Let's talk about the election

..........

[Murphy's Law]

I agree with Sacamuelas that not elaborating on how he plans to lead is hurting him. The most important FACT that i have heard thus far is that Kerry has never led anything before in his life. That alone is enough for me to vote for GW which i plan on doing.

[Ghostrider]

As long as the President can weather the hits of the last couple weeks and the economy stays on track he should defeat Kerry. Alot of it depends on how the electoral votes end up being distributed. The local paper had a break down of states that were "definites" and those "leaning" to either side. As of right now (if you believe the breakdown) it was about 205 for each with another approximately 128 in "undecided" states.

As for those people not voting Bush just to not give him a vote?
Well, that is precisely why the president is elected via the electoral college as opposed to a popular vote.

Those guys who wrote the constitution were pretty sharp.

[Bill Harsey]

Is it just me or does anyone here notice the media created and now sustained frenzy around those prisoner photos? NBC (Mothers Day morning) showed it's series of "prisoner abuse" photos three seperate times while TELLING the question, "Will this impact the presidents re-election campaign?" At the breaking of this "prisoner abuse photo story" I stated that sights (sites?) would be set high on this hunt.

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by Bill Harsey
Is it just me or does anyone here notice the media created and now sustained frenzy around those prisoner photos? NBC (Mothers Day morning) showed it's series of "prisoner abuse" photos three seperate times while TELLING the question, "Will this impact the presidents re-election campaign?" At the breaking of this "prisoner abuse photo story" I stated that sights (sites?) would be set high on this hunt.

No lie.

I watched Fox News Sunday, thought they gave it roughly appropriate coverage, then turned off Russert, who has become more of a shill for the Democrats than even Stephanopolis, when he continued to bash the PotUS, SecDef, soldiers, etc.

Russert is so biased now that I just watch the second echelon shows, like Chris Matthews, when he is on.

They report was complete in January, actions have been and should continue to be taken against the idiots who perpetrated this black eye on America, and we should ruck up, shut up, and Charlie Mike.

The sights of the major media outlets are the same as the aims of the DNC - the President, not the perpetrators.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[Ghostrider]

No doubt, the media has it's own agenda.....I certainly think that the soldiers and their immediate leadership must be held accountable, but the continued dragging on and exposure of the abuse can only serve one purpose. By keeping it in the spotlight they (media) are hoping that it will have a negative affect on the the POTUS re-election.

My question is after a few days of exposure the Blackwater mutilation have all but dissappeared......where is the international outrage on that incident? Why aren't there calls for bringing those responsible to justice?

It's outrageous for the media to even pretend that they are displaying any level of unbiased coverage.

[Gypsy]

Originally posted by Bill Harsey
Is it just me or does anyone here notice the media created and now sustained frenzy around those prisoner photos? NBC (Mothers Day morning) showed it's series of "prisoner abuse" photos three seperate times while TELLING the question, "Will this impact the presidents re-election campaign?" At the breaking of this "prisoner abuse photo story" I stated that sights (sites?) would be set high on this hunt.

No Sir it is not just you. It is a constant barrage of showing the pics over and over and with more to follow. IE: "Is this the tip of the iceburg"...there are "more disturbing videos, pics etc". "The American people have a right to know" blah blah blah. I agree news should not be censored but I firmly believe that unless it is reported without bias all they are doing is subliminally and overtly making commentary in the hopes of affecting the election.

Haven't heard too many of the talking heads provide info that the Military has been investigating since January and taking action. And the liberal left continues to feed the frenzy, all the while aiding the BG in their zeal and personal agendas to unseat President Bush at the expense of our Country and on the backs of our Military. They incite the masses and are so transparent, at least to me.

[DunbarFC]

This more and more proves to me that the media thinks we love scandal and tragedy more than real news

How else can you explain their fascination with Scott Peterson, Kobe Bryant, the Iraqi prisoner story ?

I do think there is political bias in network and cable news, but I also think it' more telling about our media itself. They want stories they don't have to work for. They want stories that have a shelf life so that they can claim some glory.

Look how fast Pat Tillman has vanished from the news. Stories about a man willing to give his all for his beliefs aren't something reporters can relate to.

Makes me want to go back to school and get a journalism degree and take them over from the inside

[Ghostrider]

Well let's face it, our society is used to immediate gratification and the news media know that. So in an effort to keep their ratings share high it is imperative that they are first with the "breaking news", thus getting the attention from the viewing public. This in itself (people wanting information) is not a bad thing. But, on the viewing public's part, there is a lack of effort to step back and do a critical analysis of what they have just seen.

The overall effect of this of course means stories are reported without adequate confirmation (eg. 2000 election results.....1st Gore won, then Bush won, then we don't know who won), a high percentage of viewers believe the reports without reservation, and people make conclusions/decisions based on those reports. In addition, controversial topics are given priority presentation in order to inflame public opinion which in turn creates more of a need for extra attention paid to those topics.

As you stated DFC, people love scandal, melodrama, and tragedy.....otherwise how else can one explain the popularity of soap operas, Jerry Springer, and the "reality" based tv programs? The sad part is that it has encroached into the realm of actual journalism.

[Solid]

Should the US Govt. prevent the news channels from showing pictures/videos of captives under the Geneva Convention ruling that it was illegal to parade POWs on TV?
Or would that serve to exacerbate the govt's position by making them seem authoritarian (both in the eyes of the US public and the ME)?

Thank you,

Solid

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by Solid
Should the US Govt. prevent the news channels from showing pictures/videos of captives under the Geneva Convention ruling that it was illegal to parade POWs on TV?
Or would that serve to exacerbate the govt's position by making them seem authoritarian (both in the eyes of the US public and the ME)?

Thank you,

Solid

No. First Amendment.

What should happen is that people grow tired of hearing the same reports every night, and quit watching, causing the major media outlets to consider the reason for the loss of viewers.

TR

[Solid]

That's interesting, I thought that Int' law would supersede the first amendment. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

Solid

Originally posted by Solid
That's interesting, I thought that Int' law would supersede the first amendment. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

Solid

By definition, the US Constitution is the highest law of the land. Agreeing to a treaty which attempted otherwise (like the International Court fiasco) would be unconstitutional.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by The Reaper
What should happen is that people grow tired of hearing the same reports every night, and quit watching, causing the major media outlets to consider the reason for the loss of viewers.

Or maybe Boeing could buy CNN? LOL

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally posted by Solid
That's interesting, I thought that Int' law would supersede the first amendment. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

Solid

Apples and oranges in this case.

The applicable international laws, in this case the Third Geneva Convention (Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949), apply to states. The First Amendment applies against the state. The U.S. government does not have First Amendment rights and non-government actors, in this case the media, are not parties to the Geneva Conventions.

It does get more complicated if you were to change the facts though. If Fox were to start running a reality show called "When animals attack ... enemy detainees", the government might try to censor such a program in the name of the Conventions' duty to protect the detainees "against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." Fox might scream First Amendment violation. I doubt they would win, but not because the treaty trumped the Constitution, but rather because the First Amendment is not absolute, and fulfilling the Convention's goals would be a compelling government interest.

If the government tried to enforce a blanket prohibition on media coverage of prisoners on the grounds of the Geneva Conventions, it might lose though. The Supreme Court has recognized that while a treaty might impact the exercise of a Constitutional right (see, e.g., Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920)), it cannot take them away. Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1(1957) ("This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."). See also De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890):

"The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent."