Private Lynch

[JimmyBlueEyes]

You know, we're reading and seeing so much about this girl and her harrowing, as the press puts it, ordeal in the hands of her Iraqi captors. Now, what is the big friggin deal?? We're now hearing a lot of the story was made up and bullshit. What about those in her unit that were also captured, why is there no big deal made over them?? Is it because she wasn't paraded on TV like her fellow soldiers?? Or is it because when you look at her non military pictures, she's a little hottie, and her fellow soldiers aren't?? Or is it for some other reason. Enquiring minds want to know. Discuss.

[FoundryMusicJoe]

The American Media is a bunch of self important exaderators! And it is our fault for letting it happen....
Do any of you actually wonder how much of the stuff we hear about or see oin the news is the REAL story?

[Flock of Moosen]

Not to take anything away from what the poor irl went through, but from the very beginning of her rescue the facts were distorted. They kept saying she had multiple gun shot wounds, but when the doctor examined her, he didn't find any.

It's like the network execs said this story isn't dramatic enough, let's throw in some lies about how injured she really is and it grew from there.

[Is Don on the phone?]

When a story with the media cash potential of the Jessica Lynch ordeal begins to fall apart, there is nothing that you, the media's client, can trust.

Apparently, most of her injuries were caused by the fact that her hmmvw hit the jacknifed truck, but there is this hazy "no comment" as to further injuries, or the possiblity that she was tourtured by the Iraqis. The 20 minute firefight turns into a futile attempt to clear a jam in her weapon, and the fierce resistance the rescue op faced turns out to be an exaggeration at worst, misinformation at best.

Does this make her less of a hero? No, she took the risks associated with military service, was injured in combat, and deserves the honor and respect of the nation she serves, along with her fellow soldiers.

The organization with which we should be angry is the media in general, who have a problem with fact checking or, even easier, waiting for the smoke to clear to get the real story rather than leading with speculation and fantasy in order to "scoop" the other 24 hour news networks.

[The Brain]

The organization with which we should be angry is the media in general, who have a problem with fact checking or, even easier, waiting for the smoke to clear to get the real story rather than leading with speculation and fantasy in order to \"scoop\" the other 24 hour news networks.

The main reason I feel <b>all news telecasts need to be removed form the Nielsen ratings system</b> (although I know full well that day will never come). Networks should simply eat the cost of putting a news division together, rather than worry about catering to advertising dollars.

You know what would happen if they did that? Less (or better yet, no) "fluff" pieces or "shocking exposes" that pop up around Sweeps periods, and more dedication to gathering all the facts of a hard-line news story before presenting it on the air-- rather than what we see with stories like Jessica Lynch, or during the "shock and awe" campaign, when conflicting reports came out as to whether they succeeded in killing Hussein. Shit, we <i>still</i> don't know if he's dead. But the news channels and local telecasts will still throw the info out there, 'cause hey, they can always retract the story later with no penalty, under the guise that they're simply trying to inform the public.

The public wants the actual facts, and we'll willingly wait until the facts are evident.

[FoundryMusicJoe]

It's like the network execs said this story isn't dramatic enough, let's throw in some lies about how injured she really is and it grew from there.

Its like when yer writing a paper in High School and it ssems really boring so ya make up some shit about the thing yer writing about and hope no one questions it.

all news telecasts need to be removed form the Nielsen ratings system

Thats a brilliant idea....it would have so many more advantages than downfalls. Its only a total of about 3 hours that the news actually broadcasts on a station so with 21 hours of other programing, whats giving up a few ad spots for integriy.

[The Brain]

Originally posted by FoundryMusicJoe
Thats a brilliant idea....it would have so many more advantages than downfalls. Its only a total of about 3 hours that the news actually broadcasts on a station so with 21 hours of other programing, whats giving up a few ad spots for integriy.

For any given network (let's take ABC, for example), you would be surprised how much influence the news division actually has:

Local morning newscasts -- 5:00am - 7:00am
"Good Morning, America" -- 7:00am - 9:00am
Local midday newscasts -- 12:00pm - 12:30pm
Local evening newcasts -- 5:00pm - 6:30pm
"ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings" -- 6:30pm - 7:00pm
Local night newscasts -- 11:00pm - 11:35pm
"Nightline with Ted Koppel" -- 11:35pm - 12:05am

And that is a standard weekday -- 7 1/2 hours of news. Add in two hour-length episodes per week of "PrimeTime" and one hour-length episode of "20/20" every Friday.

Remember, this might not necessarily apply to small stations, but to an actual network station or large affiliate like here in NYC, it is the rule. Roughly a third of the day (and basically, the time when we are awake) are devoted to news telecasts. Do you think they want to give up almost 8 hours' worth of potential ad revenue per day?

[FoundryMusicJoe]

I dont understand how the diffeent stations can be competing. they all broadcast the same stories, pretty much show the news at the same times, and all the reporters/anchors are so interchangable that its ponderous! The only thing that distinguishes one from another is the color of the set. otherwise...its the same crap.