Soldiers response to MJ death

[thetreble 19]

I think they have held minutes of silence for the troops. There's only so many times you can do that before it becomes a trite and meaningless gesture - if Congress held a minutes silence for every US soldier that died (saw a headline that two died in Afghanistan today) then noone would get any work done.

Sneaking the bodies of dead servicemen back into the US was something that was started during the Bush administration as was banning the publication of the photos of flag draped coffins (because it was thought that it would further polarise public opinion on an already controversial policy).

Ah yes, That's what my husband said. It was because of public perception of what was going on in the war and they wanted the public to support it, not turn their backs on it after seeing the death of many soldiers.

Tmma, I think we all get your point that you are so aggressively defending. But isn't every one a hero in their own way? Isn't the father working three jobs a hero too? Like Pike said, it's really not that big of a deal and I think you are the one going over the top on this subject.

Also, am I suggesting that when people sign up for the military that they go in knowing there is a chance of being hurt, killed, disfigured? Uh..yes. Wouldn't you think about that before you signed up for the military? If your family and friends are ignorant enough to think it can't happen to you while in combat then I don't know what to tell you.

You keep saying you don't like it and you think it's wrong but what are you going to do about it? This world is full of situations we all think are ridiculous but...there are millions of people out there who could tell you what Jennifer Aniston had for breakfast but not who their local congressman is. It seems like you are acting surprised and that's kind of ignorance in itself.

[tmma 467]

[quote

......

Tmma, I think we all get your point that you are so aggressively defending. But isn't every one a hero in their own way? Isn't the father working three jobs a hero too? Like Pike said, it's really not that big of a deal and I think you are the one going over the top on this subject.

Also, am I suggesting that when people sign up for the military that they go in knowing there is a chance of being hurt, killed, disfigured? Uh..yes. Wouldn't you think about that before you signed up for the military? If your family and friends are ignorant enough to think it can't happen to you while in combat then I don't know what to tell you.

You keep saying you don't like it and you think it's wrong but what are you going to do about it? ....

......It seems like you are acting surprised and that's kind of ignorance in itself.

I asked if you were suggesting that somehow because they volunteered ( signed up) that the shameful sneaking in was to be somehow expected......Of course people that sign up for the Military go in knowing there is a strong possibility of being deployed and hurt. 'Wouldn't I think about that before I signed up...?' I DID sign up and was injured in combat. I knew the risks when I volunteered- I don't blame anyone at all for my injuries apart from the guys planting explosives here, there and everywhere over there...However-If I had been killed and my body was shamefully snook back ( like so many of the fallen)-and then our congress did a moment of silence for MJ, you can bet your butt I would be looking to come back and haunt someone.

And I'm sadly not suprised at the silence for MJ...It's a sad reflection on our society to me. Am I annoyed...sure, and that's my right.

'What am I doing' about what I believe in...Hmmm...well, I volunteer for the VA, fundraise and lobby for the VFW and VA and am involved in many aspects of volunteer work for the retired and active duty alike....

.....So, please before you go throwing words like 'ignorant' around when referencing combat death and disability, treatment of veterans or the risk one takes when volunteering--- make sure that the person you are talking to IS ignorant about it and maybe, just maybe not even alittle rightfully stunned at the MJ thing.

Edited July 14, 2009 by tmma

[alienlovechild 75]

Sneaking the bodies of dead servicemen back into the US was something that was started during the Bush administration as was banning the publication of the photos of flag draped coffins (because it was thought that it would further polarise public opinion on an already controversial policy).

No, the practice years began years earlier under Bush Sr. but the media didn't report it that way for obvious reasons.

"Although the Defense Department won't confirm it, it is widely accepted that the idea for the ban began after the December 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama, when the United States deposed dictator Manuel Noriega."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/26/pen...=rss_topstories

Edited July 14, 2009 by alienlovechild

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not that it matters in relation to what we were talking about (because the reason it was done still stands), but OK.

[AlHayatZween 2]

i think MJ made great contributions to music & dance & video. i think he was a great artist.

but i hear you, Brnid... it was over the top, and clearly our priorities are messed a lot of the time.

[AlHayatZween 2]

As far as teachers go, please visit our state of New Jersey and ask any one about teachers. They are the largest union in the state and the way we pay respect to them is through their high salaries tax payers pay for. They are taken care of for life. So, when Mrs. Smith dies of old age at 89 years old, I don't really feel like I'm obliged to pay my respects to her.

Wait, what's the starting salary for teachers in Dirty Jerz??

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you look to the corporate media in general as representing the values and morals of society in general, you're bound to be disappointed.

[Peikko 1,575]

If you look to the corporate media in general as representing the values and morals of society in general, you're bound to be disappointed.

Bingo, we have a winner.

I have to say though, if congress stooped to pandering to the popularist view, that is disappointing - but not surprising. I was equally disappointed with Gordon Brown's response. I'd rather he thumbed his nose at such a question, but there it is, such is the political world we live in these days.

Roll on 'I'm a member of congress, get me out of here' is what I say

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you look to the corporate media in general as representing the values and morals of society in general, you're bound to be disappointed.

Bingo, we have a winner.

I have to say though, if congress stooped to pandering to the popularist view, that is disappointing - but not surprising.

Historically, celebrities have been treated that way by presidents and congress alike. Elvis was invited to the White House by Nixon.

....

On the morning of December 21, 1970, Elvis Presley personally delivered a letter to the northwest gate of the White House. Written on American Airlines stationery, the five-page letter requested a meeting with President Nixon. Presley intended to present the President with a gift of a World War II-era pistol and obtain for himself the credentials of a federal agent in the war on drugs.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[ScottThuy 140]

Michael Jackson died?

Michael who?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Coverage of celebrity deaths has roots in 'Elvis'

"The CBS Evening News" on Aug. 16, 1977, led with a story on the Panama Canal. Former President Gerald Ford had come out in favor of a plan, announced the week before, to give control of the canal to Panama. Former California Gov. Ronald Reagan said he was against it. Again.

Elvis Presley's death was reported later.

There are those who contend that if Walter Cronkite had not been on vacation, CBS would have led with Elvis, as ABC and NBC did. But the fact that it was even a close call was hard to fathom Friday as news organizations continued to scramble to keep pace with new developments in Michael Jackson's death the day before.

"Our job is not to respond to public taste," Richard Salant, then-head of CBS News, had offered as an explanation of the Panama/Presley call, according to various accounts. "Elvis Presley was dead _ so he was dead."

The only thing more dead, even then, was that kind of thinking, which Roone Arledge, applying what he learned as head of ABC Sports to a revamp of ABC News, was quick to brand elitist.

News is a business, and no business can talk about giving people what they want and then deem that desire unworthy, if it wants to survive. Not everyone cares, obviously. But by nearly every measure, more than a few people have more than a passing interest when what might be deemed fluff intersects with hard news.

CBS would come to repeat the mantra "Remember Elvis" for years afterward, fearful of ever again seeming out of touch with what touched viewers. There was no debate at the House of Murrow when Bing Crosby died two months after Presley.

By 1980, when John Lennon was murdered, the major-media template for handling celebrity deaths _ prominent coverage, specials and other remembrances _ was established, straddling between tribute and exploitation, news and sensationalism. And you saw it still last week for Jackson and Farrah Fawcett.

What has changed is how, and how fast, the news is gathered and spread.

If 'CBS' stubbornness fed ABC and NBC the millions interested in the King of Rock ''n' Roll in 1977, imagine today when the audience not only has more alternatives for information sources but is better able to monitor who's delivering what they want at any moment.

Those on Twitter on Thursday were trading links to the latest Jackson info in real time and sharing judgment on their quality. (Spurious Tweets killed actor Jeff Goldblum but later revived him and others said to have followed Jacko and Farrah on the Final Red Carpet, but still.)

Time Warner's TMZ.com and Chicago Tribune parent Tribune Co.'s LATimes.com were out front on Jackson's condition, and other outlets _ initially able neither to ignore the dispatches nor corroborate them _ had to tread carefully.

TMZ's Time Warner cousin, CNN, seemed to hesitate as much as anyone in acknowledging TMZ's reporting, preferring to refer to the reports of the Los Angeles Times, and even then expressing concern. "CNN is an independent news organization; corporate affiliations do not factor into our editorial decision-making," a CNN spokeswoman said.

CBS, meanwhile, used video from the tabloid show "Inside Edition," produced and syndicated by another wing of its parent company, in its "Evening News" report on Fawcett. Later, in its prime-time special on Jackson, it used branded content from "Entertainment Tonight" and the host of "The Insider."

Just as viewers have more sources than before, so, too, do news outlets. One TV executive pointed to the use of YouTube video in coverage of the election in Iran, but said with increased outside options for content comes increased need to vet.

By the way, it should be said that CBS wasn't alone in failing to connect the cultural dots on Elvis Presley's death, although National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" didn't make the exact same mistake. It had the Panama Canal story second, leading with a report on the problems dogging Bert Lance, President Jimmy Carter's erstwhile head of the Office of Management and the Budget.

NPR's report that Elvis had left the building _ and the rest of this world _ closed out the program that evening.

Calling it a "mistake" on the air 20 years later, host Susan Stamberg explained, "You see how culture can last long after the names of kings, queens, and OMB directors are forgotten."

___

Phil Rosenthal: philrosenthal@tribune.com

http://dailyme.com/story/2009062900003435/...ntensifies.html

[alienlovechild 75]

Not that it matters in relation to what we were talking about (because the reason it was done still stands), but OK.

Photographing the caskets at Dover was a scorecard and good propaganda for the enemy. Even if the photos had been shown, I doubt it would changed a thing in domestic politics. I haven't seen much coverage of the flag draped caskets even under Obama so it was for political purposes.

I believe they didn't show any American soldiers killed in WWII and there were so many dead that there weren't daily rolls blasted in the media.

[panamania79 2]

I didn't shed a tear for that pedophile.

Me neither !

[thetreble 19]

I asked if you were suggesting that somehow because they volunteered

I guess that is where our differences lie. I don't believe people "volunteer" for the military as I would volunteer to help run a local bake sale. It's a job just like I go to work and do my job every day. You receive training, just like I do at my job. I believe active and reserve military gets paid, just like I do, which does not constitute volunteer work. I don't know many things about the US military, so I don't know who gets paid what, but I'm sure there is some monetary incentives even in the reserves.

[Fandango 1,439]

I asked if you were suggesting that somehow because they volunteered

I guess that is where our differences lie. I don't believe people "volunteer" for the military as I would volunteer to help run a local bake sale. It's a job just like I go to work and do my job every day. You receive training, just like I do at my job. I believe active and reserve military gets paid, just like I do, which does not constitute volunteer work. I don't know many things about the US military, so I don't know who gets paid what, but I'm sure there is some monetary incentives even in the reserves.

I think you're playing semantics here and grabbing onto one word....she did put 'enlisting' in ( ) after the word volunteer.

So, soldiers get compensation....what's your point?