London Bombing

[HighDemonslayer]

Any thoughts on this one? I have a few.



1. Blair, and the other spokesmouths, looked pathetic and weak.



2. This will be swept under the rug as fast as possible, it already has.


3. John Q. Public will be encouraged to "move on" to more important things.


3. Here in the U.S., the missing Aruba girl (and the storm) dominates the media again.


4. Every London picture on T.V. looked sterilized, every film clip looks like a scene after a minor traffic accident.


5. George Bush personally planted the explosives himself, using the same teleportation device he used to escape from the planes he flew into the WTC.

[Jeremy]

I disagree with the first points. I think you really get a bad impression of the world living in the US. I thought Blair's reaction was good as was the reactions of most leaders - I don't really see what else they could have done. More importantly it obviously hasn't been forgotten nor will it. Just because it's not in your news anymore doesn't mean it's not in news elsewhere. Some news channels focus on ratings while others focus on what they deem significant events. I personally tend to watch the second and I think the London bombings have been covered every night since they happened.

There's a topic about this in the kicking circle you might enjoy reading...

[HighDemonslayer]

Yeah, they may cover it every night for a couple minutes, with the sanitized pics and such.

T.V. is not a medium for real news or real information anymore (in the U.S.), but I thought we would get more red meat.




-n

[Jeremy]

I don't understand what you mean by red meat? Like more in depth details? I tend to mainly watch current events shows - rather than the news as they tend to focus on between 1 and 3 or 4 stories in 30 minutes or an hour - so you get a much better understanding. Also I read a lot of online newspapers etc. Google News is an awesome resource.

What I find most interesting in any news story is the opinions of experts in the field or politicians involved so that's mainly what I look for.

[HighDemonslayer]

Yeah, more details, and in this case, blood.

In the coverage and pics I've seen, there is 2 kind-of bloody people, and one lady with a burnt looking hand.

Where is the pic of the sidewalk/building next to the bus?

We were told it was mess of blood and body parts.

We live in a world of images. If you dont show some carnage, then it DID NOT HAPPEN.

Even on the internet, after 20 minutes, I found nothing more meaty than the same crappy pics on TV.

---------------------------------------
You must have different current events shows on T.V. than us.


Having experts on the subject is good. But on our cable news, we get the same rotation of failed-policy-hacks on every station.

Interviewing an expert or politician who FAILED at the topic in question is what we usually get. (usually about the Mideast or N. Korea)


-n






-n

[Jeremy]

wait - why do you want to see blood? That's not part of understanding what happened at all and isn't neccessary to the story at all. That's the kind of low brow entertainment/news that I try my best not to watch. There's really no need and nothing to be gained by showing maimed people on tv. Unless of course the news program is not about reporting news but just about getting ratings (ie. making money)

[HighDemonslayer]

It's about bias and propaganda. Media conceals gore from some places, and trumpets it in others.

When you don't want people to get angry, you hide the images.

Media loves to whitewash the gore from Jihad-type violence. They will go out of their way to try to stop the public from thinking about it.


You probably agree, the American public are uneducated boobs who need to be pacified by their media-government complex.


The Brits and the Yanks should just take their pills and let them worry about it.


-n