Watch how the news progresses. First they report "the Senate Finance Chairman said it was a mistake". In the next report - the one I just heard, they said "The Senate is trying to figure out what to do about the IRS resolution that was inserted by mistake." They are manufacturing an explanation for The Party, repeating it ad nauseum. Now go tune in your AM radio - its a mistake! Go to Drudge - story not there!
World net daily ? Not there!

The President of the United States is the leader of hundreds of millions of people. Part of his job is to command hundreds of thousands of people in the military. The next time you vote for a President, I hope you think very hard about that, because that’s one of the most important things any President ever does.
But one thing he generally doesn’t do is attend the funeral of every fallen service man. Mind you, a good one wishes he could attend every such funeral. A good one feels it like a knife in his gut every time a soldier falls. But he can’t be there every time a soldier falls. He just can’t.
If you don’t understand that, then, to be blunt, you lack maturity.
When a President attends the funeral of a military person it is because he had known, or at least met, the person. LBJ, for example, attended two: in both cases he knew the person. Same for most others.
Mostly, Presidents attend mass-memorial services. Clinton, Reagan, Carter, GB the I, on and on.
I think another major reason a President does not normally attend funerals is out of compassion for the families. If I were to be laying a loved one to rest, I think I would actively resent it if a President showed up with the hundreds of accompanying newsies, security types, demonstrators…”
No family member of a fallen serviceman would want their loved one’s funeral turned into a media circus.
The “Bush never attended any funerals” meme is nothing but a sick-in-the-head distraction from the hatemongering left. Much to the discord of the haters, that smear campaign isn’t sticking.

hey dude, go read my previous post, wherein I listed my news sources, before you begin this criticism of narrow viewpoints.

Just out of curiosity, how much time do you spend reading, "National Review", Mr Fair and Balanced?

Guess how many times I've read it in the past year?

I responded the way I did because your statement reflected a narrow view.

I responded as I did because you didn't do you homework.

That's your loss.

That's a classic.

It reminds me of mikemover's comment the other day about Powell's UN presentation which included inaccurate translations of intercepted Iraqi cell phone conversations. Mike says that I have no proof that the translations were intentionally falsified, but he never responded to my question about how someone can accidentally add words to a translation. If the words were added accidentally, then it sure is a good thing for Powell that the accidentally added words fit perfectly into the logic of his argument to the UN.

I see two explanations. Either we have some amazing coincidences going on, or the Republicans and Fox News have no shame.

Nope. It's my gain.

Pictures and sounds are not as pertinent information-rich as text-based reports. I do like photos, but not too many.

See, a video or photo is framed by the eye of the cameraman and the editor. Anything outside of the frame does not exist. So the editor may cut and splice a film to make it punchy and full of life and he also may trim it to provide his perspective. It is awfully hard for the viewer to know this since the editor sure as heck doesn't want to clutter the process with explanations--we want a smooth transition. Thus, we get consumed by the artistry and confuse good artistry with accurate reporting of facts.

With the print medium, the reporter and editor must make sure that the story has continuity with the world before the event reported took place. So a well-written story places the event in context. The reader is not confused by imagery as he tries to ferret substance.

There is a place for video and photos, for sure. It provides a story with emotional connection and vitality. But the imagery shouldn't be the story, the imagery should be like an adjective to a story. When we substitute imagery for substance, we lose factual reporting and gain propaganda.

I'd be interested in hearing from a news pro who works in video. I've just trashed his profession (NOT my intention), and I'd appreciate a rebuttal.

Not representative of the left as a whole...just selected hate mongers. Other than that I completely agree with your assessment.

You're kidding right? A print writer has even more control over the information that is transmitted, and zero culpability to make sure that events described correlate to the world, as there is no other point of observation privy to the reader from which to confirm/deny the report. Worse, the problem of 'dont know what I dont know' applies, denying the reader any further insight due to the knowlege base of the writer.

A combination of print, photo, and video media, all treated with due skepticism is surely the most balanced way to achieve a reasonable worldview.

None of your criticisms of video do not also apply to print.

And with print media, the story is framed by the mind of the author.

Again, no different than print.

We do? I just finished watching a video about the building of Timberline Lodge on Mount Hood, Oregon. In some ways, the video is more informative than the book I bought about the Lodge. The video neither consumed nor confused me.

I don't know what that means.

Absolutely true, but I still don't see how the learning process is improved by eliminating audio/visual information.

Two cliches hold true: The camera doesn't lie and a picture is worth a thousand words.

Of course you're right in that all forms of communication are subject to interpretation of both the transmitter and receiver or producer and consumer.

But ask it this way: What if all you received was unedited video feed without any voice-over. Would you believe the straight feed gave a more accurate portrayal of events or would you think that a correspondent's voice-over and editing would be more valuable? Most people need the correspondent as a sort of guide, else news programs would be straight video--why go to the expense of some overpaid doofus when straight vid is marketable? Obviously, most of us prefer an interpreter of events be present.

Well, what did the correspondent do? She filtered the news and rearranged it to be more easily understood or more palatable or more succinct. Maybe all of the above. How is that different from the print medium?

Oh, well the vid has pictures and pictures never lie.

I agree that all the criticisms of video also apply to print. There is no raw 'truth' in either and there's always an interpreter of events.
However, I do think that words and images seem to affect different parts of our brains. An experience can be created by an image in an instant that would take many words and many hours of reading to duplicate. It's why this computer screen is covered in icons, and why religions use icons frequently.

I don't. In the 1960's people in the rest of the country finally got to see first hand police beatings, police dogs attacking peaceful protesters, rednecks armed with pipes beating Freedom riders, and non-violent kids pummeld and stomped at lunch counters in the South, It was no longer just some other print article from a remote part of the country - it was in our living rooms. That, more than any other thing was repsonible for the success of the Civil Rights movement. In film, one sees real truth.

Would you have had access to the same story if you read a written report of the attack and collapse of the world trade center towers? Did any accounts you've read since come close? Or, did the images/video tell the story?

What about watching the birth of a giant panda on PBS? A sporting event? The performance of your kid in the school play... watch the vid? or read the student newspaper account?

Written accounts and a few photos tell the tale, but would it not be amazing to be able to watch Lincoln's Gettysburg address? High-pitched and scratchy-voiced, his words, their brevity, his quick retreat from the podium- would have been something...

I suppose it would have been great to read about the first man landing on the moon too. Forget the pictures/video. Berlin Wall coming down? eh, I'll wait for Newsweek. Tiananmen Square? you'd have never heard of it.

visual images capture our existence in the way we most basically relate to our world. Of course they can be manipulated. But what is free from that disclaimer? You might be especially interested in Control Room holding the view of manipulated imagery that you do. That's one of the key observations of the film.