Contest: find the stupidest way to protest the war in Iraq

[hilliag]

Cicero, Donahue actually was the highest-rated MSNBC program at the time. An NBC memo surfaced later that said Donahue would provide "a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war" and that "he seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives." It also said his show could become "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."
Time has proved that he was right. Unfortunately, the media abdicated its skepticism role in the run-up to the war to the point that the press conference the night before the war began was scripted.

 

[Oliver]

Cicero, Donahue actually was the highest-rated MSNBC program at the time. An NBC memo surfaced later that said Donahue would provide "a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war" and that "he seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives." It also said his show could become "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."
Time has proved that he was right. Unfortunately, the media abdicated its skepticism role in the run-up to the war to the point that the press conference the night before the war began was scripted.

Exactly - that's why I don't have any problem to say that this is censorship, no matter what reasons are involved.

Also after the war began, all you got from Iraq was News about the newest weapons, Reporter riding with the soldiers wherever the Military decided to stage the event, then the US Military actually shot and killed reporters and the world press was locked into the green zone, listening to the pentagon propaganda.

But that's just fine for some hypocrites in here who claim they are skeptics and believe they live in the most free society and a working press.

According to the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, the United States is currently ranked 48th in the world in terms of expressive freedom.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq_media_coverage

 

[Cicero]

Cicero, Donahue actually was the highest-rated MSNBC program at the time. An NBC memo surfaced later that said Donahue would provide "a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war" and that "he seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives." It also said his show could become "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."
Time has proved that he was right. Unfortunately, the media abdicated its skepticism role in the run-up to the war to the point that the press conference the night before the war began was scripted.

That is ridiculous. Donahue was in the ratings cellar the entire six months he was on MSNBC. Are you saying that Keith Olbermann, Donahue's replacement, was doing pro Iraqi War commentaries back in March 2003? Was MSNBC's Chris Matthews using "Harball" to cheer on the Iraq War in March, 2003? They replaced Donahue not because he was anti-war lib, but because he was a tired ineffectual anti-war lib with no audience. If MSNBC fired Matthews at the same time and replaced Donahue with Ann Coulter, maybe you would have a valid argument that MSNBC was silencing anti Bush voices in favor of sympathetic ones.

"It would be nice if DONAHUE tanked simply because the suits at MSNBC were too busy playing Dungeons & Dragons to ensure their shows got ink in every smalltown paper's TV Guide. Or that the show really was a thriving success, but that Donahue was undercut by an internal NBC report decrying him as "a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace . . . a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war."

Whether Donahue's was a difficult face for NBC to feature during "wartime" or not is an entirely debatable issue. What is less debatable, however, is what the MSNBC DONAHUE show actually was like to watch.

The program was utter torture. Too often, Phil seemed two questions behind his guests. Too often, he seemed to retreat into the cliches so typical of "fighting liberals", who seem to prefer the spotlight and the company of celebrities to drawing lines in the sand."ANTHONY GANCARSKI March 4, 2003

http://www.counterpunch.org/gancarski03042003.html

 

[Cicero]

Also after the war began, all you got from Iraq was News about the newest weapons, Reporter riding with the soldiers wherever the Military decided to stage the event, then the US Military actually shot and killed reporters and the world press was locked into the green zone, listening to the pentagon propaganda.

URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders"]Reporters Without Borders[/URL] Press Freedom Index, the United States is currently ranked 48th in the world in terms of expressive freedom.[]

You are making the claim that U.S. military forces deliberately and knowingly killed journalists who were operating in the war zone?

Even The Washington Post and the New York Times did not make this claim when their reporters/photographers Salih Saif Aldin and the New York Times, Khalid Hassan were killed. They were killed by Sunni.

It appears your source is CNN's Eason Jordan:

"Eason Jordan (Chief News Executive of CNN) asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. Eason did backpedal and make a number of statements claiming that he really did not know if what he said was true, and that he did not himself believe it."
http://www.forumblog.org/blog/2005/01/do_us_troops_ta.html

None of the 13 journalists killed by U.S. soldiers have been proved to be a purposeful event. But it sure does highlight the dangers of wandering around Iraqi war zones outside of U.S. military units.


Perhaps you are also referring to British Coroner Andrew Walker, who said he would seek prosecution of the U.S. troops responsible for the death of Terry Lloyd, reporter ITN.

"British coroner ruled Friday that U.S. troops unlawfully killed a British television journalist during the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. "Terry Lloyd was killed in an unlawful act by a U.S. Marine who fired directly at the civilian minibus in which Terry, already badly injured, lay helpless," said David Mannion, ITN editor in chief."

Exactly how would the Marines benefit in deliberately killing this Terry Lloyd because he was a journalist? Since the initial combat in Iraq was swift and deceive, what possible purpose would there be to cover-up successful military engagements?

Michael Kelly, a columnist for The Post, was killed in Iraq when a Humvee he was traveling in drove into a canal. Did the U.S. military cause this death?

Using Reporters Without Borders as your go to source is hardly convincing. That organizations is funded by the notorious left wing loon George Soros.

IS this another example of liberals support of the troops?