In three separate articles today (one on the front page) the Journal gave large amounts of space to comments by the President, soldiers re-enlisting and others -- all implying that the Iraq war is worthwhile and making progress.
Our casualties, Iraqi casualties, and the mammoth costs of the war were not mentioned, even though June was the bloodiest month ever. 3,586 Iraqis died in June . . . real progress.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
The Albuquerque Journal Markets Violence to Kids
In a big front page graphic and A-8 story, the Journal again sells a product. Are they getting paid? The Journal could not even wait for its Friday Venue, where it usually promotes movies, but a day early had to advertise a much criticized, violent PG-13 movie, which targets children AS YOUNG AS FOUR.
The PG-13 movie, Transformers, pays for widespread and irresponsible marketing to preschoolers, so did they pay the Journal? The film, which opens on July 4, 2007, was rated PG-13 for “intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, brief sexual humor, and language” by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).
There are more than one hundred Transformers’ toys FOR CHILDREN UNDER SIX, and Transformer promotions by Kraft and Burger King are clearly aimed at young children with advertisements on children’s television programming rated appropriate for kids as young as two.
“It is extremely disappointing that Hasbro and DreamWorks would choose to promote a film to preschool children that the industry deems inappropriate for anyone under the age of thirteen,” said the Center for a Commercial Free Childhood's Dr. Susan Linn. “In their cynical attempt to wring every last dollar from one of this summer’s blockbusters, these companies have shown little regard for children’s well-being or parents’ desires to limit their children’s exposure to violence.”
EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 129 Hasbro Transformers toys reviewed by the CCFC came with a recommended age YOUNGER than thirteen.
Seventy-two of these products (56%) are recommended for children as young as FIVE; an additional thirty-two toys (25%) are recommended for children as young as FOUR; thirteen toys (10%) are recommended for children as young as THREE. A toy promotion at Burger King is also for children THREE and up.
Not one word about this widespread and easily available criticism appeared in the Journal.
Are they: 1) bought; 2) lazy; or 3) stupid?
Hey, Journal, what happened to those good, old fashioned, Republican family values?
The PG-13 movie, Transformers, pays for widespread and irresponsible marketing to preschoolers, so did they pay the Journal? The film, which opens on July 4, 2007, was rated PG-13 for “intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, brief sexual humor, and language” by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).
There are more than one hundred Transformers’ toys FOR CHILDREN UNDER SIX, and Transformer promotions by Kraft and Burger King are clearly aimed at young children with advertisements on children’s television programming rated appropriate for kids as young as two.
“It is extremely disappointing that Hasbro and DreamWorks would choose to promote a film to preschool children that the industry deems inappropriate for anyone under the age of thirteen,” said the Center for a Commercial Free Childhood's Dr. Susan Linn. “In their cynical attempt to wring every last dollar from one of this summer’s blockbusters, these companies have shown little regard for children’s well-being or parents’ desires to limit their children’s exposure to violence.”
EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 129 Hasbro Transformers toys reviewed by the CCFC came with a recommended age YOUNGER than thirteen.
Seventy-two of these products (56%) are recommended for children as young as FIVE; an additional thirty-two toys (25%) are recommended for children as young as FOUR; thirteen toys (10%) are recommended for children as young as THREE. A toy promotion at Burger King is also for children THREE and up.
Not one word about this widespread and easily available criticism appeared in the Journal.
Are they: 1) bought; 2) lazy; or 3) stupid?
Hey, Journal, what happened to those good, old fashioned, Republican family values?
More Attacks on Richardson
Albuquerque’s “leading” newspaper again attacks Bill Richardson, using the “money association” game. By reporting the “higher” salaries of three cabinet level officials and that some of the money comes from UNM and NMSU, the Journal utilizes a subtle ad hominem attack.
Keep in mind. None of the three have done anything wrong. Nothing is mentioned about the quality of their work. The McCarthyesque attack merely suggests indirectly that something must be wrong.
The Journal quotes their favorite political hacks, notably Roswell Democratic, Tim Jennings, who is usually sought for quotes attacking the Governor. It’s a great deal for the Journal, putting unsupported opinion in their lead story, instead of on the editorial page where it belongs.
Keep in mind. None of the three have done anything wrong. Nothing is mentioned about the quality of their work. The McCarthyesque attack merely suggests indirectly that something must be wrong.
The Journal quotes their favorite political hacks, notably Roswell Democratic, Tim Jennings, who is usually sought for quotes attacking the Governor. It’s a great deal for the Journal, putting unsupported opinion in their lead story, instead of on the editorial page where it belongs.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Journal Doublespeak on Libby
Today, a Journal editorial came out against the commutation of Lewis Scooter Libby's sentence. It seems that the Journal editors did so grudgingly.
After two days of stories, including yesterday’s lead, justifying and minimizing the President’s action, the Journal ran a small editorial condemning it. The editorial was second to one examining Sandoval county’s wireless network.
The totality of the Journal’s efforts have failed to give the details or main points of those opposed to the President’s decision. For an excellent summary of those points, I recommend:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/
Why did the Journal feel that it must give token disapproval to the Republican President’s efforts to ensure Libby’s silence about White House involvement in multiple felonies? It is simple. Fully 60% of the country opposes the President’s actions, including 40% of Republicans. Now, the Journal can say they were being fair . . . kind of like Fox News, you know, "fair and balanced."
After two days of stories, including yesterday’s lead, justifying and minimizing the President’s action, the Journal ran a small editorial condemning it. The editorial was second to one examining Sandoval county’s wireless network.
The totality of the Journal’s efforts have failed to give the details or main points of those opposed to the President’s decision. For an excellent summary of those points, I recommend:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/
Why did the Journal feel that it must give token disapproval to the Republican President’s efforts to ensure Libby’s silence about White House involvement in multiple felonies? It is simple. Fully 60% of the country opposes the President’s actions, including 40% of Republicans. Now, the Journal can say they were being fair . . . kind of like Fox News, you know, "fair and balanced."
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Far Right Bias In Lead Story
Today, the Journal’s lead story on Scooter Libby pounds home the “excessive punishment” right wing talking point four times before the reader gets to the third paragraph. One has to turn to page six before the Journal mentions any competent criticism of George Bush’s decision to commute Libby’s sentence before he has served even one day. Note that many conservatives do not condone pardoning crimes.
Remember when the Journal mounted a daily attack against President Clinton for his alleged “perjury” and “obstruction of justice?” Somehow these crimes are not so important to the Journal today.
Remember when the Journal mounted a daily attack against President Clinton for his alleged “perjury” and “obstruction of justice?” Somehow these crimes are not so important to the Journal today.
34 Letters: None Critical of Journal
Today the Journal published its Tuesday "shotgun" approach to letters to the editor, and the approach is symbolic of the Journal’s approach to journalism. By publishing 34 short, venting screeds, the Journal manages to look like a paper of the people, but keeps details from the people.
The tactic taps into the emotional feelings so typical of talk radio – no detail, no qualified spokespeople and, most importantly, NO CRITICISM OF THE JOURNAL. Unfortunately, there is also no information that is sorely needed by citizens in a democracy.
The tactic taps into the emotional feelings so typical of talk radio – no detail, no qualified spokespeople and, most importantly, NO CRITICISM OF THE JOURNAL. Unfortunately, there is also no information that is sorely needed by citizens in a democracy.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Misleading Headlines
Anyone reading today’s Journal quickly would probably think that things are going better in the U.S. war effort. “Civilian Deaths in Iraq Fall” (A-1 above the fold) and “NATO Quashes Taliban Spring Offensive” (A-5). To the Journal’s credit, the Iraq article’s subhead is “U.S. Casualties up since Operation Began,” and the record level of our soldiers’ attrition is noted.
This is the second day in a row the Journal has put our soldiers’ sacrifice on the front page, a crucial story for keeping our citizens informed about one dimension of the horrific cost of this war.
The Afghanistan headline is misleading, as the body of the article actually shows that we have many military problems there, and things are not going well. Additionally, any article on this war needs to mention the Russians military disaster in Afghanistan, as the Taliban resurgence ominously builds up again. These folks have beaten great powers before!
‘Impressions’ are important, and one has to read closely to absorb the details in both articles indicating the long term problem that both wars represent.
The articles provide no hint of the historical and political morass that our involvement in both countries represents, not to mentions the fact that almost all observers, including former and current military men, believe that there is NO MILITARY solution to these conflicts.
More importantly, the articles do not suggest that when (if) we leave Iraq and Afghanistan, the region will undoubtedly remain unstable and bloody, as it has for centuries.
The Iraq headline could have more accurately read, “‘Progress’ in Iraq?: At Heavy Cost.” The Afghanistan HL could have read, “Illusory Gains Against Taliban.”
Lastly, one continues to wish for the Journal to run a page one series on the totality of the cost of these wars, balanced against the probability that all our blood and treasure are being wasted.
This is the second day in a row the Journal has put our soldiers’ sacrifice on the front page, a crucial story for keeping our citizens informed about one dimension of the horrific cost of this war.
The Afghanistan headline is misleading, as the body of the article actually shows that we have many military problems there, and things are not going well. Additionally, any article on this war needs to mention the Russians military disaster in Afghanistan, as the Taliban resurgence ominously builds up again. These folks have beaten great powers before!
‘Impressions’ are important, and one has to read closely to absorb the details in both articles indicating the long term problem that both wars represent.
The articles provide no hint of the historical and political morass that our involvement in both countries represents, not to mentions the fact that almost all observers, including former and current military men, believe that there is NO MILITARY solution to these conflicts.
More importantly, the articles do not suggest that when (if) we leave Iraq and Afghanistan, the region will undoubtedly remain unstable and bloody, as it has for centuries.
The Iraq headline could have more accurately read, “‘Progress’ in Iraq?: At Heavy Cost.” The Afghanistan HL could have read, “Illusory Gains Against Taliban.”
Lastly, one continues to wish for the Journal to run a page one series on the totality of the cost of these wars, balanced against the probability that all our blood and treasure are being wasted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)