Sunday Morning

This article was about how the major news stations decide what White House correspondents they will have on their Sunday morning talk shows. I found it interesting how much thought they put into who they are going to have on, mainly because I do not watch these shows. Occasionally, I pass by the news channels on Sunday but usually I don't recognize the people or don't really know what they are talking about. I'm starting to think that maybe I should watch them every once in a while. Not only because the producers but so much time and effort to pick the guests but because the guests seem to be of importance and they may be able to provide me with information about the war that I am unsure of.

"The Monopoly is a Memory"

Each broadcast station is attempting to get their station heard around the world. It is currently a competition between stations of who can have the most coverage and distribution. The problem is how expensive it is to have global coverage. The running French President Jacques Chirac wanted to join the scene of global distribution but was unable to because of the cost.

"For leaders looking to get their message across in the U.S., CNN has
competition as well. Al Jazeera and Middle East Broadcasting, which is financed
by Saudi business leader Sheik Waleed bin Ibrahim Al Ibrahim, are seen in the
U.S. via satellite. Al Jazeera is exploring becoming even more accessible by
adding an English-language voice-over audio option, with hopes for a full-blown
English language channel later next year."

Al Jazeera is a growing station in the Middle East. This station is attempting to broadcast honest unbiased news to its people. Al Jazeera is looking to make their news available to a worldwide audience. This is competition for CNN who is looking to be the media conglomerate of news.

For Bush’s Speechwriter Job Grows Beyond Words-Oral Presentation

The United States of America is viewed as the greatest and most powerful nation in the world. On September 11th the attacks in New York City left quite an impact on America and the entire world. Many of us were shocked and devastated. Now our nation was suddenly attacked and on the brink of war. At this time, the White House gave clearance for Michael J. Gerson to be President Bush’s chief speechwriter. He played a huge role in preparing our nation for war. As an Evangelical Episcopalian, the talent and gift of Gerson’s speeches is in his use of faith vocabulary and literature.
In his memorable speech at the National Cathedral on September 14, 2001 Bush said, “Our responsibility to history is already clear”. He had to “transform the nation’s defense and foreign policies for the first time since the aftermath of World War II”. Bush had to now prepare the nation for war. He wanted to send an effective positive message to everyone all around the world, watching on television that we would defend our country and win the war. President Bush had to show strength and resolve and he did.
In order to shape world opinion President Bush had to discuss the reasons why we should go to war with Iraq. He took the facts and evidence he had. Somehow though I think some facts got twisted around a bit. In the article “For Bush’s Speechwriter Job Grows Beyond Words” by Mike Allen these little twists to the evidence were talked about. Bush was trying to warn the people about the distribution of chemical and biological weapons. People were naturally afraid. Bush said that “the Iraqi leader was building a fleet of small planes for dispersing chemical and biological weapons. Later he used term UAV’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. He also said that Hussein could make a nuclear weapon with a softball sized batch of uranium. That wasn’t really true. It would have to be larger than that” (Allen, 2002). Bush was trying to scare and comfort the people of America all at the same time.

Bush Puts Media In Place

To handle the intense questioning and hounding of the press during wartime his administration is setting strict rules. "First all reporters are summoned to the news room in pairs, followed by the President calling on reporters from a predetermined list assembled by the White House press secretary...".(Johnson) According to the article these tactics are supposed to be used to help intimidate and limit certain questions that can not be answered. Ultimately though, Pres. Bush is mishandling the situation by not letting these reporters due their job. It is as if he is undermining them professionally and they should be insulted by this treatment. Exspecially when the news in Washington about the press corps is that they "looked like lap dogs." (Johnson) In no way can I see a positive outcome for the Bush administration on this subject. It calls on favortism towards some reporters and news networks and as was said before these people also have a job to do. By underming the press you are also undermining the public because they have a right to no what their sons, daughter, brothers, and sisters are doing in Iraq. Some news should be confidential but all news should not be.

U.S. Setback for Propaganda War

The United States is having major propaganda setbacks because of the "horrible images of suffering Iraqi civilians." (Dobbs/Allen) Al-Jazeera news network along with the Riyadh daily of Saudi Arabia have been displaying the vivid images of death and destruction that occured in Baghdad recently. The headline on the newspaper was "Yet Another Massacre by the coalition of invaders..." with news headlines and images of deceased people and their limbs how is the United States supposed to justify what they are doing in Iraq. On the homefront we still have 70% support from the American public according to a United States spokesman. The biggest problem is that if we are accidently killing innocent civilians how are we going to win a propaganda war in Iraq and the middle east. You cannot expect other innocent civilians that are inhabiting those regions to side with our country. Personally, I would have to agree with Shibley Telhami a professor at Maryland University. He said, "the political damage is everywhere. I think ultimately that the U.S. will prevail militarily. But the real issue will be what are the consequences of that victory, and how people in the region perceive the U.S. after this is all over." (Dobbs/Allen) Just because we perceive what we are doing as correct doesn't mean that other people around the world feel the same way, I think the Bush administration should take that into consideration.

Is You Tube the new penny press

Back even before Guttenberg invented moveable type reading was only for the rich people. They were the only ones that could afford and have the leisure time to read. So, the first newspapers were designed for them. Then printing became easier and so the newspapers and books became cheaper, so everyone learned how to read. My originals point is that youtube has made broadcasting easier for us poor people to the point we can make up our own channels. People on you tube have been posting their favorite tv shows and music videos under theri name. Some have even startyed making their own fan films to put on you tube. heck even hollywood is starting to get into the idea of you tube. NBC is putting most of their shows free to watch on the web and bands like linkin park is promoting on you tube. What we have here is an instrument that reaches out and touches most of the young people on the web. If I had to promote something I would put it on you tube like John Edwards did. His makeup spoof got more young people to know his name than any other form of media would. Since they know him they will probably look him up when it came to vote.

"Beat the Press"

It doesn't seem as if it is written down somewhere that the White House has a blacklist but there are definitely people that aren't called for a while if the wrong thing is said or written about the Bush Administration.

"I don't know of there's a physical blacklist-I'm sure they wouldn't be stupid
enough to actually put it down in an e mail," "says one White House
correspondent (who like almost everyone spoken to for this article, refused to
be quoted by name.) "But there seems to be a system within the White House of
retribution. Basically, if you write something negative its like at the
communication meeting with Bush senior advisor Karen Hughes the message goes out that so and so's on the blacklist -- in some cases for that day, in some cases
for that week."

According to this article the Bush administration feels that they can sensor what is released to the public because it is wartime. It is supposedly unpatriotic to ask tough questions or tell negative stories. For example the Posts journalist Thomas Ricks was excluded from a trip that other American journalist were able to cover a special forces operation. When Ricks asked why he was told that they didn't like his stories or his questions. Therefore to a certain degree the White does pick and choose which press they want to cover political information.

Propaganda Fear Cited in Account of Iraqi Killings - New York Times

Propaganda Fear Cited in Account of Iraqi Killings - New York Times

The Times has published an article discussing the Pentagon's handling of news of the killings of 25 civilians at Haditha in 2005. Newly unclassified documents suggest that inaccurate reports were filed to prevent the news from being used by anti-American propagandists. Does the cover-up become worse than the news of the incident itself?

The lack of an investigation into the incident has been blamed on a junior officer. The Times reports:

Captain Stone, 34, of Dunkirk, Md., is accused of failing to investigate reports of the civilian deaths. In an interview that repeated similar frustrations voiced by lawyers for other accused officers, Captain Stone said he did not investigate the killings because his superiors told him not to.

“The regimental judge advocate informed me that we don’t do investigations for ‘troops in contact’ situations,” said Captain Stone, referring to the regiment’s lawyer, Maj. Carroll Connelly. Troops in contact is military language for combat against enemy fighters.

“That’s my understanding of what higher wanted,” Captain Stone said, referring to his superior officers, “and that’s why there was no investigation.”

“I don’t think I did anything wrong,” he went on. But he added, “There is a certain level of disappointment that the Marine Corps decided that, in the entire chain of command, that I am the one who should be held accountable.”