Munchkin03-I agree that this is an important milestone in the American campaign, but more footage would have befitted those of us with better attention spans.

I've noticed we are starting to see a lot more of the "hole" he was in. I find that pretty interesting.

I do think part of the choice was to show the world he was nothing more than...human, for lack of a better word. Those pictures of him being examined are pretty effective tools in breaking the myth that he was indestructible. I think it was important for the people of Iraq to see him totally powerless. They needed to see he was no longer a threat.
edited-Hubby just read that when the soldiers captured him they said, "Regards from President Bush!" LOL!!!

I think the BBC's coverage did an effective job in portraying that---just with more footage.

Just because the Vatican may say stuff I don't agree with always doesn't shake my faith as a catholic. Unfourtunly they are just as political as anyone else.

Whenever a group of human beings gets together for any purpose, there WILL be politics. It's just the way human beings are wired. Not a good or bad thing, IMHO, just a human thing.

(Co-sign re: faith and official statements)

Adrienne

You know, sometimes it seems like more than a lifetime.

Here's another way of thinking about this.

The American media can be very strong and have enormous influence -- but it is not all powerful. It is also not totally cynical, but that's another story and another debate.

One of the results of the "MTV Generation" is that the TV audiences viewing attention span really has gotten shorter. I can't cite them, but there have been "studies" on this. If there are not lots of quickly edited pictures of an event, it quickly looses it "visual interest." That's my term -- not from a book. Because of that, news organizations have a huge appitite for ANY kind of on location incident footage.

So, how do they get it? Two ways. Either they have a crew onsite -- or hope someone else (Like the Army?) shoots the event and is willing to share the footage.

The Army/Administration has a story to tell. And it has it's own viewpoint.

That being the case, who is the real "gatekeeper" -- something the media is often accused of being -- on that story. Why, it's the guy who has the videotape in hand, and can parcel it out however he/she/it wants to.

That is a huge propaganda tool!

Satellite technology has given television remarkable flexibility and speed. However, if there are no pictures of the event, that flexibility is worthless. During this war, the military -- reacting to stinging criticism of it's "management" of coverage of the first Mid-East War -- had the "imbedded reporter" system. On the face of it, a good way for the media to get close to the action. The problem is that an "imbedded" crew can only go where the unit to which it is imbedded goes. Another reasonably easy way to "control" the flow of news. Only show them what you want them to see.

Is it cynical for the military to control that news flow? If you believe in an absolute free press (remember this, all of you who like to claim the rights of the First Amendment), yes it is terribly cynical. Is it wrong? Sometimes. Is it necessary? Sometimes. Are there reporters who would abuse the powers, even to the point of endangering an operation. Yes. Is that true of the vast majority of reporters. No. Most are highly disciplined professionals.

What has likely happened here, as I've said before, is that the Army, in concert with other government agencies and the administration, has "rationed" out it's footage (the only game in town in this case) to achieve it's own best objective/propaganda/agenda.

Is that wrong in this case? You can decide that for yourself. I have my own opinion, but it really isn't relavent here, and is, after all, only another opinion. Maybe a little more informed due to my background, but still just an opinion.

Beyond the ethics of all of that, my biggest personal problem in this case was having to look into that idiot's mouth 30-40 times in the first hour of coverage.

See, I was around before MTV.

I thought that this was classic.

"I am Saddam Hussein. I am the president of Iraq. I want to negotiate."

The soldiers replied: "President Bush sends his regards."

Where was the Vatican when people were massacred for 35 years in Iraq? Did this Cardinal say anything when Kurdish lungs melted in their bodies? Who shed tears when Shiites were mutilated? Were the children of Iran not worthy of cattle comparisons when they walked across minefields? What about the bodies hanging from light posts in Kuwait? How about the scuds that rained on cities across Israel - when fathers put their babies in plastic cages so they could survive chemical attacks?

The Vatican isn't simply a religious body - it is highly political. And I don't even want to hear about what is shameful from the Vatican because of their past and current sins.

-Rudey
--Europe got shut out of world influence and the Vatican is getting shut out of European influence.

Hey Rudey....

Any idiot can look it up and see that, wow, the Vatican did protest these things too..... shocking huh?

Before you spout off, at least attempt to back-check you "facts".

So very true...

The Vatican has politcal movements within it, much like any country. You have conservative and liberal orders and movements within the Vatican itself.....

For example during WW2 you had orders the lay low, others tacitly supported the Nazis, while others actively opposed the Nazis. Each did this because of their own political views, and their own idea of what was best for the Church.

Another example is my fraternity's neighbor, "Opus Dei"(?), they are a very conservative movement that wants people to attend church everyday, advocates the seperation of men and women until marriage (in school), wants a return to the Latin mass, and I know the residence censors all external input (newspapers, internet, magazines, etc.). Now they have the support of some of the cardinals vieing for Pope, but other orders (Dominicans for one) try to have as little as possible to do with them because of their conflicting viewpoints and politcal leanings (think Republicans and Democrats).

It is important to understand that the Vatican is not only a religious, but a politcal, organization. As such it will make mistakes, and commit shameful acts just as any other political entity would....

Hey idiot show me these protests. And if you want we can start talking about the sins of the Vatican now and how they refuse to open up certain records to be investigated.

Hey Cooper how does it feel to be a loser with no prospects in life? Hey maybe when you're like 45 you think you will graduate from college?

Edited to Add (for anyone other than the "idiot" above):
I am pointing out that the Vatican is not just religious but also political and, often, its political views are not balanced.

-Rudey
--Must feel good huh? jagoff.

UH-OH!!!!http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/uhoh.gif

Hey Rob, a couple of things you might want to know:

Here's a quote that gets forgotten alot

"When fearful martyrdom came to our people, the voice of the
pope was raised for its victims."

Golda Meir, Israeli Foreign Minister(October 1958) "

(Hint: she's praising Pope Pius XII in a eulogy)

Oh, and I am very familiar w/ Opus Dei--I'm a super-numerary and have good relationships with several residences. The information you posted above are nothing more than scandalous rumors. I know this for a FACT because I am directly involved with them.

Disagree as much as you like, but at least get the facts straight.

Can we un-hijak this thread please? Can the anti-Catholic bigotry take a break please?

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Listen nobody is Catholic bashing - the vatican is not immune from criticism. Since you like to throw a Golda Meir quote - how about throwing a quote in about the Church's role during the holocaust that it only recently apologized for and even then it was a nonspecific apology that were not even close to what could have been said.

The Vatican is a political body as well and just because it gets criticized you have made that into a Catholic-bashing scenario. When the Vatican starts righting its wrongs and throws criticisms equally against everyone including itself, then they can even start to say anything like this.

-Rudey

Actually, there has been Catholic bashing in this thread, Rudey.

So what. What was said that wasn't accurate?