TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › ABC's Woodruff more important than our troops?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ABC's Woodruff more important than our troops?

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
I don't think so!

Dan
post #2 of 16
I think the extensive coverage comes from the fact that he is a part of the media and they are the ones covering the news.... He is "one of their own" so I think they tend to focus on him more.
post #3 of 16
No, but he is familiar to more people than a regular soldier would be.
post #4 of 16
Well, no he isn't, but the care that he's getting is the same care that our troops get when they're casualties...and highlights how much is done to save their lives.
post #5 of 16
That is really a fabulous article. It really shows just how much, from even a reporter's point of view, isn't being told to the American public. But even this article won't make much of a ripple past the website - I would guess that major newspapers passed on it - because it doesn't contain that "hook" that she talks about.
post #6 of 16
I saw the story about the Balad hospital and, even without Woodruff, it would have been a good story. The work being done there and the lives being saved is enough of a "news hook" for ME. When Woodruff was evaced to Lanstuhl, there was a casual mention that there were some 250 wounded troops on the same plane.

As for these embedded reporters, I have mixed feelings. Getting the news is important to me. I would like it better, if they'd file stories, without the spin. Their presence puts the fighting troops at risk, because these reporters have to be protected. Personally, I think that the networks and newspapers should pay for private security for their people who CHOOSE to work in a war zone.
post #7 of 16
I really liked that article. I read it a few days ago at work, and thought it would be a great post for IMO.
While I understand the press giving more coverage to "one of their own", and the people being more interested in stories about someone they have seen on TV before, I also understand the feelings of the military people. This article was a great way to balance that....I read every name at the end of the article.

Prayers for the safety of each active military member and their families. And also for the injured, including the reporter and the camera man...that they might heal and recover. And I include the Iraqi soldiers and people who are fighting so hard for freedom, after living under oppression for so many years.
post #8 of 16
I made this exact same point when I heard this story!

SO WHAT!!
Not that I don't care that another human being was hurt by this ridiculous war but men die over there everyday almost.

Do they get front page headlines???
WHY NOT?
And why does this man deserve it for "injuries".

This is a bunch of B.S. if you ask me!!
post #9 of 16
As others have pointed out, Woodruff was already familiar to the viewing public. And his injuries certainly caused a reaction in the press (like when someone your age dies; it's just a basic, human, "that could have been me" reaction).

Some of the reporting also comes under the umbrella of "if a dog bites a man, it's not news; if a man bites a dog, it's news." It's terrible that so many men—civilians and military—are dying there, and every single soldier that dies surely had a life story, a family, dreams for his future. But the business of war is death, and soldiers are the instruments of that death. Because so many soldiers die in war (and also because they are by their very nature anonymous—when you look at a soldier, do you see his face, or do you see his uniform?), the death of an individual soldier won't be covered as much in the media.

I'm not saying that's right. It just is. And before we start self-righteously condemning the media, we should ask ourselves how quickly we would become numb to these soldiers' deaths if we did see the details of each one? How many people would continue to read each one, day after day, year after year, until the war was over? And what about the Iraqis? Do they not count because they are not us?
post #10 of 16
The village idiot in the White House is deliberately keeping the media from doing any in-depth reporting on the dead and wounded soldiers. It's not good press for his war. Remember the uproar when the media printed photos of flag draped caskets on a military transport ? They think if we don't see the caskets or the funerals or the mourners the war won't bother us.

Bob Woodward is a public figure so it's only natural to have all this press coverage. It doesn't mean he's more important that every other man and woman who has given life or limb in service to our country.
post #11 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessandra
The village idiot in the White House is deliberately keeping the media from doing any in-depth reporting on the dead and wounded soldiers. It's not good press for his war. Remember the uproar when the media printed photos of flag draped caskets on a military transport ? They think if we don't see the caskets or the funerals or the mourners the war won't bother us.
Contrary to the conspiracy theories, Bush and his administration simply don't have that kind of power. Little thing called the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Considering the press were practically counting down to the 1000th soldier killed, I wouldn't say the press isn't covering it. I know our local press covers EVERY soldier killed with ties to Colorado, and considering there are a lot troops deployed from Ft. Carson in Colorado Springs, there is a lot of coverage from both sides. We see the ones who aren't coming home, and we see the ones who are home and hear their side of the story. The national media seemed to lose interest in the story except to give the daily tallies of the dead, I guess the individuals aren't worth their time - unless it's one of their own who ALSO voluteered.
post #12 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessandra
The village idiot in the White House is deliberately keeping the media from doing any in-depth reporting on the dead and wounded soldiers. It's not good press for his war. Remember the uproar when the media printed photos of flag draped caskets on a military transport ? They think if we don't see the caskets or the funerals or the mourners the war won't bother us.
Also remember this, this policy has been around the Pentagon for over 15 years because the families wanted it that way. Its not just a bush thing that you keep thinking that it is. Research before saying something that is totally not founded. I know this because I was in the military when this policy was enacted.
post #13 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arg0
Also remember this, this policy has been around the Pentagon for over 15 years because the families wanted it that way. Its not just a bush thing that you keep thinking that it is. Research before saying something that is totally not founded. I know this becasue I was in the military then this policy was enacted.
One might suggest you read the name of this forum .. it's called In My Opinion, not Attack My Opinion.

You may have been in the military but those close to the press know differently.
post #14 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessandra
One might suggest you read the name of this forum .. it's called In My Opinion, not Attack My Opinion.

You may have been in the military but those close to the press know differently.
And do you speak for the press? Do you speak for the National Press Association or any other smiliar orgainzation who actually speak for the press? And yes I have been in the Military but I do know the policies regarding of said subject. Thats not an attack, thats just stating fact.

As for the press, maybe you should look up Near vs. Minnesota. It gives a ton of power to the press. Oh and you think the military is hiding the facts behind of death and wounded, maybe you should think different and look at this blog located here and especially read this blog written back in August of 05. Sure the military wants to hide this from the public. Yeah those pictures aren't real. Yeah that story wasn't submitted for a Pulitzer Prize.
post #15 of 16
I feel very bad for the guy, but I'm sure he knew that getting hurt was a possibility there. Just like our soldiers. I personally don't watch or read much news if any associated with this. It's too close to home. DH told me the hospitals there on the bases seemed good. In his line of work he dealt with that a bit.
post #16 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arg0
And do you speak for the press? Do you speak for the National Press Association or any other smiliar orgainzation who actually speak for the press? And yes I have been in the Military but I do know the policies regarding of said subject. Thats not an attack, thats just stating fact.

As for the press, maybe you should look up Near vs. Minnesota. It gives a ton of power to the press. Oh and you think the military is hiding the facts behind of death and wounded, maybe you should think different and look at this blog located here and especially read this blog written back in August of 05. Sure the military wants to hide this from the public. Yeah those pictures aren't real. Yeah that story wasn't submitted for a Pulitzer Prize.
Since it appears that you completely misunderstood my post I'll make no further response. Feel free to continue without me. I have more important things to do with my time.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › ABC's Woodruff more important than our troops?