Rupert Murdoch vs Dixie Chicks

2

Comments

  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    puremagic wrote:
    Honestly, why was it ok to for Murdoch to go before Japanese reporters and minimize the death of American soldiers and receive a "no harm, no foul card"?
    ----

    Murdoch says US death toll in Iraq 'minute'
    November 8, 2006

    Media mogul Rupert Murdoch says he has no regrets about supporting the US-led invasion of Iraq and argues the US death toll in the conflict is “minute” from a historical perspective.

    The News Corporation chief was speaking on the eve of US mid-term elections where President George W Bush’s Republican Party is tipped to lose seats in part due to a backlash over the war.

    “The death toll, certainly of Americans there, by the terms of any previous war are quite minute,” Mr. Murdoch told reporters at a conference in Tokyo.

    He called their deaths 'minute' [as a time-saver] meaning

    1. Exceptionally small; tiny.
    2. Beneath notice; insignificant.

    Here he is, in a foreign country, minimizing the death of American troops as small and insignificant, like a damn apologetic symbolic offering compared to Japan's losses.

    No coverage? No outrage? No anti-American bashing? I guess the words a singing group are more important, more powerful and more deserving of media attention than the comments of the owner of Fox News.

    what he said was true. compared to other wars; the death toll is small. compared to death tolls in big cities or even driving the streets of america; the death toll is small.
    the dixie chicks upset their fans. and it was their fans that burned their CDs.
    how can you compare the two? the news reported the incident because it's news. when john lennon said "it's sad that we are more popular than Christ" the media turned it around and misquoted him reporting him as saying "we are more popular than Christ". the media frenzy was unbelivable.
    the man made an honest statement backed by historical facts. why should there be an uproar?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    puremagic wrote:
    He is only correct in context as it related to the numbers. Yet, we are not asking the families or the country to look at the numbers, are we. No! In fact, we shield the returning caskets from public view and do not release the details of the wounded.

    We are asking the families and the country to continue to make sacrifice, so what is an acceptable number? At what number is the lost of a soldier's life not considered 'minute'.

    There's nothing right about the statement.

    I didnt say there was anything right about the statement. I said it was correct in context. as did you.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    puremagic wrote:
    He is only correct in context as it related to the numbers. Yet, we are not asking the families or the country to look at the numbers, are we. No! In fact, we shield the returning caskets from public view and do not release the details of the wounded.

    We are asking the families and the country to continue to make sacrifice, so what is an acceptable number? At what number is the lost of a soldier's life not considered 'minute'.

    There's nothing right about the statement.

    the caskets are shielded out of respect of the families. the numbers are there for those who want to see them; but parading around caskets is simply morbid.
  • puremagic
    puremagic Posts: 1,907
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I didnt say there was anything right about the statement. I said it was correct in context. as did you.

    puremagic wrote:
    There's nothing right about the statement.

    That statement was not meant as a reflection on your reply, sorry. It was me trying to understand any justification for Murdoch to make his original statement and I couldn't. I guess my fingers just automatically typed my thought.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    onelongsong wrote:
    the caskets are shielded out of respect of the families. the numbers are there for those who want to see them; but parading around caskets is simply morbid.
    The caskets are shielded from the media to prevent the realism of War. Covered caskets aren't morbid, it's showing honor to those who have fallen, and the fact that death is a result form War. You also never see personal soldier stories because what the gov't is trying to do is not give the full realism of War to the American public. This is done so people don't quite understand how painful war is, since they don't see it on the news....it doesn't seem all "that bad" when you don't see the details. Hence, mainstream media is fully controlled by the Bush administration.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Jeanwah wrote:
    The caskets are shielded from the media to prevent the realism of War. Covered caskets aren't morbid, it's showing honor to those who have fallen, and the fact that death is a result form War. You also never see personal soldier stories because what the gov't is trying to do is not give the full realism of War to the American public. Hence, mainstream media is fully controlled by the Bush administration.


    wow, you really believe this garbage?
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    jlew24asu wrote:
    wow, you really believe this garbage?
    You don't? You honestly believe you're getting the facts from the mainstream news? That's pretty sad.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Jeanwah wrote:
    You don't? You honestly believe you're getting the facts from the mainstream news? That's pretty sad.


    no buddy, this statement is sad.

    mainstream media is fully controlled by the Bush administration.
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    jlew24asu wrote:
    no buddy, this statement is sad.

    mainstream media is fully controlled by the Bush administration.
    Yeah. It IS. You don't get any truths from watching any mainstream media source...especially FOX. They're just more obvious of not being truthful.

    You haven't head about the NASA scientist being threatened by the Bush administration that if he released his latest findings on global warming he'd be relieved of his position, eh?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Yeah. It IS. You don't get any truths from watching any mainstream media source...especially FOX. They're just more obvious of not being truthful.

    nice another Fox news basher. its funny how people who dont even watch it assume its all lies.

    on Sundays Fox has a show called "War Stories" I believe they are quite truthful on some of the horrors of war.

    the Bush administration does NOT control the media.
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    Oops, double post.
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    jlew24asu wrote:
    the Bush administration does NOT control the media.

    Keep telling yourself that, and keep watching FOX news. Sounds like you live in sweet ignorant oblivion.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Keep telling yourself that, and keep watching FOX news. Sounds like you live in sweet ignorant oblivion.

    I will. have you ever watched Fox? the answer is no. wait who is ignorant?
  • ThumbingMyWay32
    ThumbingMyWay32 Posts: 1,224
    puremagic wrote:
    Play the word game anyway you want. The fact is that you would not go to your local gathering hole and say what Murdoch said. Hell, you probably wouldn't say the same thing in front of friends or family. So don't try your little dumbass games with me, ok. If any Democratic or someone you thought was liberal had said the same thing, it would have been made into a movie of the week, then turned into a commercial and repeated every 30 seconds by Fox News telecaster readers.

    At least stand by your damn convictions.

    I discuss the fact that we've only lost 3,000 soldiers over the last 3 years of fighting with my family and friends regularly. All of my friends are Liberals, though I'm fairly certain each is more intune to the political airwaves than you. If you knew history as well as you love to rip Rupert Murdoch and the Fox News Channel, you'd realize that 58,000 U.S. soldiers lost their lives during the Vietnam war ('64-'73).

    Now your math lesson:

    3,000/3yrs=1,000 deaths per year

    58,000/9yrs=6,444 death per year

    So, in review... Murdoch was correct. We're losing exactly 15.5% of the soldiers, per year, than we did during the Vietnam conflict. Maybe you should send him a thesaurus if you don't like the words he chooses.

    Or maybe your intelligence needs to reestablish itself with your haste?
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • Smellyman2
    Smellyman2 Posts: 689
    The "war" ain't over yet and so he actually can't even compare to toher wars yet. How many deaths since mission accomplished.

    FOX is that bad. mind numbingly giving one opinion everyday.
  • ThumbingMyWay32
    ThumbingMyWay32 Posts: 1,224
    Smellyman wrote:
    The "war" ain't over yet and so he actually can't even compare to toher wars yet. How many deaths since mission accomplished.

    FOX is that bad. mind numbingly giving one opinion everyday.


    Add this guy to the list.
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Smellyman wrote:
    mind numbingly giving one opinion everyday.

    and CNN, MSNBC, NYTIMES, LATIMES arent doing the same thing?
  • puremagic
    puremagic Posts: 1,907
    ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:
    I discuss the fact that we've only lost 3,000 soldiers over the last 3 years of fighting with my family and friends regularly. All of my friends are Liberals, though I'm fairly certain each is more intune to the political airwaves than you. If you knew history as well as you love to rip Rupert Murdoch and the Fox News Channel, you'd realize that 58,000 U.S. soldiers lost their lives during the Vietnam war ('64-'73).

    Now your math lesson:

    3,000/3yrs=1,000 deaths per year

    58,000/9yrs=6,444 death per year

    So, in review... Murdoch was correct. We're losing exactly 15.5% of the soldiers, per year, than we did during the Vietnam conflict. Maybe you should send him a thesaurus if you don't like the words he chooses.

    Or maybe your intelligence needs to reestablish itself with your haste?


    You know and I know and anyone who has read the thread, knows it's not about the numbers. Your little tricks don't work with me. Murdoch was wrong for making the statement.

    But then again, why don't you just make a post titled -The Death of U.S. Soldiers in Iraq are "insignificant" - and make your case by stating that you think the death of U.S. soldiers in Iraq are "insignificant" because compared to the "number" of U.S. soldiers that died in Vietnam, Korea, WWI and II, they are such a "tiny" number of people. Do those words work better for you?

    Then tell me if the "numbers" out weigh the fact that Murdoch was speaking about soldiers.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • ThumbingMyWay32
    ThumbingMyWay32 Posts: 1,224
    puremagic wrote:
    You know and I know and anyone who has read the thread, knows it's not about the numbers. Your little tricks don't work with me. Murdoch was wrong for making the statement.

    But then again, why don't you just make a post titled -The Death of U.S. Soldiers in Iraq are "insignificant" - and make your case by stating that you think the death of U.S. soldiers in Iraq are "insignificant" because compared to the "number" of U.S. soldiers that died in Vietnam, Korea, WWI and II, they are such a "tiny" number of people. Do those words work better for you?

    Then tell me if the "numbers" out weigh the fact that Murdoch was speaking about soldiers.


    I don't believe any U.S. service member's death is insignificant.

    A man with an agenda. Atleast you're devoted.
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • puremagic
    puremagic Posts: 1,907
    ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:
    I don't believe any U.S. service member's death is insignificant.

    Thank you.
    ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:
    A man with an agenda. Atleast you're devoted.

    No agenda. It's been interesting, enjoy your evening.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.

Categories