Bin Laden / Al Qaeda have claimed all along that unless the US entirely leaves the Middle East, Israel is dissolved, Muslims are released from jails worldwide, and the region accepts sharia law, they will not work for peace or compromise.
Without any of these likely to occur, why would anyone characterize Al Qaeda as "diplomatic" - they've made it very clear that they will not compromise on these basic principles?
Am I to believe they're ready to cross an item off their list? Not bloody likely.
They can't confirm that the tape is him. That's been true for a lot of tapes released by Al Qaeda that purport to be from Osama Bin Laden. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but sometimes I wonder if the man himself might not have died and they're getting impersonators and Tupaq'ing it.
This is excellent news. She is a tough-minded yet open reporter, and is not very prone to hyperbole (yes, I'm looking at you Lou Dobbs). She might actually restore the reputation of CNN.
Really happy for her, as she is awesome. But, I hope she is still able to find time to produce the amazing specials she does, and also that she continues to report from war zones, as her reporting from those places is invaluable.
perhaps dumenco meant by "no object lessons here" refers to the umpteenth re-telling of the story by every outlet wherein there is nothing more to say than there was, say, on day three of the story. yet every outlet takes a small snag from the original story and blows it into yet another "angle" that doesn't provide new information inasmuch as bigger hit volume for any story with the key words "garrido", "jaycee dugard"--and therefore, reduces its "value" with each re-tread.
the "tragedy porn" moniker is apt--people cannot take their eyes away from something that horrible, but it is often at the expense of other news of substance. people will vote with their dollars the way they vote with their clicks; those who want to know about Montag will covet people, and pay whatever's asked--but they can't keep bloggers from reporting the story first, or reporting it simultaneously via "fee free" outlets.
must admit that i like the current nyt model: i pay for the daily paper, and get full access to additional online content, plus the archives (their first stab at it left something to be desired). others can access the NYT daily content online for free, but not archives.
"news networks are sometimes guilty of exploiting tragedy to boost their bottom line."
Not just sometimes. News networks, magazines, Gawker Media blogs, etc... their primary purpose as for-profit media corporations is to act a vehicle through which they can sell advertising. Exploitation of car crashes and sex scandals happens to be the easiest way to attract the largest captive audience.
I agree that this story has more value than simple schadenfreude or sick curiosity. I mean, the man literally thrived on the apathy, indifference and mistakes of the law enforcement authorities, so there are lessons to be learned. That said, I do understand the porn argument. I work in media and there is a point where the handling of news, and why some stories get priority while others don't, can get pretty sick, commercial and well, at some point, I'd say even immoral if you look at it from within and know how it works (and because of where I live, there are other things in the mix, like killing stories out of fear of reprisals from crime organizations, corruption, or the bizarre complicity/competition among different media groups.) Someone I know once compared it to the stock market, in the sense that news media feed on speculation to gain value. But I also see it in terms that information has to be made available so people can choose. Many will choose to be informed about the most banal things and ignore anything of substance, but others won't, and you can't decide for either group.
There are so many news options that I'm not sure how many people would pay for internet news coverage instead of just watching CNN or the News at 11 and possibly supplementing that with blogs. Why pay extra if they don't really give you anything special that you can't find elsewhere?
Tbh, I think that they should charge blogs (like Jezebel, sorry) a flat fee for the articles and maybe a percentage for every time a linked article is clicked back tot he original site. I think if you start to charge people online for newspapers, the general public will be even more uninformed.
My only fear is that if you have more people clicking back to read about Spiedi than healthcare reform there will be more of a shift in the news coverage.
@shananigans aka angerball: My problem with that is that it sets up an opposition between 'proper' news sites and 'blogs' whereas a lot of us like to get most of our news from blogs/sites we trust eg Jez/HuffP etc. I do read the BBC site or the Guardian's and watch news, but I prefer to get in-depth reporting/news think-pieces from other sources.
The anchor is not just a news reader. They are the managing editor of the entire program. That means they are in charge of collecting all the stories and making sure they get reported on, organizing the order that stories will be presented, and delivering the news in a clear and concise way.
Also, they're conducting high profile interviews, developing sources who they are in constant contact with, trying to get scoops and stories. Making sure they have good rapport with high profile politicians and policy makers.
There's a lot more to it than just sitting in front of a camera and reading.
09/14/09
Without any of these likely to occur, why would anyone characterize Al Qaeda as "diplomatic" - they've made it very clear that they will not compromise on these basic principles?
Am I to believe they're ready to cross an item off their list? Not bloody likely.
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/08/09
the "tragedy porn" moniker is apt--people cannot take their eyes away from something that horrible, but it is often at the expense of other news of substance. people will vote with their dollars the way they vote with their clicks; those who want to know about Montag will covet people, and pay whatever's asked--but they can't keep bloggers from reporting the story first, or reporting it simultaneously via "fee free" outlets.
must admit that i like the current nyt model: i pay for the daily paper, and get full access to additional online content, plus the archives (their first stab at it left something to be desired). others can access the NYT daily content online for free, but not archives.
09/08/09
Not just sometimes. News networks, magazines, Gawker Media blogs, etc... their primary purpose as for-profit media corporations is to act a vehicle through which they can sell advertising. Exploitation of car crashes and sex scandals happens to be the easiest way to attract the largest captive audience.
I'm stating the obvious though.
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
My only fear is that if you have more people clicking back to read about Spiedi than healthcare reform there will be more of a shift in the news coverage.
09/08/09
09/03/09
Also, they're conducting high profile interviews, developing sources who they are in constant contact with, trying to get scoops and stories. Making sure they have good rapport with high profile politicians and policy makers.
There's a lot more to it than just sitting in front of a camera and reading.
09/03/09
But that's just me.
09/03/09