Are people free to have their own opinions, right or wrong, and express them freely without being arrested, rebuked by media, or intimidated by people who are involved in social engineering projects in the U.S.A.?
Are people truly free to have their own opinions in the United States of America today?
Yes. Free speach can still be limited only in time, place, and manner, not content. People are not forced to give you a forum and they are free to shout you down, but even this ultra conservative supreme court, with some exceptions like students, has still defended this fundamental right.
Reply:Yes, they are... There haven't been any instances where people have been arrested for expressing their views.
There are limitations to where you can publicly speak your mind... ie. Soldiers funerals, which is a private function and protesters shall remain away from the family. The stuff that just happened in Cali with Marine recruits... they took it to the extreme and were physically holding people back, and pretty much holding the people inside hostage...
But yes... we are allowed to say whatever we want...
Reply:They can have their own opinion, but you can't always express it on TV without getting into trouble. Also if you get enough people to start following your ideas you are likely to get assassinated, like a large majority of really great american people that have existed so far.
So i would say that you can speak freely as long as nobody is listening.
Or so long as you choose to speak freely in accordance with the dominant ideology.
Reply:Nope
Reply:On paper and in theory we are, but in reality no. If a person is one who gains the attention of the mass public (such as a celebrity or politician) you are usually scrtinized to the last detail. Arrested for your ideals usually not, rebuked and intimidated for your ideals is assured.
Reply:No you need to look no further then where you are ? The hate of other peoples opinions is getting stronger ? So beware the opinionated police are near ?
Reply:Absolutely mate, I have more oppinions about the USA than most canadians do... though I am an Australian!
Reply:No, we aren't I think it it's quite wrong but think about it, having more than one wife is illegal, marrying the same sex is illegal, I mean I wouldn't ever do those things but why is illegal I mean murrdering sould be illegal but what is wrong with with marrying another girl?
Reply:There is no police force anywhere in the US that knocks down your door or even knocks ON your door if you say what some government agency does not want you to say. There are rules about not exposing national secrets; you cannot libel someone; you cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater; you cannot incite a riot; and there are numerous other similar laws. But these are all logical to us, tried in our courts where sometimes the government loses, sometimes we lose.
But I have no fear of saying things about the Bush administration, for example, and finding myself being tailed by the FBI.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Who thinks current events has lost its way?
As we have media overload anything is a current event .Even my social life .Which puts Amy Winehouse to shame
Who thinks current events has lost its way?
It needs a new sat nav
Reply:Current Events. Despite our best efforts, it's possible, although improbable, to lose its way.
The media primarily reinforce existing views that people hold. We should not expect current events to bring about major or rapid changes in people attitudes. Best used Y!A to provide factual information and that knowledge over time helps to change people's attitudes.
Use Y!A effectively but without exaggerating.
Reply:Amy Whitehouse.... hhhhhhaaa I'm in dream land....
Did you buy the Daily Mail yesterday ?
After yesterday Daily Mail.... I'm hooked.....
What a pee-oo-tee.... she is an absolute pee-oo-tee
Reply:I agree, would you believe, someone was asking the time on current events, how ridiculous is that? Now about your social life??????????
Reply:Current Events has not lost its way, only those who seek to stifle Freedom of speach by their constant reporting have lost there way
Reply:Who's amy whitehouse?
Reply:I didn't know it was going anywhere..
Reply:Did it ever have a 'way' to begin with?!
Reply:What do You actually want form it?.......if it bores you i suggest you find an alternative site.....
Reply:me
Reply:I don't really know as I haven't been ob long enough.
Reply:I don't. Like it or not we live in interesting times.
Who thinks current events has lost its way?
It needs a new sat nav
Reply:Current Events. Despite our best efforts, it's possible, although improbable, to lose its way.
The media primarily reinforce existing views that people hold. We should not expect current events to bring about major or rapid changes in people attitudes. Best used Y!A to provide factual information and that knowledge over time helps to change people's attitudes.
Use Y!A effectively but without exaggerating.
Reply:Amy Whitehouse.... hhhhhhaaa I'm in dream land....
Did you buy the Daily Mail yesterday ?
After yesterday Daily Mail.... I'm hooked.....
What a pee-oo-tee.... she is an absolute pee-oo-tee
Reply:I agree, would you believe, someone was asking the time on current events, how ridiculous is that? Now about your social life??????????
Reply:Current Events has not lost its way, only those who seek to stifle Freedom of speach by their constant reporting have lost there way
Reply:Who's amy whitehouse?
Reply:I didn't know it was going anywhere..
Reply:Did it ever have a 'way' to begin with?!
Reply:What do You actually want form it?.......if it bores you i suggest you find an alternative site.....
Reply:me
Reply:I don't really know as I haven't been ob long enough.
Reply:I don't. Like it or not we live in interesting times.
Movies that have to do with injustice?!?!?
for my social justice class, we have to find a piece of media that has a scene that has to deal with a social justice issue like immigration, poverty, racism, environment. Any ideas? Thanks for any help..
Movies that have to do with injustice?!?!?
Lola,
Boys Don't Cry. {Based on the rape and murder of Brandon Tina.]
Solder's Girl' [Based on the beating death of Private First Class Barry Winchell.]
Girl Like Me: The Gwen Araujo Story
PennyAnn
Reply:Life and Debt
Reply:A Time to Kill
The Milagro Beanfield Wars
Do the Right Thing
Roger and Me
Billy Jack
Norma Rae
American History X
The Hurricane
The World of Suzie Wong
Madame Butterfly
The Teahouse of the August Moon
Reply:Higher Learning, Dangerous Minds, Ghosts of Mississippi, Erin Brockovich, Hart's War....
Reply:AMISTAD covers everything you just mentioned. Also try MISS EVERS' BOYS, TUSKEGEE AIRMEN, SOMETHING THE LORD MADE and PARIS TROUT, which is one of the hardest movies for me to watch, even today.
Reply:Philadelphia
To Kill a Mockingbird
The Green Mile
Erin Brockovich
the play "The Exonnerated"
American History X
Reply:Black Like Me
Reply:One interesting film is "From here to Eternity".
A big part of the film is about how a big, strong bad guy gets over on a smaller, weaker heroic guy. The smaller guy is Frank Sinatra and what happens to him in the film is tragic.
So the social injustice is basically about the strong over the weak. The scene where Sinatra goes back to the jail says it all.
Reply:To Kill a Mockingbird
A Time to Kill
Erin Brockovich
OMG - someone needs to slap me for putting those movies in the same category.
Reply:To kill a mocking bird
inherit the wind- Reilly good one
And the band played on
But the best one for you i think
Angels in America
Movies that have to do with injustice?!?!?
Lola,
Boys Don't Cry. {Based on the rape and murder of Brandon Tina.]
Solder's Girl' [Based on the beating death of Private First Class Barry Winchell.]
Girl Like Me: The Gwen Araujo Story
PennyAnn
Reply:Life and Debt
Reply:A Time to Kill
The Milagro Beanfield Wars
Do the Right Thing
Roger and Me
Billy Jack
Norma Rae
American History X
The Hurricane
The World of Suzie Wong
Madame Butterfly
The Teahouse of the August Moon
Reply:Higher Learning, Dangerous Minds, Ghosts of Mississippi, Erin Brockovich, Hart's War....
Reply:AMISTAD covers everything you just mentioned. Also try MISS EVERS' BOYS, TUSKEGEE AIRMEN, SOMETHING THE LORD MADE and PARIS TROUT, which is one of the hardest movies for me to watch, even today.
Reply:Philadelphia
To Kill a Mockingbird
The Green Mile
Erin Brockovich
the play "The Exonnerated"
American History X
Reply:Black Like Me
Reply:One interesting film is "From here to Eternity".
A big part of the film is about how a big, strong bad guy gets over on a smaller, weaker heroic guy. The smaller guy is Frank Sinatra and what happens to him in the film is tragic.
So the social injustice is basically about the strong over the weak. The scene where Sinatra goes back to the jail says it all.
Reply:To Kill a Mockingbird
A Time to Kill
Erin Brockovich
OMG - someone needs to slap me for putting those movies in the same category.
Reply:To kill a mocking bird
inherit the wind- Reilly good one
And the band played on
But the best one for you i think
Angels in America
Republicans and Democrats /// Torture of Terrorists /// Abu Ghraib?
Democrats are so shameless. They make me sick and clearly only care about 1 thing. GETTING INTO POWER!!!!
Here is a long winded example of Democratic tactics employed to gain power and destroy America in the proccess.
ABU GHRAIB: MASS MEDIA
INTRODUCTION
Although in recent months, Abu Ghraib has not been making front page news, it is still an issue at large in the United States and the world. Millions around the globe witnessed shocking images of tortured Iraqis at Abu Ghraib at the hands of their American captors; the reaction was anger and outrage. The constant bombardment of shocking photos and articles made sure that everyone knew about the problem at hand. And that something needed to happen to resolve this issue.
In this paper I will be exploring the mass media coverage of the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal. I will examine a few different media outlets such as the New York Times and the Washington times. I will also attempt to compare the amount of coverage given to Abu Ghraib by the two newspapers as well as the underlying motives of the liberal New York Times and the conservative Washington times. Also, I will be examining the Abu Ghraib coverage broadcasted on national television in the United States. CNN, a known liberal news station and The Fox News Channel a known conservative news station will be my mediums. I will be examining them to see if I can find distortions in the coverage, the amount of coverage, bias in the coverage, and more importantly the repercussions of the said statements from the newspaper and television.
I chose these particular news mediums because they are all well known and trusted institutions of news. Also it is important to understand that each carry their own political views, whether they are Republican or Democratic. That being said, I believe we will find many differences in the coverage of the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal between the news agencies
METHODS
To acquire data for my analysis of Abu Ghraib media coverage I turned to the primary sources themselves. By using the internet to review old articles and the fact that I constantly watch cable news, I was able to review a fair amount of data. Some of which is stuff I remember from watching CNN and FNC during the height of the Abu Ghraib pandemic.
By contacting staff writers at the Washington Times and using microfiche to review articles posted by the New York Times, I was able to see many differences in the media coverage. However, the internet proved to be the most valuable source in helping me compile my research. Depending on the key words used to research Abu Ghraib in the media I would get many different results. By typing in “Abu Ghraib” I would get websites that were mostly focused on the cold hard facts of the case without the left or right wing bias. However, when I typed in words like distortions, propaganda, and sensationalism attached with Abu Ghraib if found that the websites information changed dramatically. I noticed a great deal of what I would call finger pointing, people playing the blame game, character defamation, exaggerated truths and all out lies.
The three search engines I used where; Yahoo, Google, and Ask.com. For the most part the three search engines returned most of the same information but it is always nice to mix it up a little. It was difficult to sift through what I considered to be accurate coverage and what I will call uneducated coverage of the issue. Everyone’s got an opinion but I think it is best to just stick to the facts of the cases and use the comments and statements of accredited news agencies
In order to discuss differences in media coverage of Abu Ghraib I needed to first understand what actually happened at Abu Ghraib. To complete this task I used a number of internet sites describing the events that took place. Wikipedia on the web proved to be the most complete, unbiased information on the actual facts and timelines of the case.
BACKGROUND
In the early months of 2003, various abuses and “torture” tactics were being used on inmates at the Abu Ghraib prison. Private contractors, CIA officers, and U.S. armed forces were among the many individuals who would ultimately be charged with cruel and unusual treatment of prisoners. On April 28th, 2004, the emergence of various reports of abuse and graphic pictures of American’s abusing POW’s appeared in the international media. CBS aired an episode of 60 minutes 2 that went into graphic detail of the events at Abu Ghraib. The New York Times published an article on the abuse just 2 days later. I will go into greater details of this story later in this report.
The damage of this scandal to the U.S.’s credibility was tremendous. The news of the abuse reverberated throughout the entire Arab world, leading millions to believe that these instances represented a “broader American attitude of disrespect and violence towards Arabs ( J. White).” The U.S. countered by saying that the abuses were committed by a handful of low-ranking personnel, and that their individual actions did not represent the U.S. armed forces as a whole. In response to the scandal the removal of 17 officers from duty, the arrest 7 soldiers for dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault, and battery for which they were sent to prison, as well as 2 officers who spent 10 year prison terms.
Ironically, the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal, led by the U.S coalition, was not the first account of torture that the walls of the prison had seen. In fact, thousands of political prisoners held by Saddam Hussein were believed to have been tortured and murdered. “Up to 4 thousand prisoners are thought to have been executed there in 1984 alone. Prisoners were routinely executed, guards fed prisoners into plastic shredders, and there are even allegations that some of these detainees were subjected to experiments as part of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons program. After Baghdad was invaded and the government was overthrown, the U.S. took over the prison where it would eventually come to hold over 5 thousand prisoners.
Washington Times
The Washington Times is a D.C. newspaper that reaches about 103,017 readers on a daily basis. It was created by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon to be the conservative counterpoint to the liberal Washington post. Both papers claimed to print neutral news coverage but reserve the right to print conservative and liberal opinions in the respective papers.
The Washington times is known and seen as a conservative newspaper. By conservative, I mean that their political views are in support of traditional values and the “existing social order.” The support of republicans in times of political discussions and events is also common place. This is precisely why we have seen a difference in the amount of coverage in Abu Ghraib by the New York Times versus the Washington Times.
According to Jennifer Harper, of the Washington times, positive images and accounts of the U.S. armed forces is rare. She goes on to give an example, “30 U.S. airmen and soldiers delivered school supplies and toys - gifts from American children - to an Iraqi village.” “Yesterday air force medical teams airlifted a critically ill infant and mother to an Ohio hospital for treatment.” The question is why are these stories being overshadowed by all the bad images of the war? The Washington times claims it does an excellent job at staying neutral.
The Washington times, as well as other agencies such as the Media Research Center, are very suspicious of the fact that there are broadcasters in news companies using their influence to build a case against the war in Iraq, as well as the Bush administration. Abu Ghraib proved to be the catalyst for many to turn away from the war on terror and question the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. For this reason, the Washington Times opted out of sensationalistic media coverage of the Abu Ghraib incident. The Washington Times was not one to publish a ridiculous amount of shock articles along with anger incising photographs to amplify the severity of the events. The liberal media has had no such qualms doing so; as the Washington Times has gone on to say in many of their articles.
Why would the Washington Times shy away from an obscene amount of coverage of Abu Ghraib? Why would they retaliate and say that the liberal media is using the scandal to undermine Bush’s war efforts. The answer is simple. We have a Conservative in office. The Washington Times and any conservative media for that matter do not want to see their poster boy’s image tarnished. It is in the Washington Times best interest to keep a republican in office and writing stories that discredit Bush’s control on the situation at hand would have a negative effect… As we have seen from the “bombardment of Abu Ghraib images from CBS, CNN, Washington Post, and especially the New York Times.”(O’Reilly, 2004)
Fox News Channel
Another entity with similar conservative ideology is the Fox News Channel, with their “hardballer” Bill O’Reilly. Fox News Channel was founded by Rupert Murdoch in an attempt to combat the liberal media. They operate under the slogans “Fair and Balanced”, “We report you decide”, and as Bill O’Reilly says, “your now entering a no spin zone.” Although Fox News Channel was criticized in the 2000 election for being the last to retract the call of Florida for Gore and first to call Florida for Bush, their record of being unbiased is pretty good.
Perhaps the most well known and noteworthy television personality on the Fox News Channel is Bill O’Reilly. He is known for his conservative political views, unorthodox methods of interviewing guests on his show, and sensational commentary. As someone who watches the O’Reilly Factor, it was not hard to compile the feelings and articles from O’Reilly on the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal. However, O’Reilly does not believe he is either a conservative or a liberal. As he has stated time and time again.
In response to the Abu Ghraib scandal, O’Reilly was forthcoming to say that the photos did show abuse but was reluctant to admit that the photos showed what the New York Times Dubbed as torture. O’Reilly’s focus was more turned toward what he perceived as sensational coverage of Abu Ghraib by the leftist media and the consequences of their journalism. O’Reilly goes on to say that “the New York Times, of course is using the prisoner story to hammer the Bush administration and continue to do so, but here’s the unintended consequence of that. By creating hysteria over Abu Ghraib, the much more important war on terror story has vanished from the newspapers. Last weeks dog and pony show by Senators Kennedy and Bidden once again placed blame on the Bush Administration. And the senators did everything they could to mandate no coercive interrogations of suspected terrorists. Meantime foreign governments are encouraging suicide killers and we are the targets. Yet it’s all Abu Ghraib, all the time in much of the media, politics once again trumping your safety. He also states that the New York Times ran with 43 front page stories on Abu Ghraib in 47 days. An incredible amount of coverage.
New York Times
The New York Times is published in New York City but is an international newspaper. “It is owned by the New York Times Co. which also publishes some 40 other newspapers including the international Herald Tribune and the Boston Globe.” We will return to the Globe later in the essay. The New York Times is viewed by many to be a liberal newspaper. By liberal I mean that they are concerned with individual rights, civil liberties and the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor. Tax breaks for the poor are generally favored over tax breaks for the rich.
The New York Times is usually thought of as supporting the Democratic party. It has been suggested that “during presidential campaigns the paper systematically gives more coverage to democratic topics, but only when the incumbent president is a republican.” Based on these facts some might assume that the New York Times would have much to gain from extensive coverage of Abu Ghraib. Much like their opponent conservative paper, the New York Times has a stake in the reactions of their readers. For the liberal side of the news Abu Ghraib was the Holly Grail of leverage points.
There is no doubt that the New York Times covered the Abu Ghraib prison scandal extensively. In fact from April 29, 2004 to may 31, 2004 the Abu Ghraib scandal was on the front page of the New York Times in full color. A few of the 32 headlines read, Iraqi recounts hours of abuse by U.S. troops. The solider; from picture of pride is the symbol of abuse, and abuse; afghan deaths linked to a unit in Iraq. All articles painted vivid images of the tortured and mutilated Iraqis in the minds of Americans and the world. Many of the articles also attempted to illustrate the incompetence followed by the underhand ness by the bush administration and the U.S. armed forces as a whole.
One article in particular, Abu Ghraib, Stonewashed, published by the New York Times read, “while piously declaring its determination to unearth the truth about Abu Ghraib, the Bush Administration has spent nearly 2 months obstructing investigations by the army and members of congress. It has dragged out the Armies inquiry, withheld crucial government documents from a senate committee and stonewalled senators over dozens of Red Cross reports that document the horrible treatment of Iraqis at American military prisons.”(NYT 6/30/04). This seems to be one of the running themes in the liberal media.
As mentioned before the New York Times publishes the Boston Globe. Like the New York Times the Globe is also thought of as having liberal bias toward political issues. Apparently this bias carried over into the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal. “On May 11, 2004 after the Abu Ghraib photos were released, Boston City Council Chuck Turner called a news conference with activist Sadiki Kambo. At the conference Turner and Kambo claimed to have pictures of American soldiers raping Iraqi women which Kambo said he got from the Nation of Islam. The Americans have a right and responsibility to see the pictures, Turner said standing beside a poster showing some of these graphic photos.’ After three days it was found that the photos were blatant fakes and the Globe was forced to publicly apologize for reporting the case of abuse when the photos were nothing more the commercially produced pornography.”(Wikipedia, 04)Let’s hope the Iraqis got that omission.
CNN
Created by Ted Turner and Reese Schonfeld, CNN has been dubbed the most watched 24 hour news network in the world. It is available to 1.5 billion people in over 212 countries. Also being dubbed as the Clinton news network, CNN has come under scrutiny by conservatives for the practice of liberal bias in their reporting. CNN has been known to be a mouthpiece for the New York Times and the Washington Post. All three cover stories with the same slant and Abu Ghraib is really no different.
CNN’s coverage of Abu Ghraib was also extensive and made a habit of plastering shocking photos of tortured and tormented Iraqis at the hands of Americans. I also watch CNN. Its not to say that the coverage was inaccurate or untrue but the constant harping on the issue six months after the fact led many to believe that CNN had a greater hidden agenda in the reporting of the abuse case. Perhaps to discredit the Bush administration and make themselves look right righteous crusaders trying the uncover the truth, increasing the credibility of the left wing.
DISSCUSSION
In order to best understand the juxtaposition of the conservative and liberal media outlets we must first understand the broader situation going on. I will attempt to give you a condensed background of the political forces at work when dealing with Abu Ghraib and the media in general.
Currently we have a Republican president in office and have had one in office since 2000. This does not sit well with the Democrat very well. As we have seen in the 2000 election with the Florida recall and again in 2004 when the Democrats tried to get the votes of soldiers in Iraq disqualified from the count. A noteworthy side note, most US soldiers are supporters of Bush and his administration.
Perhaps the most determination aspect in the media has been the American lead war in Iraq. Since the beginning of the war, liberal have tried to slam Bush and the American people as I see it for going to war with the country that supposedly has nothing to do with terrorism. This is false. On the 16th of March, 1988 Saddam and his followers used chemical weapons on the Kurdish people in the town of Halabjah. Around 5000 people were murder, mostly civilians. The fact that the United States was unable to find weapons of mass destruction has been a staging point for much of the liberal criticism. Perhaps someone should tell that Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction and the United States has the receipt to prove it. A mistake made by the Reagan administration. However the weapons of mass destruction the debacle has gone away in the Liberal media was starving for a new media headline to discredit the Bush administration. Abu Ghraib would come to be the headline.
There is no doubt in my mind that what happen in AG was a horrible thing and those responsible should have been punished but was the constant streaming of torture photos really necessary. The unfortunate aspect for all the coverage of AG is that the problem had been uncovered and fixed by the military six months before the media ever caught wind of it. The way the media portrayed the issue was that the supposed torturers were going on daily basis when in fact the abuse had stopped. It wasn’t as if the media had uncovered the evil American’s torturing inmates, it was the military who discovered it and dealt with in accordingly. So I ask, if the Bush administration is so incompetent and don’t have a handle on the war and all its aspect (AG) then why were they the ones to uncover the problem and fix it.
Another problem I have with the coverage of Abu Ghraib was that of the photographs alone. When the Liberal media showed these pictures they never gave timelines of when the pictures were taken. They just showed pictures and led people to believe that these photos were taken over the course of weeks and even months when they were actually taken on the same day. Probably within hours of each other. But that not what the Liberal media would have you know. They attempted to make it look like the torture was an ongoing and everyday practice.
Tim Graham of the media research center noted that “this abuse story is just not going away” it is still the topic on most network news. And there strong focus of the court marshals, on the bad apples-its as if those troops represent the military at large as far as the media is concerned. The center has been following the bias problem among broadcasters who use the abuse story to build a case against the war in Iraq and the Bush administration. As a sample the group tracked abuse stories from April 29th to May 11th on NBC and found that the network aired 58 stories on abuse in that period. In the past year NBC only aired 5 stories on mass graves found in Iraq from the Saddam Hussein era. From this information it is easy to see where NBC, a known Liberal station, is focused.
Another aspect of the Abu Ghraib case that needs to be addressed is the flagrant use of the word torture. I believe that the word torture really needed to be evaluated and defined before the media as a whole began tossing it around. The context the word carries with it is very different from country to country, culture to culture. To a great deal of Americans the photos were disturbing but were not viewed as torture. To me most of the photos shoed nothing more than you would expect to see at a fraternity hazing. The others clearly showed textbook procedure in deal with a person you were interrogating. Although I do admit some of their marines actions went too far.
The media loved to share the image of an Army ranger restraining a snarling dog from ripping into an Iraqi they were interrogating. Using dogs and other high stressed tactics to get information out of detainees is completely legal. Though I think the public could have gone without seeing that image. If you were to ask Iraqis who lived under the murderer Saddam Hussein the Vietnamese and Bosnians if they though the pictures showed torture, they would laugh in your face. Torture I think not.
Republicans and Democrats /// Torture of Terrorists /// Abu Ghraib?
Uh, is there a question in there somewhere?
Both parties are primarily concerned with power. The republicans are no better than the democrats in that respect.
Reply:NOW YOU KNOW DAMNED WEL THAT THOSE MORAL REPUBLICANS WOULD NOT TORTUE A PERSON THAT WOULD BE UNCHRISTAN. YOU KNOW THEY ARE CHRISTANS BECAUSE THEY WILL TELL YOU THAT THEY ARE THE PARTY WITH MORALS. LOL. THEY ALSO GO THE CHRISTAN COLATION SUPORTING THEM AND OLD PAT ROBINSON IS LEAD THAT FINE POLITICAL BUNCH. HE IS THE GUY THAT LIED ABOUT SENDING SOMEONE TO KILL HUGO CHAVEZ. CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT A MINISTER OF GOD WOULD DO A THING LIKE THAT IN FRONT OF THE NATION.
Reply:Get off your soapbox. Is there a question in there? I didn't even read it.
Reply:Well republicans make me sick and they are interested in only one thing holding on to power.
Reply:Excellent essay. Although I agree that with your point about the muzzled dogs not being torture, using the argument that our techniques are no where near as bad as methods used by other nations does not make our methods neccessarily right. But I do agree that Abu Graib was blown way out of proportion, though it was disgusting (except for the dogs).
Reply:is it not every party's purpose to get into pwer, maybe you should stop listening to the propaganda.
Over here in Scotland everyone realises that ALL polititians talk absolute shite and to take their word on anything is riskin your all.
Quiet frankly anyone who offers an interest in politics should be shot at the earliest age - they all lie!!!
Reply:Gosh, that was a big one, I need a new wheel for my mouse now, are you buying ?
They are all corrupt, it does not matter who you lot vote for it will just be more of the same.
dental supply
Here is a long winded example of Democratic tactics employed to gain power and destroy America in the proccess.
ABU GHRAIB: MASS MEDIA
INTRODUCTION
Although in recent months, Abu Ghraib has not been making front page news, it is still an issue at large in the United States and the world. Millions around the globe witnessed shocking images of tortured Iraqis at Abu Ghraib at the hands of their American captors; the reaction was anger and outrage. The constant bombardment of shocking photos and articles made sure that everyone knew about the problem at hand. And that something needed to happen to resolve this issue.
In this paper I will be exploring the mass media coverage of the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal. I will examine a few different media outlets such as the New York Times and the Washington times. I will also attempt to compare the amount of coverage given to Abu Ghraib by the two newspapers as well as the underlying motives of the liberal New York Times and the conservative Washington times. Also, I will be examining the Abu Ghraib coverage broadcasted on national television in the United States. CNN, a known liberal news station and The Fox News Channel a known conservative news station will be my mediums. I will be examining them to see if I can find distortions in the coverage, the amount of coverage, bias in the coverage, and more importantly the repercussions of the said statements from the newspaper and television.
I chose these particular news mediums because they are all well known and trusted institutions of news. Also it is important to understand that each carry their own political views, whether they are Republican or Democratic. That being said, I believe we will find many differences in the coverage of the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal between the news agencies
METHODS
To acquire data for my analysis of Abu Ghraib media coverage I turned to the primary sources themselves. By using the internet to review old articles and the fact that I constantly watch cable news, I was able to review a fair amount of data. Some of which is stuff I remember from watching CNN and FNC during the height of the Abu Ghraib pandemic.
By contacting staff writers at the Washington Times and using microfiche to review articles posted by the New York Times, I was able to see many differences in the media coverage. However, the internet proved to be the most valuable source in helping me compile my research. Depending on the key words used to research Abu Ghraib in the media I would get many different results. By typing in “Abu Ghraib” I would get websites that were mostly focused on the cold hard facts of the case without the left or right wing bias. However, when I typed in words like distortions, propaganda, and sensationalism attached with Abu Ghraib if found that the websites information changed dramatically. I noticed a great deal of what I would call finger pointing, people playing the blame game, character defamation, exaggerated truths and all out lies.
The three search engines I used where; Yahoo, Google, and Ask.com. For the most part the three search engines returned most of the same information but it is always nice to mix it up a little. It was difficult to sift through what I considered to be accurate coverage and what I will call uneducated coverage of the issue. Everyone’s got an opinion but I think it is best to just stick to the facts of the cases and use the comments and statements of accredited news agencies
In order to discuss differences in media coverage of Abu Ghraib I needed to first understand what actually happened at Abu Ghraib. To complete this task I used a number of internet sites describing the events that took place. Wikipedia on the web proved to be the most complete, unbiased information on the actual facts and timelines of the case.
BACKGROUND
In the early months of 2003, various abuses and “torture” tactics were being used on inmates at the Abu Ghraib prison. Private contractors, CIA officers, and U.S. armed forces were among the many individuals who would ultimately be charged with cruel and unusual treatment of prisoners. On April 28th, 2004, the emergence of various reports of abuse and graphic pictures of American’s abusing POW’s appeared in the international media. CBS aired an episode of 60 minutes 2 that went into graphic detail of the events at Abu Ghraib. The New York Times published an article on the abuse just 2 days later. I will go into greater details of this story later in this report.
The damage of this scandal to the U.S.’s credibility was tremendous. The news of the abuse reverberated throughout the entire Arab world, leading millions to believe that these instances represented a “broader American attitude of disrespect and violence towards Arabs ( J. White).” The U.S. countered by saying that the abuses were committed by a handful of low-ranking personnel, and that their individual actions did not represent the U.S. armed forces as a whole. In response to the scandal the removal of 17 officers from duty, the arrest 7 soldiers for dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault, and battery for which they were sent to prison, as well as 2 officers who spent 10 year prison terms.
Ironically, the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal, led by the U.S coalition, was not the first account of torture that the walls of the prison had seen. In fact, thousands of political prisoners held by Saddam Hussein were believed to have been tortured and murdered. “Up to 4 thousand prisoners are thought to have been executed there in 1984 alone. Prisoners were routinely executed, guards fed prisoners into plastic shredders, and there are even allegations that some of these detainees were subjected to experiments as part of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons program. After Baghdad was invaded and the government was overthrown, the U.S. took over the prison where it would eventually come to hold over 5 thousand prisoners.
Washington Times
The Washington Times is a D.C. newspaper that reaches about 103,017 readers on a daily basis. It was created by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon to be the conservative counterpoint to the liberal Washington post. Both papers claimed to print neutral news coverage but reserve the right to print conservative and liberal opinions in the respective papers.
The Washington times is known and seen as a conservative newspaper. By conservative, I mean that their political views are in support of traditional values and the “existing social order.” The support of republicans in times of political discussions and events is also common place. This is precisely why we have seen a difference in the amount of coverage in Abu Ghraib by the New York Times versus the Washington Times.
According to Jennifer Harper, of the Washington times, positive images and accounts of the U.S. armed forces is rare. She goes on to give an example, “30 U.S. airmen and soldiers delivered school supplies and toys - gifts from American children - to an Iraqi village.” “Yesterday air force medical teams airlifted a critically ill infant and mother to an Ohio hospital for treatment.” The question is why are these stories being overshadowed by all the bad images of the war? The Washington times claims it does an excellent job at staying neutral.
The Washington times, as well as other agencies such as the Media Research Center, are very suspicious of the fact that there are broadcasters in news companies using their influence to build a case against the war in Iraq, as well as the Bush administration. Abu Ghraib proved to be the catalyst for many to turn away from the war on terror and question the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. For this reason, the Washington Times opted out of sensationalistic media coverage of the Abu Ghraib incident. The Washington Times was not one to publish a ridiculous amount of shock articles along with anger incising photographs to amplify the severity of the events. The liberal media has had no such qualms doing so; as the Washington Times has gone on to say in many of their articles.
Why would the Washington Times shy away from an obscene amount of coverage of Abu Ghraib? Why would they retaliate and say that the liberal media is using the scandal to undermine Bush’s war efforts. The answer is simple. We have a Conservative in office. The Washington Times and any conservative media for that matter do not want to see their poster boy’s image tarnished. It is in the Washington Times best interest to keep a republican in office and writing stories that discredit Bush’s control on the situation at hand would have a negative effect… As we have seen from the “bombardment of Abu Ghraib images from CBS, CNN, Washington Post, and especially the New York Times.”(O’Reilly, 2004)
Fox News Channel
Another entity with similar conservative ideology is the Fox News Channel, with their “hardballer” Bill O’Reilly. Fox News Channel was founded by Rupert Murdoch in an attempt to combat the liberal media. They operate under the slogans “Fair and Balanced”, “We report you decide”, and as Bill O’Reilly says, “your now entering a no spin zone.” Although Fox News Channel was criticized in the 2000 election for being the last to retract the call of Florida for Gore and first to call Florida for Bush, their record of being unbiased is pretty good.
Perhaps the most well known and noteworthy television personality on the Fox News Channel is Bill O’Reilly. He is known for his conservative political views, unorthodox methods of interviewing guests on his show, and sensational commentary. As someone who watches the O’Reilly Factor, it was not hard to compile the feelings and articles from O’Reilly on the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal. However, O’Reilly does not believe he is either a conservative or a liberal. As he has stated time and time again.
In response to the Abu Ghraib scandal, O’Reilly was forthcoming to say that the photos did show abuse but was reluctant to admit that the photos showed what the New York Times Dubbed as torture. O’Reilly’s focus was more turned toward what he perceived as sensational coverage of Abu Ghraib by the leftist media and the consequences of their journalism. O’Reilly goes on to say that “the New York Times, of course is using the prisoner story to hammer the Bush administration and continue to do so, but here’s the unintended consequence of that. By creating hysteria over Abu Ghraib, the much more important war on terror story has vanished from the newspapers. Last weeks dog and pony show by Senators Kennedy and Bidden once again placed blame on the Bush Administration. And the senators did everything they could to mandate no coercive interrogations of suspected terrorists. Meantime foreign governments are encouraging suicide killers and we are the targets. Yet it’s all Abu Ghraib, all the time in much of the media, politics once again trumping your safety. He also states that the New York Times ran with 43 front page stories on Abu Ghraib in 47 days. An incredible amount of coverage.
New York Times
The New York Times is published in New York City but is an international newspaper. “It is owned by the New York Times Co. which also publishes some 40 other newspapers including the international Herald Tribune and the Boston Globe.” We will return to the Globe later in the essay. The New York Times is viewed by many to be a liberal newspaper. By liberal I mean that they are concerned with individual rights, civil liberties and the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor. Tax breaks for the poor are generally favored over tax breaks for the rich.
The New York Times is usually thought of as supporting the Democratic party. It has been suggested that “during presidential campaigns the paper systematically gives more coverage to democratic topics, but only when the incumbent president is a republican.” Based on these facts some might assume that the New York Times would have much to gain from extensive coverage of Abu Ghraib. Much like their opponent conservative paper, the New York Times has a stake in the reactions of their readers. For the liberal side of the news Abu Ghraib was the Holly Grail of leverage points.
There is no doubt that the New York Times covered the Abu Ghraib prison scandal extensively. In fact from April 29, 2004 to may 31, 2004 the Abu Ghraib scandal was on the front page of the New York Times in full color. A few of the 32 headlines read, Iraqi recounts hours of abuse by U.S. troops. The solider; from picture of pride is the symbol of abuse, and abuse; afghan deaths linked to a unit in Iraq. All articles painted vivid images of the tortured and mutilated Iraqis in the minds of Americans and the world. Many of the articles also attempted to illustrate the incompetence followed by the underhand ness by the bush administration and the U.S. armed forces as a whole.
One article in particular, Abu Ghraib, Stonewashed, published by the New York Times read, “while piously declaring its determination to unearth the truth about Abu Ghraib, the Bush Administration has spent nearly 2 months obstructing investigations by the army and members of congress. It has dragged out the Armies inquiry, withheld crucial government documents from a senate committee and stonewalled senators over dozens of Red Cross reports that document the horrible treatment of Iraqis at American military prisons.”(NYT 6/30/04). This seems to be one of the running themes in the liberal media.
As mentioned before the New York Times publishes the Boston Globe. Like the New York Times the Globe is also thought of as having liberal bias toward political issues. Apparently this bias carried over into the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal. “On May 11, 2004 after the Abu Ghraib photos were released, Boston City Council Chuck Turner called a news conference with activist Sadiki Kambo. At the conference Turner and Kambo claimed to have pictures of American soldiers raping Iraqi women which Kambo said he got from the Nation of Islam. The Americans have a right and responsibility to see the pictures, Turner said standing beside a poster showing some of these graphic photos.’ After three days it was found that the photos were blatant fakes and the Globe was forced to publicly apologize for reporting the case of abuse when the photos were nothing more the commercially produced pornography.”(Wikipedia, 04)Let’s hope the Iraqis got that omission.
CNN
Created by Ted Turner and Reese Schonfeld, CNN has been dubbed the most watched 24 hour news network in the world. It is available to 1.5 billion people in over 212 countries. Also being dubbed as the Clinton news network, CNN has come under scrutiny by conservatives for the practice of liberal bias in their reporting. CNN has been known to be a mouthpiece for the New York Times and the Washington Post. All three cover stories with the same slant and Abu Ghraib is really no different.
CNN’s coverage of Abu Ghraib was also extensive and made a habit of plastering shocking photos of tortured and tormented Iraqis at the hands of Americans. I also watch CNN. Its not to say that the coverage was inaccurate or untrue but the constant harping on the issue six months after the fact led many to believe that CNN had a greater hidden agenda in the reporting of the abuse case. Perhaps to discredit the Bush administration and make themselves look right righteous crusaders trying the uncover the truth, increasing the credibility of the left wing.
DISSCUSSION
In order to best understand the juxtaposition of the conservative and liberal media outlets we must first understand the broader situation going on. I will attempt to give you a condensed background of the political forces at work when dealing with Abu Ghraib and the media in general.
Currently we have a Republican president in office and have had one in office since 2000. This does not sit well with the Democrat very well. As we have seen in the 2000 election with the Florida recall and again in 2004 when the Democrats tried to get the votes of soldiers in Iraq disqualified from the count. A noteworthy side note, most US soldiers are supporters of Bush and his administration.
Perhaps the most determination aspect in the media has been the American lead war in Iraq. Since the beginning of the war, liberal have tried to slam Bush and the American people as I see it for going to war with the country that supposedly has nothing to do with terrorism. This is false. On the 16th of March, 1988 Saddam and his followers used chemical weapons on the Kurdish people in the town of Halabjah. Around 5000 people were murder, mostly civilians. The fact that the United States was unable to find weapons of mass destruction has been a staging point for much of the liberal criticism. Perhaps someone should tell that Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction and the United States has the receipt to prove it. A mistake made by the Reagan administration. However the weapons of mass destruction the debacle has gone away in the Liberal media was starving for a new media headline to discredit the Bush administration. Abu Ghraib would come to be the headline.
There is no doubt in my mind that what happen in AG was a horrible thing and those responsible should have been punished but was the constant streaming of torture photos really necessary. The unfortunate aspect for all the coverage of AG is that the problem had been uncovered and fixed by the military six months before the media ever caught wind of it. The way the media portrayed the issue was that the supposed torturers were going on daily basis when in fact the abuse had stopped. It wasn’t as if the media had uncovered the evil American’s torturing inmates, it was the military who discovered it and dealt with in accordingly. So I ask, if the Bush administration is so incompetent and don’t have a handle on the war and all its aspect (AG) then why were they the ones to uncover the problem and fix it.
Another problem I have with the coverage of Abu Ghraib was that of the photographs alone. When the Liberal media showed these pictures they never gave timelines of when the pictures were taken. They just showed pictures and led people to believe that these photos were taken over the course of weeks and even months when they were actually taken on the same day. Probably within hours of each other. But that not what the Liberal media would have you know. They attempted to make it look like the torture was an ongoing and everyday practice.
Tim Graham of the media research center noted that “this abuse story is just not going away” it is still the topic on most network news. And there strong focus of the court marshals, on the bad apples-its as if those troops represent the military at large as far as the media is concerned. The center has been following the bias problem among broadcasters who use the abuse story to build a case against the war in Iraq and the Bush administration. As a sample the group tracked abuse stories from April 29th to May 11th on NBC and found that the network aired 58 stories on abuse in that period. In the past year NBC only aired 5 stories on mass graves found in Iraq from the Saddam Hussein era. From this information it is easy to see where NBC, a known Liberal station, is focused.
Another aspect of the Abu Ghraib case that needs to be addressed is the flagrant use of the word torture. I believe that the word torture really needed to be evaluated and defined before the media as a whole began tossing it around. The context the word carries with it is very different from country to country, culture to culture. To a great deal of Americans the photos were disturbing but were not viewed as torture. To me most of the photos shoed nothing more than you would expect to see at a fraternity hazing. The others clearly showed textbook procedure in deal with a person you were interrogating. Although I do admit some of their marines actions went too far.
The media loved to share the image of an Army ranger restraining a snarling dog from ripping into an Iraqi they were interrogating. Using dogs and other high stressed tactics to get information out of detainees is completely legal. Though I think the public could have gone without seeing that image. If you were to ask Iraqis who lived under the murderer Saddam Hussein the Vietnamese and Bosnians if they though the pictures showed torture, they would laugh in your face. Torture I think not.
Republicans and Democrats /// Torture of Terrorists /// Abu Ghraib?
Uh, is there a question in there somewhere?
Both parties are primarily concerned with power. The republicans are no better than the democrats in that respect.
Reply:NOW YOU KNOW DAMNED WEL THAT THOSE MORAL REPUBLICANS WOULD NOT TORTUE A PERSON THAT WOULD BE UNCHRISTAN. YOU KNOW THEY ARE CHRISTANS BECAUSE THEY WILL TELL YOU THAT THEY ARE THE PARTY WITH MORALS. LOL. THEY ALSO GO THE CHRISTAN COLATION SUPORTING THEM AND OLD PAT ROBINSON IS LEAD THAT FINE POLITICAL BUNCH. HE IS THE GUY THAT LIED ABOUT SENDING SOMEONE TO KILL HUGO CHAVEZ. CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT A MINISTER OF GOD WOULD DO A THING LIKE THAT IN FRONT OF THE NATION.
Reply:Get off your soapbox. Is there a question in there? I didn't even read it.
Reply:Well republicans make me sick and they are interested in only one thing holding on to power.
Reply:Excellent essay. Although I agree that with your point about the muzzled dogs not being torture, using the argument that our techniques are no where near as bad as methods used by other nations does not make our methods neccessarily right. But I do agree that Abu Graib was blown way out of proportion, though it was disgusting (except for the dogs).
Reply:is it not every party's purpose to get into pwer, maybe you should stop listening to the propaganda.
Over here in Scotland everyone realises that ALL polititians talk absolute shite and to take their word on anything is riskin your all.
Quiet frankly anyone who offers an interest in politics should be shot at the earliest age - they all lie!!!
Reply:Gosh, that was a big one, I need a new wheel for my mouse now, are you buying ?
They are all corrupt, it does not matter who you lot vote for it will just be more of the same.
dental supply
Easy to points to the first person who can guide me in the right direction!?
A local radio station has asked you to participate in an expert panel discussion regarding the role of media in political and terrorism related crimes. Specifically, you have been invited to speak on how the media and modern means of sharing information quickly can help facilitate the goals of politically motivated criminals (such as groups that sponsor suicide attacks) and whether or not media is used in a similar manner by law enforcement (e.g., missing child alerts). Analyze and evaluate the media's role in publicizing criminal acts and assisting law enforcement to disseminate information. Assess how the use of the media by both groups (criminals seeking to accomplish political or social aims versus police and law enforcement) relates to our societal values of freedom of speech and free access to information. Create an outline for your discussion that you could use to effectively cover the subject during the radio broadcast.
Easy to points to the first person who can guide me in the right direction!?
Here's my guide: pull out your textbook and class notes, review them, and do your homework.
Easy to points to the first person who can guide me in the right direction!?
Here's my guide: pull out your textbook and class notes, review them, and do your homework.
Why do white guys hate seeing Asian guys with white women but support Asian female white male relationships?
Seriously, be real about it and admit your hypocrisy.
White guys who answer these posts always leave this out of their argument about how it's ok for everybody including Asian guys to accept these relationships when these are the same people who would denounce relationships between Asian males and white females. This is obvious by the way the white media in this country pair up Asian females with White males 90-99% of the time when the majority of Asian relationships are between Asian females and Asian males. The media doesn't do this to women of any other race hence you don't see those women have a thing for white males in the same proportion as Asian females.
The influence of the media towards it's targeted audiance has been proven to be substantial in study after study. The media has a substantial affect on Asians in this country because their population is smaller than other ethnic groups here. There is also a lack of an Asian American culture in America leading to a lack of a defined Asian American identity. Look at it this way, African Americans have a defined African American Identity (black music, black stars etc), White Americans have a defined white identity (white music, white stars etc), Hispanics have a defined Hispanic identity (Hispanic music, hispanic stars etc). Asians in this country really don't have an Asian American culture so the majority of them will take up either a white identity or a black identity. In essence, it's like having an Asian person that looks Asian on the outside but are either white or black on the inside.
How the media conditions Asians in the country and how it divides Asians Americans: The media portrays Asian females and Asian males divergently. Asian females are paired up with white males the majority of the time yet the majority of Asian relationships in this country are between Asian males and Asian females. The American media almost never pair up Asian males with white females even though these relationships, though fewer than AF/Wm relationships make up a portion of Asian reltionships in this country. What you have then is a mirroring effect of how the media actually conditions Asian Americans to socialize in this country. Asian guys can get white women and women of any other race as can be seem in this website:
http://www.aznlover.com/vbulletin/showth...
The problem with the distortion of Asian interracial relationships is that the media gives a thumbs up to Asian female interractial relationships-showing this mostly with white males, sometimes with black males and almost never with hispanic males and you get the mirroring effect of social dynamics for Asians in this country. One has to ask why the media continues to portray Asian females with nonAsian males the majority of the time when Asian female Asian males male up the majority of Asian relationships in this country. The media doesn't do this with women of any other race.
Link to what happens when the one way conditioning of the old media gives way to the internet.
http://www.proudasianamerican.com/Articl...
Links to media influence:
http://www.troubledwith.com/stellent/gro...
http://www.troubledwith.com/stellent/gro...
http://www.troubledwith.com/stellent/gro... The white male dominated media does not like to portray Asian males with white females because they know what giving a thumbs up to these kinds of relationships can do. Imagine what would happen if 90-99% of all media portrayals of Asian males are with white females and Asian males are portrayed in the most positive light while Asian women are dogged out in the media. There'd be a pretty dramatic impact on Asian interracial relationships in this country.
Why do white guys hate seeing Asian guys with white women but support Asian female white male relationships?
Boooo! Quit stereotyping.
Reply:I think you had a good point but you rambled way too long. I lost interest after the 3rd paragraph of your question. Report It
Reply:Hey point me in the direction of the asian males I've had my fair share of white american men %26gt;%26lt; Report It
Reply:I'm an Asian guy with a white gf. Her bro hates my guts because I'm Asian, neither of us gives a sh*t what he thinks. So unless it hinders you, don't let it bother you. Report It
Reply:Hey, I've run into you before, speaking about this very topic. You seem to be very into it. Report It
Reply:If you go to a white school and you are asian or as in like a high school, I would know how you feel. I'm in a middle of that process right now. I'm just a freshman. Report It
Reply:http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/qu... Report It
Reply:Because alot of them are insecure and feel like thier women are being taken away. It's the stupid discrimination thing.. it's crap it shouldn't matter, women are women and men are men..color should never be an issue.
Reply:I've never heard anyone speak critically of asian male - white female relationships. Ever.
My guess is the reason that you see less asian male - white female relationships then the converse is that most women like to date men who are taller then them, and first generation asian males are often shorter then natural born western white women. This is much less true for second generation and later asian males who grow up with a western diet.
One friend of mine in university was a tall asian male, my sister was pretty interested in him actually. He dated lots of white women, and I'm not aware of any backlash against it.
Reply:Sorry! I don't really give a rat'sas.s who's with whom, and I'm white. Got me confused with a racist maybe?
Reply:Why would we care if you date white women? I have an asian friend who ONLY dates white women, he refuses to talk to asian women. I don't know anyone who cares about that.
Reply:Im a caucatian male of Irish descent and I could care less if Asian guys date white girls. However, Ive never seen a white girl and an Asian guy together.
Reply:You probably are incapable of realizing or understanding this, but if you were a caucasian (non-hyphenated American) saying this about any other ethnic group, you would be labeled a racist and ridiculed mercilously. Regardless, you do seem like a stereotyping, flaming racist to me.
teething
White guys who answer these posts always leave this out of their argument about how it's ok for everybody including Asian guys to accept these relationships when these are the same people who would denounce relationships between Asian males and white females. This is obvious by the way the white media in this country pair up Asian females with White males 90-99% of the time when the majority of Asian relationships are between Asian females and Asian males. The media doesn't do this to women of any other race hence you don't see those women have a thing for white males in the same proportion as Asian females.
The influence of the media towards it's targeted audiance has been proven to be substantial in study after study. The media has a substantial affect on Asians in this country because their population is smaller than other ethnic groups here. There is also a lack of an Asian American culture in America leading to a lack of a defined Asian American identity. Look at it this way, African Americans have a defined African American Identity (black music, black stars etc), White Americans have a defined white identity (white music, white stars etc), Hispanics have a defined Hispanic identity (Hispanic music, hispanic stars etc). Asians in this country really don't have an Asian American culture so the majority of them will take up either a white identity or a black identity. In essence, it's like having an Asian person that looks Asian on the outside but are either white or black on the inside.
How the media conditions Asians in the country and how it divides Asians Americans: The media portrays Asian females and Asian males divergently. Asian females are paired up with white males the majority of the time yet the majority of Asian relationships in this country are between Asian males and Asian females. The American media almost never pair up Asian males with white females even though these relationships, though fewer than AF/Wm relationships make up a portion of Asian reltionships in this country. What you have then is a mirroring effect of how the media actually conditions Asian Americans to socialize in this country. Asian guys can get white women and women of any other race as can be seem in this website:
http://www.aznlover.com/vbulletin/showth...
The problem with the distortion of Asian interracial relationships is that the media gives a thumbs up to Asian female interractial relationships-showing this mostly with white males, sometimes with black males and almost never with hispanic males and you get the mirroring effect of social dynamics for Asians in this country. One has to ask why the media continues to portray Asian females with nonAsian males the majority of the time when Asian female Asian males male up the majority of Asian relationships in this country. The media doesn't do this with women of any other race.
Link to what happens when the one way conditioning of the old media gives way to the internet.
http://www.proudasianamerican.com/Articl...
Links to media influence:
http://www.troubledwith.com/stellent/gro...
http://www.troubledwith.com/stellent/gro...
http://www.troubledwith.com/stellent/gro... The white male dominated media does not like to portray Asian males with white females because they know what giving a thumbs up to these kinds of relationships can do. Imagine what would happen if 90-99% of all media portrayals of Asian males are with white females and Asian males are portrayed in the most positive light while Asian women are dogged out in the media. There'd be a pretty dramatic impact on Asian interracial relationships in this country.
Why do white guys hate seeing Asian guys with white women but support Asian female white male relationships?
Boooo! Quit stereotyping.
Reply:I think you had a good point but you rambled way too long. I lost interest after the 3rd paragraph of your question. Report It
Reply:Hey point me in the direction of the asian males I've had my fair share of white american men %26gt;%26lt; Report It
Reply:I'm an Asian guy with a white gf. Her bro hates my guts because I'm Asian, neither of us gives a sh*t what he thinks. So unless it hinders you, don't let it bother you. Report It
Reply:Hey, I've run into you before, speaking about this very topic. You seem to be very into it. Report It
Reply:If you go to a white school and you are asian or as in like a high school, I would know how you feel. I'm in a middle of that process right now. I'm just a freshman. Report It
Reply:http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/qu... Report It
Reply:Because alot of them are insecure and feel like thier women are being taken away. It's the stupid discrimination thing.. it's crap it shouldn't matter, women are women and men are men..color should never be an issue.
Reply:I've never heard anyone speak critically of asian male - white female relationships. Ever.
My guess is the reason that you see less asian male - white female relationships then the converse is that most women like to date men who are taller then them, and first generation asian males are often shorter then natural born western white women. This is much less true for second generation and later asian males who grow up with a western diet.
One friend of mine in university was a tall asian male, my sister was pretty interested in him actually. He dated lots of white women, and I'm not aware of any backlash against it.
Reply:Sorry! I don't really give a rat'sas.s who's with whom, and I'm white. Got me confused with a racist maybe?
Reply:Why would we care if you date white women? I have an asian friend who ONLY dates white women, he refuses to talk to asian women. I don't know anyone who cares about that.
Reply:Im a caucatian male of Irish descent and I could care less if Asian guys date white girls. However, Ive never seen a white girl and an Asian guy together.
Reply:You probably are incapable of realizing or understanding this, but if you were a caucasian (non-hyphenated American) saying this about any other ethnic group, you would be labeled a racist and ridiculed mercilously. Regardless, you do seem like a stereotyping, flaming racist to me.
teething
Prove me wrong white guys-regarding Asian female/white male interracial hypocrisy?
White guys who answer these posts always leave this out of their argument about how it's ok for everybody including Asian guys to accept these relationships when these are the same people who would denounce relationships between Asian males and white females. This is obvious by the way the white media in this country pair up Asian females with White males 90-99% of the time when the majority of Asian relationships are between Asian females and Asian males. The media doesn't do this to women of any other race hence you don't see those women have a thing for white males in the same proportion as Asian females.
The influence of the media towards it's targeted audiance has been proven to be substantial in study after study. The media has a substantial affect on Asians in this country because their population is smaller than other ethnic groups here. There is also a lack of an Asian American culture in America leading to a lack of a defined Asian American identity. Look at it this way, African Americans have a defined African American Identity (black music, black stars etc), White Americans have a defined white identity (white music, white stars etc), Hispanics have a defined Hispanic identity (Hispanic music, hispanic stars etc). Asians in this country really don't have an Asian American culture so the majority of them will take up either a white identity or a black identity. In essence, it's like having an Asian person that looks Asian on the outside but are either white or black on the inside.
How the media conditions Asians in the country and how it divides Asians Americans: The media portrays Asian females and Asian males divergently. Asian females are paired up with white males the majority of the time yet the majority of Asian relationships in this country are between Asian males and Asian females. The American media almost never pair up Asian males with white females even though these relationships, though fewer than AF/Wm relationships make up a portion of Asian reltionships in this country. What you have then is a mirroring effect of how the media actually conditions Asian Americans to socialize in this country. Asian guys can get white women and women of any other race as can be seem in this website:
http://www.aznlover.com/vbulletin/showth...
The problem with the distortion of Asian interracial relationships is that the media gives a thumbs up to Asian female interractial relationships-showing this mostly with white males, sometimes with black males and almost never with hispanic males and you get the mirroring effect of social dynamics for Asians in this country. One has to ask why the media continues to portray Asian females with nonAsian males the majority of the time when Asian female Asian males male up the majority of Asian relationships in this country. The media doesn't do this with women of any other race.
Link to what happens when the one way conditioning of the old media gives way to the internet.
http://www.proudasianamerican.com/Articl...
Links to media influence:
http://www.troubledwith.com/stellent/gro...
http://www.troubledwith.com/stellent/gro...
http://www.troubledwith.com/stellent/gro... The white male dominated media does not like to portray Asian males with white females because they know what giving a thumbs up to these kinds of relationships can do. Imagine what would happen if 90-99% of all media portrayals of Asian males are with white females and Asian males are portrayed in the most positive light while Asian women are dogged out in the media. There'd be a pretty dramatic impact on Asian interracial relationships in this country.
Prove me wrong white guys-regarding Asian female/white male interracial hypocrisy?
Was that a question?
I'm married to a Thai woman, by the way. That should leave an extra white girl available for you if you so desire.
Reply:Daniel - I'm sure you mean well with your answer - but I can assure you, that white girl that's "available" is UNLIKELY to date an Asian Guy.
The next time you see an asian/white combination. Note, which one's the male and which ones the female. You'll almost never see the opposite happen... Report It
Reply:Daniel has demeaned Asian males and any females in this subject by saying "extra white girls" being available (for ranting Asian American male). This issue falls into two separate categories, "interracial, " %26amp; "marginality" of Asian Male, unfamiliar with "machismo" images in "consumer" cultures. Report It
Reply:SIDEWINDER Many of my friends are Asian men with white girlfriends, my wife is Asian. As a group we get along fine. THese Asian men tha I speak they are my friends and I truly respect them. You must live in CA. I am in NY...It is tolerant here. Report It
Reply:Is it hypocracy?
Sex sells!
I think there is a valid reason for this in the sexual society today. Sterotypically the white male is a stronger/larger being than the asain male. The more "manly" of the two. While the Asian felmale is the smaller more petite, The essence of being female.
Honestly who would rather see a 5'6" male of Asain ethnicity, With a 5'7" white female?
I have worked in Asia, and the pacific Islands as a male dancer. I know that the Asain population has an attraction towards white male or female. However the female is generally more attracted to the "Alpha Male" which in most situations is not of Asian heritage.
I hope i have not offended you in anyway by defending the media. But the media only depicts what the viewing audience would like to see.
Reply:What is the question it seems like you have all the information above
Reply:Amen!
Reply:White men dont like to see white women going with other race of man and vice versa. Asian men ESPECIALLY dont like to see Asian women going with other races of man and vice versa. Thats just the way it is. Human nature.
Reply:Sounds like you might need this book:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Date-White-Wom...
Reply:Dude, WTF was your question?
You want to just rant, cool. But tell it like it is.
This is a rant about:
Personally, I could care less if a black guy dates/marries a white lady or an asian lady or a lady of color or a mexican lady or a...you get the point.
Nor do I care if an asian guy dates any of those.
Or a white guy.
Get freakin' real people. It is 2006. Not 1956. This race / color / religion bullshi* has got to go. It helps no one and hurts everyone.
All right, I'm done. Off my soapbox for a bit.
Reply:Did this have a point? Is it going anywhere? Is it a crime to use so many words when you don't have anything to say?
The influence of the media towards it's targeted audiance has been proven to be substantial in study after study. The media has a substantial affect on Asians in this country because their population is smaller than other ethnic groups here. There is also a lack of an Asian American culture in America leading to a lack of a defined Asian American identity. Look at it this way, African Americans have a defined African American Identity (black music, black stars etc), White Americans have a defined white identity (white music, white stars etc), Hispanics have a defined Hispanic identity (Hispanic music, hispanic stars etc). Asians in this country really don't have an Asian American culture so the majority of them will take up either a white identity or a black identity. In essence, it's like having an Asian person that looks Asian on the outside but are either white or black on the inside.
How the media conditions Asians in the country and how it divides Asians Americans: The media portrays Asian females and Asian males divergently. Asian females are paired up with white males the majority of the time yet the majority of Asian relationships in this country are between Asian males and Asian females. The American media almost never pair up Asian males with white females even though these relationships, though fewer than AF/Wm relationships make up a portion of Asian reltionships in this country. What you have then is a mirroring effect of how the media actually conditions Asian Americans to socialize in this country. Asian guys can get white women and women of any other race as can be seem in this website:
http://www.aznlover.com/vbulletin/showth...
The problem with the distortion of Asian interracial relationships is that the media gives a thumbs up to Asian female interractial relationships-showing this mostly with white males, sometimes with black males and almost never with hispanic males and you get the mirroring effect of social dynamics for Asians in this country. One has to ask why the media continues to portray Asian females with nonAsian males the majority of the time when Asian female Asian males male up the majority of Asian relationships in this country. The media doesn't do this with women of any other race.
Link to what happens when the one way conditioning of the old media gives way to the internet.
http://www.proudasianamerican.com/Articl...
Links to media influence:
http://www.troubledwith.com/stellent/gro...
http://www.troubledwith.com/stellent/gro...
http://www.troubledwith.com/stellent/gro... The white male dominated media does not like to portray Asian males with white females because they know what giving a thumbs up to these kinds of relationships can do. Imagine what would happen if 90-99% of all media portrayals of Asian males are with white females and Asian males are portrayed in the most positive light while Asian women are dogged out in the media. There'd be a pretty dramatic impact on Asian interracial relationships in this country.
Prove me wrong white guys-regarding Asian female/white male interracial hypocrisy?
Was that a question?
I'm married to a Thai woman, by the way. That should leave an extra white girl available for you if you so desire.
Reply:Daniel - I'm sure you mean well with your answer - but I can assure you, that white girl that's "available" is UNLIKELY to date an Asian Guy.
The next time you see an asian/white combination. Note, which one's the male and which ones the female. You'll almost never see the opposite happen... Report It
Reply:Daniel has demeaned Asian males and any females in this subject by saying "extra white girls" being available (for ranting Asian American male). This issue falls into two separate categories, "interracial, " %26amp; "marginality" of Asian Male, unfamiliar with "machismo" images in "consumer" cultures. Report It
Reply:SIDEWINDER Many of my friends are Asian men with white girlfriends, my wife is Asian. As a group we get along fine. THese Asian men tha I speak they are my friends and I truly respect them. You must live in CA. I am in NY...It is tolerant here. Report It
Reply:Is it hypocracy?
Sex sells!
I think there is a valid reason for this in the sexual society today. Sterotypically the white male is a stronger/larger being than the asain male. The more "manly" of the two. While the Asian felmale is the smaller more petite, The essence of being female.
Honestly who would rather see a 5'6" male of Asain ethnicity, With a 5'7" white female?
I have worked in Asia, and the pacific Islands as a male dancer. I know that the Asain population has an attraction towards white male or female. However the female is generally more attracted to the "Alpha Male" which in most situations is not of Asian heritage.
I hope i have not offended you in anyway by defending the media. But the media only depicts what the viewing audience would like to see.
Reply:What is the question it seems like you have all the information above
Reply:Amen!
Reply:White men dont like to see white women going with other race of man and vice versa. Asian men ESPECIALLY dont like to see Asian women going with other races of man and vice versa. Thats just the way it is. Human nature.
Reply:Sounds like you might need this book:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Date-White-Wom...
Reply:Dude, WTF was your question?
You want to just rant, cool. But tell it like it is.
This is a rant about:
Personally, I could care less if a black guy dates/marries a white lady or an asian lady or a lady of color or a mexican lady or a...you get the point.
Nor do I care if an asian guy dates any of those.
Or a white guy.
Get freakin' real people. It is 2006. Not 1956. This race / color / religion bullshi* has got to go. It helps no one and hurts everyone.
All right, I'm done. Off my soapbox for a bit.
Reply:Did this have a point? Is it going anywhere? Is it a crime to use so many words when you don't have anything to say?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)