DescentBB

Ted Koppel read the names of the US soldiers who have died in Iraq on nightline.
Do you think this is a politically motivated broadcast, or an honor to those who have died?

I remember in the gulf war, similar things were done, and it was considered honoring. Why now is it considered by some to be a political message?

I think its a good thing to have the names of all who have died in Iraq read over the air, or put into some widely distributed media. The deserve at least that much honor for what theyre supposed to be dying for.

Seems like most mass-market media outlets have basically reduced the sodiers who die on a dialy basis in Iraq to statistics, with headlines like "5 soldiers die in blast" and almost no mention of the soldiers names anywhere else. The administration also seems coldly content to allow this to happen.

The real life cost of this war seems to be getting lost. Maybe this move by Koppel will help the American Public get back in touch with it, and get them to question wether that cost is worth it to accomplish the administrations goals for Iraq. (I will not discuss what I believe to be the administrations motives, I think thats been discussed to death in several other threads)

I'm curious if anyone actually watched it.

I think it was calculated to be controversial in order to boost ratings. I suppose it's considered by some to be a concealed political message because the war is unpopular in some circles and there are so many politcal messages being made.

Bash - I didn't watch it. Network news anchors come across to me as being revoltingly pompous and self-important.

I think the ratings angle is the primary reason.

However...

I also think there is a lets shake up the public about Iraq angle because if they really wanted to honor the dead that fought in the 'war on terror' they wouldn't have excluded the soldiers who died in Afghanistan!
They obviously decided that the war in Iraq is not the same as the war in Afghanistan and that is a calculation that has political motive written all over it.

I think it's good they showed the names and faces of our brave soldiers. I think it's shameful they left out those that died in Afghanistan.
I think they left them out because Afghanistan would be too much of a reminder of why we started this whole thing ie; Sept. 11.

The anti-war crowd wants to seperate Iraq from the war on terror in the publics mind and the ommision of those who died in Afghanistan fits that template.

To bad Teddy didn't alternate between the faces of the soldiers with those that died on 9/11. Of course that would have smacked of fair and balanced reporting and we couldn't have that now could we.

so Bush can use 9/11 photos for his campaign but he's complaining about these photos and those of dead bodies coming back being used for political purposes?

I don't watch the news. Who is Ted Koppel and why is anything he says even remotely important?

Zuruck wrote:so Bush can use 9/11 photos for his campaign but he's complaining about these photos and those of dead bodies coming back being used for political purposes?

Yes, Bush used 9/11 photos in a political ad. But what is presently at issue is whether Nightline is journalism or just a crypto-political ad. This issue would not arise if Kerry put out an ad showing, say, flag-draped coffins.

Dedman - I don't think you're missing much.

This issue would not arise if Kerry put out an ad showing, say, flag-draped coffins.

I don't think I could disagree with you more, perhaps it is sarcasm that went over my head.

Gooberman wrote:

This issue would not arise if Kerry put out an ad showing, say, flag-draped coffins.

I don't think I could disagree with you more, perhaps it is sarcasm that went over my head.

By "this issue", I meant confusion over whether it was an political ad or not. If Kerry did it instead of Nightline, there would be no confusion. Whether it would be appropriate, wise, etc. of Kerry to do so is another issue altogether.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Birdseye wrote:Why now is it considered by some to be a political message?

Because of paranoid war supporters that confuse giving respects to those who died with evil liberal media agendas.

Is it strange to do it while the war is still in progress? Perhaps it reeks of an ulterior agenda. But, then again, the war ended a year ago, right? Regardless to the war schizophrenics, Koppel did the Nightline episode, some people watched, and we moved on. Nothing in Iraq changed. Nothing about the ongoing fighting changed. Nothing changed. Therefore, if it was some ulterior agenda, it failed miserably. On the other hand, if it were truly designed to pay respects to those who died, then it served its purpose quietly and elegantly.

Kyouryuu wrote:...Nothing changed. Therefore, if it was some ulterior agenda, it failed miserably....

You know that how?
Have you taken a poll of all americans since the broadcast?
Are you certain no one will change their view based on cumulative efforts to convince them?

Some things take time, whether it's building support for an alternative candidate or swaying public opinion on a war.

You seem to have a habit of trying to simplify the viewpoints you disagree with so you can summarily dismiss them instead of exploring a concept from more than just your initial perspective.

Will Robinson wrote:Are you certain no one will change their view based on cumulative efforts to convince them?

No one who can stop the war. I don't see Senators rushing to cancel the war and bring everyone home, or Bush bawling his eyes out, do you? You morphed the question from "How will people react to Koppel's story" to "What is the cumulative effect of these kinds of stories." I'm not interested in the latter and it is clearly beyond the narrow scope of this thread. My point is, I don't think Koppel's story would have ignited some mass firestorm against the Administration for its handling of the war, and thus far it hasn't.

Cumulatively, who knows? But that is not the point of this thread. I would speculate that the endless stream of bad news emerging from Iraq is part of a means of swaying people against it. There is a lot of good happening in Iraq that is never reported. But, likewise, there is a lot of good happening everywhere that is never reported. Our media dwells on bad and depressing news, always focusing on the negatives and rarely on the brighter side of things.

Koppel's story is part of a larger machine, I'm sure. But as a single event, it does not matter. It's not a reach to say you probably didn't make the war supporters shy away from war, and you didn't make the peaceniks like it any better.

Well another way to look at this is through the bank teller cage. Seems Ted "Copulator" Koppel's show was on the eve of the May sweeps. You know...the month where the t.v. shows try to get a high rating so they can charge the advertisers more. I'm sure the May sweeps were just a coincidence and not something that Ted had planned on

Kyouryuu wrote:...You morphed the question from "How will people react to Koppel's story" to "What is the cumulative effect of these kinds of stories."....

I didn't morph anything, you just did.

The title asked "...what do you think?"

The question specifically asked:
"Do you think this is a politically motivated broadcast, or an honor to those who have died?"

You want to dismiss the notion that politics could be one of the motives because 'senators didn't rush' to do something in the immediate wake of the broadcast?!? Because no one 'called the war off' before the next sunset?!?!

Are you really that naive or just more stubborn than even I am?

Excuse me, oh stubborn one. I am not "dismissing" anything other than the paranoia that suggests there would be mass fallout from the Koppel program. Singularly, there has not been any such fallout and the program was so cheapened, I doubt it has left any lasting impact.

Cumulatively, yes, the program is a cog in a much larger anti-war machine driven by the media.

Think before you hit that "Submit" button next time.

Cumulatively, yes, the program is a cog in a much larger anti-war machine driven by the media.

Thank you.

Way to distort another discussion, Sol. No one predicted there would be any *MASS FALLOUT*, but rather that the stated motives for Ted's highly professional list-reading were falsely presented. Americans can take all sorts of partisan shenanigans as long as it's done out in the open. Ted & Crew were misrepresenting their reasons, plain and simple, by calling it a *tribute* and feigning ignorance that it was happening during a sweeps week. Nothing pisses us off more than being lied to (with the possible exception of being lied to by a Canadian with a lump of roadkill on his head). As it stands, I'm happy to note that it completely backfired on ABC. The controversy entirely overshadowed the program. Plus, in reaction, FOX NEWS (aaaaaah!!!1one) is planning a more in-depth presentation on the state of the Iraqi liberation that will include not just body counts but also an enumeration of American successes.

Guys, tone it down... we can do without the name-calling.

To answer the original question:

Do you think this is a politically motivated broadcast, or an honor to those who have died?

It was a politically motivated broadcast, as Kyouryuu and others have said. It was done with the intent to boost ratings and to continue to add to the public perception that "this is just like Vietnam".

The broadcast itself will not have any great direct effect -- but it's a calculated part of a larger effort.

bash wrote:No one predicted there would be any *MASS FALLOUT*,

Then why the call to censor it? Censorship is often (though not always) linked to damage control. Someone was clearly thinking that it would be detrimental to morale about the war on the homefront. I'm not claiming there would be a mass over-reaction to it, certainly nothing that would prompt the program to be censored. But there would be a reaction. Alas, some paranoid souls saw it more extremely, I guess, and refused to air Nightline that evening.

bash wrote:Nothing pisses us off more than being lied to (with the possible exception of being lied to by a Canadian with a lump of roadkill on his head).

I don't know. That perpetual shine in Sam Donaldson's hair freaks me out.

bash wrote:FOX NEWS (aaaaaah!!!1one) is planning a more in-depth presentation on the state of the Iraqi liberation that will include not just body counts but also an enumeration of American successes.

As it should be.

Sol, consider for a moment that the largest single entity that practices censorship is the news media itself. Although they call it *editing* and *gatekeeping*. It's all in how you look at it.

Tis true. And tis a sneakier kind of censorship because you never hear anyone doing it. It's just when the politicians call for it that it's a horrendously evil, bad, terrible thing to do.

You bring up a most interesting point.

As for the question of censoring it... IMO, the fact that we're having this discussion and that virtually everyone recognizes it as a politically motivated broadcast shows that the call was successful. The broadcast wasn't censored, but the controversy made it much less potent.

Perhaps. Or maybe it made it more potent, seeing as the protest against it drew attention toward it. I can only speak for myself, but I would have known nothing about the broadcast until the "controversy" brought it up.

I have my suspicions the pseudo-patriotic Koppel wouldn't have even done it if there were no controversy to boost ratings.

That was the whole point...