Nightline

[theknife]

ABC's Nightline is going to air a 40 minute segment tonight, called "The Fallen", with a reading of the name of each American soldier who has died in Iraq, along with his picture. No commmentary, just a straight read right down the list.

this has some people in an uproar, particularly these guys:

The controversy escalated when the Maryland-based Sinclair Broadcast Group announced that the eight ABC affiliated stations it owns would not carry "The Fallen." In a statement, Sinclair said it would support "an honest effort to honor the memory of these brave soldiers," but it did not believe the "Nightline" program will do that.

"Rather, Mr. Koppel and 'Nightline' are hiding behind this so-called tribute in an effort to highlight only one aspect of the war effort and in doing so to influence public opinion against the military action in Iraq," said the company.

coincidentally, Sinclair is a major Bush campaign donor...and somehow concludes that a reading of the list of fallen soldiers is a politically motivated anti-war statement. but, as a license holder of the public airwaves, do they really have the right to censor their market's ability to see this? and does a reading of the names consitute a political act?

i think not...this is much like the flap about photos of dead GI's coffins. the cost of this war oughta be front and center so the public is acutely aware of it. the right is practically phobic about this kind of publicity anymore...their insecurity is understandable, given the very shaky logic upon which this war was launched.

Wayne Smith, a spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation in Washington, said the "Nightline" program is "long overdue." Smith told United Press International the public needs to be informed about the number of U.S. war dead in Iraq, particularly in light of an incident Thursday, in which Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz in testimony to Congress put the number of combat deaths in Iraq at "approximately" 350.

"Here is the man, second in command at the Department of Defense, responsible for U.S. military forces, and he didn't know how many Americans had died," said Smith. "I submit this is a case of out of sight, out of mind. It is an insult for any veteran and family not to know the cost of this war."

well, certainly Wolfowitz needs to watch Nightline, if only to get his facts straight.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...0-035346-2742r

[Mazer]

I can't claim to know their motivations, but but to suggest that their motivations are not partly political would be silly. Teddy Koppel wouldn't waste his airtime with such sentimental nonsense unless he had a statement to make. Knowing the price of a war is highly important, but to understand value you also have to look at what we've accomplished and to do so would probably take longer than forty minutes. So like Sinclair says, to focus solely on the deaths of these soldiers belittles the cause for which they have sacrificed themselves. The loss of any soldier is unfortunate, but it makes me all the more greatful that I personally have not had to pay that price, and we have to realize that though these soldiers have fallen they did not fall in vain.

The flap isn't necessarily a phobic response to public opinion about the war, it's just a reaction to the media's morbid obsession with war and death. Most people don't think about death all the time, but when we do we try to be humble and mindful of those who loose the most, namely the families of the soldiers. The media seems not to understand this, and the way they thrust these images upon the public is inconsiderate if not rude. They have no shame, and if they did I wouldn't be opposed to the media's coverage of the war because it would mean that their broadcasts would be more honest. They're interested in ratings, pure and simple, and not even the death of soldiers is sacred when it comes to attracting advertizers. I'm sorry Knifey, I don't see anything noble about this so called "tribute."

[JackSpratts]

bush supporting sinclair broadcasting is so far on the wrong side of this issue it could take them a year or two to crawl back - if they didn't have that juicy write-off of a corporate jet to cruise back on. that they put forth a delicatly coiffed 30 something spokesman to say w/a straight face ex-pow mcain is out of touch with veterans shows the depths the right must sink to cover up the disastrous decision making that went into their war. fortunately abc is allowing other stations the right of pick up in the blacked out markets so at least the american people - and the veterans - can see the cathartic program.

- js.

[multi]

i saw them talking on GMA about this
he said he recived a letter or something from a father who's son had been killed in a accident just after serving in iraq for months and had commondations for medals ..ect
and was angry that his son wouldnt make it on this list..
so he(the presenter) asked for an extra 20mins of air time so they could have the names of ALL the service people killed in iraq ..and not only those killed in action..

[theknife]

Originally posted by Mazer
I can't claim to know their motivations, but but to suggest that their motivations are not partly political would be silly. Teddy Koppel wouldn't waste his airtime with such sentimental nonsense unless he had a statement to make. Knowing the price of a war is highly important, but to understand value you also have to look at what we've accomplished and to do so would probably take longer than forty minutes. So like Sinclair says, to focus solely on the deaths of these soldiers belittles the cause for which they have sacrificed themselves. The loss of any soldier is unfortunate, but it makes me all the more greatful that I personally have not had to pay that price, and we have to realize that though these soldiers have fallen they did not fall in vain.

The flap isn't necessarily a phobic response to public opinion about the war, it's just a reaction to the media's morbid obsession with war and death. Most people don't think about death all the time, but when we do we try to be humble and mindful of those who loose the most, namely the families of the soldiers. The media seems not to understand this, and the way they thrust these images upon the public is inconsiderate if not rude. They have no shame, and if they did I wouldn't be opposed to the media's coverage of the war because it would mean that their broadcasts would be more honest. They're interested in ratings, pure and simple, and not even the death of soldiers is sacred when it comes to attracting advertizers. I'm sorry Knifey, I don't see anything noble about this so called "tribute."

i don't see anything noble about it either, Mazer, but nor do i see anything political. i can't claim to know Koppel's motivation either, but i can guarantee you exactly what his producers' and ABC's motivation is: ratings. it's sweeps week...and these guys are far more interested in their ratings than anything else. the recital of the Iraq war dead makes for good tv and the controversy it generated is a bonus for ABC. i think those who think the show is an effort to promote some political agenda give ABC far too much credit.

so is it appropriate tv? a lot of people would say yes, if it's done tastefully and with dignity. i personally think it's completely appropriate to remind the public that the 6 or 8 or 10 US soldiers that are dying daily have names and faces.

but unlike Mr. Sinclair, i'm not at all clear what "cause" these men have died for...and neither is about half the country, according to the polls. in the ever-shifting rationale for the invasion of Iraq, Americans are questioning their leaders, as well they should. imo, highlighting the cost of this war is particularly appropriate when the question of whether it was worthwhile is still being debated by half the population.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Knowing the price of a war is highly important, but to understand value you also have to look at what we've accomplished and to do so would probably take longer than forty minutes.

I'm wondering why you think it would take longer than forty minutes. Is it because it would be a lot of circuitous rhetoric designed to sell and/or muddle one questionable achievement with endless questionable qualifications? Would it take longer than forty minutes to say we achieved ousting Hussein (the only thing I can think of that we have achieved so far, unless you count alienating the rest of the planet in the process as an achievement) and a lengthy dose of linguistic creativity to make a case for the world being a safer place as a result?

I guess I agree. It would take way longer than forty minutes to convince me we've achieved any bloody damned thing at all but spending 100B and a lot of American lives to destabilize, terrorize and further disenfranchise a population that inherently distrusted us anyway, leaving a posterity of more likely if not more vulnerable targets in the process.

the way they thrust these images upon the public is inconsiderate if not rude.

As you say yourself, knowing the price of war is very important, and I heartily agree in spite of my feelings about this war. Those who've never experienced it first-hand can't really fathom it, and several generations of Americans have never really seen its face.

Why then would you have dead soldiers swept under the public carpet, not mentioned for the sake of politeness? Do you think such a dishonest, antiseptic approach teaches anyone anything?

To me it would be far more rude to tip-toe around the dead and their families, to treat them as unmentionables when they died in pursuit of something they believed in, something that is supposed to be for the benefit of all.

This is so incongruous to the way a healthy, virtuous and just society should 'celebrate its heroes' that it, as Smith said, smacks more of insult than exaltation. It simply belies our collective neurotic doubt and fear, and mocks the insularity of our muttering administrators who are worried about their own appearance and maintenance of power, their own hides.

Rude my ass. If we had our priorities straight and actually believed in them, we'd be screaming all these names from the rooftops, even the ones who weren't popular sports figures at home.

The dichotomy of a democracy gung-ho for war but lacking a leadership and a media with the balls to embrace its reality is a symptom of the precise malady which makes our culture so despicable, and so frightening, to so many.

[Mazer]

To clarify, I didn't mean to suggest that the "The Fallen" broadcast was rude. I agree with knife that it may even have been appropriate, and ABC can do whatever they want with their airtime. What I was calling rude is the images of death and bombings abroad that are displayed nightly. I myself avoid such news shows, having the free agency to decide what to watch or not watch on TV.

Never for a moment have I advocated "sweeping dead soldiers under the public carpet." Some of us may not understand what they are fighting for, but each one of them does. These dead should never be forgotten, neither should their conviction and dedication to liberty, because a soldier is more than just a name and a face on TV. They knew the price and they volunteered none the less, and for that we should be greatful rather than saddened by their sacrifice. If they can bear to give up their lives for something they believe in then we can bear to let them rest in peace and celebrate their lives rather than their deaths. Know the price of war, yes, and know also that it has been paid so that we are no longer in debt, hence the tallies are balanced and our cause has been justified and qualified by the actions of free individuals. If they have decided that this fight is worth dying in then who are we to question them?

[Ramona_A_Stone]

We are the people of the United States of America.

[albed]

If they have decided that this fight is worth dying in then who are we to question them?

If you think that ordinary soldiers get to decide whether to fight or not you're badly mistaken.

They volunteer to defend their country and after that their choices are very limited; obey orders or face dishonor and prison.

[Mazer]

Yes, we are the people of the United States of America, but our citizenship and allegience thereto doesn't grant us the right to take for granted the soldiers' decisions to put themselves in harm's way. To me a volunteer military force is a gift, especially since its members proudly defend other nations as well as this one. It's a dangerous job and it doesn't pay well, the hours are long, the stress is intense and there are precious few liberties allowed to active service men and women. So the least we can do for them is let them do the job they continuously train for. We should have the guts to send our troops to war without feeling guilty or apprehensive about it. The burdon does fall upon our leaders to choose wars wisely, but when it comes to keeping soldier's deaths to a minimum we have colonels and generals to take care of them.

And really, compared to the other wars we've fought this one has been relatively safe, by which I mean that our leaders have never been this careful with human life before. People use the term 'cannon fodder' to describe the dead soldiers, and that's insulting. As willing as they are to make the greatest sacrifice, we have been unwilling to let them be killed. No soldier has died that hasn't been sorely missed, none were expendable, and each was an asset to the military.

Above all, those soldiers were killed by the enemy, not by the leaders of the USA. The troops were sent out to fight, not to die, and they've done a lot more fighting than dying. Since the invasion was completed they've been doing work they were not properly trained for and yet they have done a wonderful job. Though soldiers still die every week it is still the enemy that does the killing. Only now that the enemy has no official army, those killings can rightly be called murders and the murderers should be prosecuted and executed. Even though they are still in grave danger, if the troops should return now and leave the job unfinished then murders would multiply in their absence. Ultimately, though soldiers are trained to kill, their charge is to preserve life and that is precisely how they have been used in this conflict.

The funny thing about them, Albed, is that if given the choice to fight or not a soldier would always choose to fight.

[albed]

Originally posted by Mazer
So the least we can do for them is let them do the job they continuously train for.

Originally posted by Mazer
Since the invasion was completed they've been doing work they were not properly trained for and yet they have done a wonderful job.

Still contradicting yourself.

Originally posted by Mazer
The burdon does fall upon our leaders to choose wars wisely,

The burden of dying or being maimed for life doesn't fall on the leaders at all. The only thing to fall on them is a state of disgrace which they seem hardly to notice.

Originally posted by Mazer
Above all, those soldiers were killed by the enemy, not by the leaders of the USA. The troops were sent out to fight, not to die,

Lately the troops have been sent out to hold positions while negotions proceed with the enemy, even though a few are killed every day. So they are not always being sent out to fight but they still die.

Originally posted by Mazer Ultimately, though soldiers are trained to kill, their charge is to preserve life and that is precisely how they have been used in this conflict.

Their basic charge is to defend their country. They way they do it is to kill the enemy and destroy whatever he needs to fight. This is such basic knowledge that seeing you contradict it makes me question your mental competence.

Originally posted by Mazer
The funny thing about them, Albed, is that if given the choice to fight or not a soldier would always choose to fight.

Even you in your insulated and inverted state of existance must have heard the phrase; "The most reluctant to go to war are the soldiers for they know the true price to be paid."

Why you claim the opposite to be true is still puzzling to me, but very consistant for you. I've pointed it out repeatedly and it seems to be a deeply ingrained behavioral pattern.

[Mazer]

I like your cute avatar, Albed, but your cut and paste skills are unimpressive. I do like your points, though they are tangent to this thread. More retired soldiers should be in positions of political power, no doubts there.

[albed]

It looks pretty tidy to me. Do you want more spaces between the sections?

My points are linear to your statements, hence the quotes before the replies.

I wanted to add: There are plenty of examples throughout history of soldiers refusing to fight.

I don't try to make any point about retired soldiers, just your disconnect with reality.

[albed]

I still have to wonder why you'd post a blatant lie like:

given the choice to fight or not a soldier would always choose to fight.

Most people lie to benefit themselves in some way but I see no benefit for you. Maybe you're just trying to support you position in any way you can.

[Mazer]

How can you detect lies concerning hypothetical situations? I object to your accusation.

[albed]

You clicked the wrong link perfessor, the hypothetical forum is somewhere else.

The funny thing about them, Albed, is that if given the choice to fight or not a soldier would always choose to fight.

Maybe you inadvertantly left out the word "hypothetically".

http://www.25thaviation.org/id275.htm
Before the Normandy invasion ("D" Day, 1944) the US Army (In WW II the US Army included the Army Air Corps which today has become the US Airforce) in England filled its own jails with American soldiers who refused to fight

During WW II, in the European Theater alone, over 20,000 US Military men were convicted of dissertation

Only about 5,000 men assigned to Vietnam deserted and just 249 of those deserted while in Vietnam.

http://home.mweb.co.za/re/redcap/vietcrim.htm
"These battle-weary troops from the 1st Air Cav had just staged a "combat refusal" at the PACE firebase.

http://www.af-north.org/harass_the_brass.htm
Soldiers went on "search and avoid" missions, intentionally skirting clashes with the Vietnamese

http://www.troho.com/issues/2004-03-...ingwisdom.html
U.S. army private Jeremy Hinzman, a veteran of Afghanistan who considers himself a patriot, refused to go to Iraq when called
If he returns to the United States, Pvt. Hinzman could be prosecuted as a deserter

http://www.notinourname.net/funk/
In a significant victory, a military jury acquitted Marine Stephen Funk, Iraq War resister, of "desertion" on September 6, 2003. However, they then convicted him of the lesser charge of "unauthorized absence"

Squirm some more liar.

[Mazer]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough for you, but I did use the word 'if' to qualify my sentence. These disserters you mention, they are not soldiers, and that is why they are dishonerably discharged and imprisoned.

I'll try your way here.

Originally posted by Albed
If you think that ordinary soldiers get to decide whether to fight or not you're badly mistaken.

There are plenty of examples throughout history of soldiers refusing to fight.

This contradiction doesn't necessarily make your points invalid, though. It meerly demonstrates that we are speaking on uneual terms. Your idea of a soldier is different from mine, and though you disagree with my point of view, I believe the in things I write so that what I've written are not lies. They may be untruths, and that has yet to be seen, but I do not purposly bear false witness. I have made an honest attempt to describe what in my mind constitutes a soldier, and all you have done is quarreled with me. If you were to give your discription of what you think a soldier is you would find that we agree on most things and differ only in this one point. But instead you quote that sentence over and over as if its repeated saying somehow diminishes it. Let it go Albed. I have not sunk to accusing you of purgury, so why do you dishoner me?

[Sinner]

Originally posted by albed


Squirm some more liar.

The only thing I can see wrong with Mazers statement is, he should have used the word Warrior and not Soldier......Some people join the army expecting never to goto war.....makes no sense to me but the world is full of strange people....

Also there was a Draft for the Vietnam war and WWII.....thousands of men would not have gone if they did not have too.

[albed]

I don't have my own ideas of things like soldiers, I accept the common definition of a soldier used by virtually everyone and including draftees. I view Mazer's claims to a unique version of his own as more squirming. And that disserters are not soldiers as still more.

If you're going to make up your own personal definition of various words then why don't you go whole hog and create your own language with your own unique words having their own unique meaning instead of using everyone elses language but claiming it means different things to you. That way I'll be able to let you babble nonsense to yourself without thinking you're making up lies and trying to correct you.

I believe the in things I write so that what I've written are not lies. They may be untruths,....

I just can't figure you.

[albed]

I should address this though.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Albed
If you think that ordinary soldiers get to decide whether to fight or not you're badly mistaken.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are plenty of examples throughout history of soldiers refusing to fight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It does sound a little contradictory but what I mean is commanders don't ask the soldiers if they want to go fight any particular battle. They give them their orders and they either obey or get punished. Those who refuse to fight are making a decision of sorts but not one they are given. Soldiers have always -throughout history- refuse to fight, mutinied, disserted, killed their officers, or even commited suicide rather than fight. But thinking they always fight of their own free will is a bad misconception that I feel a need to correct.