</p>

8

<p>“throwing the Haditha Marines to the wolves without the investigation being complete, etc. The examples go on and on”</p>

<p>How exactly did mainstream media reporting “throw the marines to the wolves?”
Should the media NOT have reported the announcement BY THE MARINES that the investigation was underway?</p>

<pre><code> Fox news conducts a trial by media pundits on every sensational murder/rape/assault in the US BEFORE the trial even starts that is a heck of a lot more “unfair” than mainstream media reporting of the Haditha incident.
</code></pre>

<p>Did Abu Grahib NOT happen? Was it “blown” out of proportion? Should there have been no media reporting of that incident? Did the “liberal” media take those pictures?</p>

<p>Or is the truth much simpler than that? The truth being that in every organization (Army, Marines, whatever) there are sometimes “bad apples”, there are emotions that get in the way of orders, there are individuals who’s perceptions of right and wrong get blurred by circumstances and loyalties. These are exceptions to the norm, but the moment the people start getting the idea that these incidents are getting buried and hidden, or that the reporting of news is somehow “affected” by someones opinion of what “should” be reported, then the perception becomes that these “exceptions” to the behavior of our young fighting men and women must somehow really be the “rule”----and that is a very dangerous situation, both for our own military and for the people we claim we are protecting and liberating. </p>

<p>I don’t want the media to report negativism, Zaph, just the truth. If its negative, so be it. If it’s positive, so be it. But remember who the people are that own these huge media outlets----</p>

<p>Rupert Murdoch (NewsCorp)–Fox News, New York Post, London Times, etc
General Electric—NBC News
Disney-----ABC News
Viacom—CBS News
AOL Time Warner----CNN </p>

<p>These are corporations whos reason for being is to produce profit (the American Way, and I’m all for it)— but remember what kind of political and economic climate corporations in America tend to support, and it isn’t the “tree-hugging” liberals. If the bottom line answer is that these parent corporations are somehow “pushing” media reporting to the left then we have a VERY interesting situation. If the bottom line is that these parent corporations are pushing “anti-Iraq” reporting then again, VERY interesting, because that would only occur if it was affecting THEIR bottom line.</p>

9

<p>“Just because Fox News is the one channel where Conservatism gets a reasonably fair shake”</p>

<p>Is that the purpose of Fox News Channel? Is it the duty of ANY free news media outlet to give ANY political point of view a “fair shake?” I would submit that the purpose of Fox News isn’t to give the truth a fair shake, just the “right wing conservative version truth”.</p>

<p>I would submit that a “fair shake” is to report the news, not mold and prep it so it looks “fair and balanced”.</p>

<p>Fox news is the extension of the political and social philosophies of one man,</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.time.com/time/magazine/intl/article/0,9171,1107991025-33716,00.html[/url]”>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/intl/article/0,9171,1107991025-33716,00.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Oh well, at least the Chinese government likes him.</p>

10

<p>June 14, 2006
Navy-Air Force Football Game To Be Replayed Tonight On CSTV</p>

<p>ANNAPOLIS, Md.‹Navy fans in need of a football fix can get one tonight at 9 p.m. when CSTV rebroadcasts Navy¹s thrilling 27-24 victory over Air Force on Oct. 8.</p>

11

<p>“Commander Greg Kicks, a Pentagon spokesman, said that although the major sports leagues in the United States provided free coverage of their games, the Switzerland-based Infront Sports and Media, which distributes World Cup rights for FIFA, world soccer’s governing body, sought a rights fee.”</p>

<p>I will summarize the original story for anyone who may have interpreted this article as negative toward the military. It stated that Infront Sports and Media was unwilling to donate World Cup Soccer programs to our troops. Some of my students have problems understanding informational text too.</p>

12

<p>I’m sorry I don’t understand the problem. Is the problem that FIFA doesn’t want to give the US Military something it doesn’t do for any other Army of the world? </p>

<p>Does that make them bad? Evil? How does the press reporting it become “liberal” and worth comdemnation? </p>

<p>FIFA does not belong to the US (at least not yet, maybe if they had oil ) it doesn’t need American dollars to function, it has done well on it’s own for many years. While the American market has a future, why would they need to “give” it anything? This is the most viewed sporting event on the planet. </p>

<p>Why are they bad for saying “no” to us? must we villify them?</p>

<p>I have all the respect for the people who serve, so don’t go there please. However, shouldn’t the displeasure be placed on the leadership? I mean if they can give no bid government contracts worth BILLIONS of dollars to political allies, couldn’t Haliburton use some of their excessive profits to do something for the troops? </p>

<p>Why is FIFA at fault for something “we” should have done for our service men and women?</p>

13

<p>Here come the liberals…</p>

<p>FIFA won’t give free coverage to U.S. military…</p>

<p>Haliburton is evil!!111oneoneeleventybillionandone
Bush is a dictator!!!111!!11oneone!!11
We shouldn’t be in Iraq and the mission is evil, but we support the troops!!!</p>

<p>How do your minds work? Why is it that ANY mention of ANYTHING brings you people back to the same silly topic that has been disproven time and time again?</p>

<p>Halliburton is one of the few companies IN THE WORLD that can handle large-scale operations such as those going on in Iraq. In fact, some of you may remember the Dubai Ports fiasco. Do you know that the only U.S. company capable of handling such an operation is Halliburton?</p>

<p><a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;

14

<p>

</p>

<p>Agreed. Wonderful. Now go tell that to the mainstream media. </p>

<p>They will, of course, ignore you because the truth doesn’t matter to them. The AGENDA does, and that agenda is almost entirely liberal. </p>

<p>They’ll show Abu Grahib photos over and over and over again (despite the damage it does to our nation and our war effort), but not images of 9/11 (which remind the people what this is all about, but “might be hurtful to people”). :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq, Bush lied, blah, blah, blah.</p>

<p>Now you have journalists asking questions like, “Did U.S. soldiers beat Zarqawi after his capture? Was propoer medical treatment denied? Will his body be treated in accordance with Muslim law?” etc. Imagine the media asking that about Hitler or Tojo or anyone else during WWII. You can’t? Exactly, because back then they were at least MOSTLY on our side.</p>

<p>Look, you’ll have to forgive me, but if you can’t see what is so blatantly obvious, I’m not going to waste my time trying to help you see it. For someone who is so big on “the truth”, you sure do allow a lot of BS to be passed off as it. </p>

<p>To actually believe that channels such as CNN don’t spin the news, or that newspapers like the New York Times don’t print stories they WANT to be true (rather than ARE true), or that networks like CBS don’t MAKE UP news, is simply denying reality.</p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh, good GRIEF!</p>

<p>That’s it! I’m done! I cannot handle such naked STUPIDITY any longer!</p>

<p><zaphod throws=“” up=“” his=“” hands=“” and=“” walks=“” out=“” in=“” disgust.=“”></zaphod></p>

16

<p>Zaph, Halliburton has already been exposed by congress for overcharging on items supplied on a no-bid contract. That doesn’t make them evil, just greedy, and they got caught. Expect any large corporation for profit to do whats in their best interests (to include anything they can get away with). It was NOT some great conspiracy between Bush, Cheney, and Halliburton…just simple corporate greed, and failure to execute on behalf of the gov’t. Shame on us for not having proper oversight on how OUR tax dollars are spent (no matter what the cause).</p>

<p>As far as TN’s statements about Bush being “evil” I don’t think anyone here is saying that. It’s his level of competence and ability to make good decisions based on the available information that many question, as is their right to do. Bush is a loyal American president doing what he thinks is best for the country—a truth that doesn’t mean he doesn’t or hasn’t made serious mistakes.</p>

<p>The issue of Iraq has been thrown on the table and stomped on enough on these forums alone, by myself, Zaph, and a lot of other folks. History will tell the final story. The truth, no matter what it is, usually comes out. Bush may well be proved right, but maybe not for the reasons he thinks. Certainly the justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq has changed as time as progressed. We’re there—lets just deal with it and try to salvage what we can.</p>

<p>I haven’t seen an Abu-Grahib photo on the mainstream news in many months. </p>

<p>As far as the journalists asking questions that others don’t like, I say good. Thats the way its supposed to be. Questions not asked tend to get answered in ways we really don’t like.</p>

17

<p>tactical,</p>

<p>So if FIFA operates on a Capitalist principle and I support it, I’m a liberal commie? :slight_smile: please… save your knee jerk reactions for your buddies. </p>

<p>Again Mr. “right” side, tell us WHY it is FIFA’s obligation to “give” the US military anything for free? </p>

<p>If HB were the best, at the best price, wouldn’t a normal bidding process show that? :slight_smile: IT wasn’t like there wasn’t time to put one together. :slight_smile: This was planned for awhile. Three bids? UnAmerican?</p>

<p>If a demo was in power, you’d blow a fuse over this lack of follow through… spending your money without checking for the best deal…</p>

<p>Why is it any question of this administration or normal business practices, even by those who vote old school gop, is immediately met with tirades like yours? </p>

<p>And sorry, Iraq was a mistake, always has been. Jr should have read Dad’s book or asked him why he didn’t do it when we had the world’s support. Sr knew the answer, jr didn’t.</p>

18

<p>zaph, </p>

<p>Sorry you see my opinion as stupidity. Too bad, I guess. I guess a reasoned answer is out of the question. Sort of like when a child asks a parent about something and the parent yells “because I said so!” and then throws his hands up and walks out of the room. :slight_smile: Or my other personal favorite… “because I’m the boss!” </p>

<p>Not really an answer to the question is it?</p>

<p>What’s wrong with Haliburton bucking up for the troops?
Don’t you think the troops deserve it? You don’t support the troops? :)</p>

<p>Haliburton has a much closer connection to the situation than FIFA.
Haliburton spends millions upon millions every year buying gifts, dinners, trips etc… They would even get a tax write off for doing it, PLUS some much needed PR. </p>

<p>That’s just business as it is practiced in America. How many companies send customers to Vegas for “workshops” every year? I’m not even singling HB out, they should have had somebody on it already. It would have been a smart move for them, big postive evening news press.</p>

<p>But I guess this is just a leftist, hippie concept…:)</p>

19

<p>Hmmmm. . . . so much to say, so little desire to stir things up again.</p>

20

<p>Did I say FIFA should be obligated to give coverage? Oh that’s right, I didn’t. Silly me, you would’ve thought I did say that.</p>

<p>What I said was that here we are talking about FIFA and the military, and their interaction. Then all of a sudden, out of nowhere, you start talking about Halliburton. Now you’re continuing to do so. How does that have ANY bearing on the current line of discussion? Why is it that since you liberals can’t figure out a way to prove things by, say, facts, you instead just say them over and over and over again. Eventually they’re said so much in so many places that you reference this propoganda and speak it as fact. If only the world were so simple.</p>

<p>In today’s news with Opie:</p>

<p>Today a small child was killed in a drive-by [Halliburton should’ve supplied him with a custom-fitted Pinnacle full-wrap armor system. They’re an evil corporation that has profited from the war in Iraq and should give back to society.] Funderal services will be held at…</p>