Why the fuck aren't news organizations reporting important news recently?

xfer

xfer

I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
Nov 8, 2001
25,932
13
38
46
New York City
www.geocities.com
Maybe I read CNN and MSNBC too much, but over the past couple of days here are some important events that did not seem to make their front pages:

* Polish Prime Minister Miller RESIGNS
* Five Westerners and others killed in shooting in Saudi Arabia
* Pregnant Israeli woman and her four children killed by Palestinian terrorists, who run forward and videotape them bleeding to death
* Ajaria blows up three bridges connecting it to Georgia

among other things. THANK YOU WIKIPEDIA.
 
Did you ever read that :

0375714499.jpg


Recommended to answer your question, although it is not that objective of a work it is well researched.
 
Depends on what they are trying to get across at that precise moment. The book basically says that the mass media follows government policies wether it realizes it or not. Meaning that there are worthy news and unworthy news and that since investigative journalism is basically dead all journalists do is analyze info that is given by the Government (reports, press conference, inside info all from the same source). Depending on the moment different actions can be taken, or news manufactured to flood the news services so that another news is given very little attention. I don't know why these news were not covered, but I am betting the government had something more important to get across in the past few days.
 
If anything, this seems to show that the government has NO control over the media.

* Miller's resignation one day before the EU stuff seems to criticize the EU. (Although since Poland is the premier non-UK American ally in Iraq and governments are struggling with popular disapproval, perhaps hiding Miller's resignation was better)

* The other three events help boost the War on Terror and lend legitimacy to it.

* I'm sure the government would not be broadcasting these torture images everywhere if they could avoid it, much less minimizing other stories to do so.
 
I honestly think that people in the US simply don't care very much about int'l news and could care less. unless you specifically spell out what each of those things means for us here, I'd wager most anyone would skip over em.
 
I dunno, machine-gunning a pregnant woman and four little children and then standing over their bodies videotaping until they've all bled to death seems gory enough to pique the American palate.
 
It all depends, Mindspell is right.

I write for B92.net the english site.

All I've been writing about for the past two days is the surrender of Milorad "Legija" Lukovic, the alleged mastermind of the Djindjic assasination.

But if you look at the content of the english site and the serbia, supposing you can read serbian, it's quite different.

It all depends on who is reading.

We write news for foreign businesspeople, investors, Serbians living outside the country, etc.
So we tend to cut alot of stuff that's very important locally but not to our readers and add stuff that no one living in Belgrade actually cares about.
 
xfer said:
If anything, this seems to show that the government has NO control over the media.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, how do you know that any of these events are really that beneficial to the government in the end? For example, the Israeli women and her children getting killed: With as much crap that Bush is getting right now for endorsing Sharon's plan and the damn certain retaliation of the Israeli army regarding this event, do they actually want that, and the subsequent events in the front page?
 
But Sharon's plan didn't pass, so...well, yes, actually I can see how Bush may be trying to pave over his failure (it's been unreported in the American press, but this is a MAJOR error on Bush's part; the Administration spent a ton of political capital endorsing the plan, which Sharon assured them would pass).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back