When I began this blog in 2001, I was appalled by President Bush's headlong rush to an illegal war (we were not in fact under attack). As time wore on and Bush began his assault on the Constitution and any people bold enough to criticize, I believed that "the republic is endangered more by actions of our own government than by those of any terrorist." With the election of a high-minded, compassionate, intelligent man like Barack Obama, my fears have ceased.
"Honor them with peace, not war"
United for Peace
Thursday, September 02, 2004
Reporters need to open their eyes when covering events, to be in and amongst the actors of events, to find out what is happening and what is 'news.' They do not do that; instead, they seem to look for the expected. Like men sizing up a female form for potential bed-worthiness, they do not see the living, thinnking, feeling human individual before them.
According to a NY Times report this morning, the television crews can't figure out what to cover in protests because they are not violent.
Since they cannot label the organization behind the protest, they seem mostly to ignore the protesters.
Since I am not there, but at home in an old, struggling former mill city in eastern Connecticut, I would like very much if the reporters would provide a survey of the various sorts of protests there.
It hasn't occurred to the reporters apparently, that a great many Americans are very upset with Bush (I imagine those who actually went to New York are a small handful of the anti-Bush people), nor have they noticed that Bush has given us many reasons to be upset, not just one.
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
Open eyes
Convention coverage lacking
Reporters need to open their eyes when covering events, to be in and amongst the actors of events, to find out what is happening and what is 'news.' They do not do that; instead, they seem to look for the expected. Like men sizing up a female form for potential bed-worthiness, they do not see the living, thinnking, feeling human individual before them.
According to a NY Times report this morning, the television crews can't figure out what to cover in protests because they are not violent.
"It is almost easier to explain what you are not getting here," said Ted Koppel, anchor and managing editor of ABC's "Nightline," when he was asked why news organizations have given little time to the protests. "What you are not getting here is a replay of 1968 in Chicago."The Times itself seems to have resorted to reporting on the reportage, though toward the end of the article it is mentioned that the protests do not form a cohesive whole.
Since they cannot label the organization behind the protest, they seem mostly to ignore the protesters.
Since I am not there, but at home in an old, struggling former mill city in eastern Connecticut, I would like very much if the reporters would provide a survey of the various sorts of protests there.
It hasn't occurred to the reporters apparently, that a great many Americans are very upset with Bush (I imagine those who actually went to New York are a small handful of the anti-Bush people), nor have they noticed that Bush has given us many reasons to be upset, not just one.
Palema
7:01 AM
Comments:
Post a Comment
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
|
|