Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:44 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

I'm not making anything up. I'm just following other people's logic. Or are you suggesting that what is happening on here is actually racism? That somehow the lives of Americans are of less value than those in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria? For the life of me I don't understand the objection to the coverage of a terrorist act, no matter where it happens. That it happens at the end of a marathon in which people are running to raise money for good causes seems to me to be just as sick as it happening between two opposing factions within the same religion.

Who has objected to coverage?
The objection that I have seen of that kind has been simply about the extent of the coverage, not the existence of coverage.

The lack of logic in your racism accusation is utterly risible.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:55 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

One of the first things George W Bush did when he was first installed as President was block Noraid from supporting the IRA. Unlike his predecessor, he recognised the IRA for what it was: a terrorist organisation and legally identified it as such.

"One of the first things" ... but not until after 9/11 eh?

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:55 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Indeed. It was one of his better moments.

The only one.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:08 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

"One of the first things" ... but not until after 9/11 eh?

Before 9/11 actually.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:09 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Who has objected to coverage?
The objection that I have seen of that kind has been simply about the extent of the coverage, not the existence of coverage.

That's called splitting hairs.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:11 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

That's called splitting hairs.

Wow. No, it's not. The two things are materially different. If you think we pay too much tax, does that mean you oppose all taxation?

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:16 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

.... it just happened to some Americans, so it really isn't worth reporting according to some.

You have no idea of the nationalities of all the victims, but let that pass. Rather than join in your "argument", such as it is, can I instead just invite you to quote any person who has said it really isn't worth reporting.

Take your time.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:24 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Before 9/11 actually.

Really? link please.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:27 pm  

Rock God X wrote: All of the above are excellent arguments for covering the incident, for spending more time on it than on other stories, and for covering it as the first story on each bulletin. I still don't see a need for the total blanket coverage that we had last night and this morning, however. As tragic and unusual as the events were, there were other important things happening that should have been covered as well. I wouldn't have minded so much if they had something new to say throughout that time, but most of the coverage was simply a repeat of the same few seconds of video footage and extended interviews with literally anyone they could get hold of, whether they had anything relevant to say or not. Of course the events should receive a lot of coverage, but not to the almost total exclusion of everything else. Is this, for example, any less tragic than the events in Boston? That's more the nature of the press today. It's 24 hour coverage, but - and here's the key bit - based on the assumption that no-one is actually watching for 24 hours. The headlines are therefore repeated ad nauseam, with the same footage and interviews rolled out continuously. Such dramatic footage, a major sporting event attacked, an uncommon event with as many (possibly global) implications and possible reactions will of course be the lead story for a day or two. Even if it turns out to be a purely domestic attack it's big news. There are also local concerns with the London Marathon this weekend. The deaths of the three children and their pregnant mother have been given very heavy coverage from what I've seen. Even as I type, a major earthquake in Iran is starting to take some of the headlines, as are the arrangements for Thatcher's funeral. The world is moving on not even 24 hours from the event.

Rock God X wrote: All of the above are excellent arguments for covering the incident, for spending more time on it than on other stories, and for covering it as the first story on each bulletin. I still don't see a need for the total blanket coverage that we had last night and this morning, however. As tragic and unusual as the events were, there were other important things happening that should have been covered as well. I wouldn't have minded so much if they had something new to say throughout that time, but most of the coverage was simply a repeat of the same few seconds of video footage and extended interviews with literally anyone they could get hold of, whether they had anything relevant to say or not. Of course the events should receive a lot of coverage, but not to the almost total exclusion of everything else. Is this, for example, any less tragic than the events in Boston? That's more the nature of the press today. It's 24 hour coverage, but - and here's the key bit - based on the assumption that no-one is actually watching for 24 hours. The headlines are therefore repeated ad nauseam, with the same footage and interviews rolled out continuously. Such dramatic footage, a major sporting event attacked, an uncommon event with as many (possibly global) implications and possible reactions will of course be the lead story for a day or two. Even if it turns out to be a purely domestic attack it's big news. There are also local concerns with the London Marathon this weekend. The deaths of the three children and their pregnant mother have been given very heavy coverage from what I've seen. Even as I type, a major earthquake in Iran is starting to take some of the headlines, as are the arrangements for Thatcher's funeral. The world is moving on not even 24 hours from the event.

Re: Bombs in Boston : Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:38 pm  

Cronus wrote:

That's more the nature of the press today. It's 24 hour coverage, but - and here's the key bit - based on the assumption that no-one is actually watching for 24 hours. The headlines are therefore repeated ad nauseam, with the same footage and interviews rolled out continuously.

They might assume that no one watches for 24 hours, but I doubt they assume that no one watches for a whole hour. As I said, I've no objection to it being headline news - it was always going to be - but I cannot see a need for it to be the only thing reported for hours on end. I don't even object to, say, Barack Obama's speech being replayed a few times. But when they're interviewing a member of the public and asking what the saw, and the answer is 'not a lot' (I'm paraphrasing), it's time to report something else and come back to that story later. The whole thing was about 30% actual news and 70% padding.