Thread: Does burning the Quran endanger U.S. troops?

Originally Posted by Alundil

So trig,are you claiming that the media, that does not report every story that comes across its desk (and never has), is being censored and prohibited from reporting every story that comes across its desk?

No. I'm saying that Consultant's definition of 'restraint' amounts to censorship.

I have no idea how you tied in the number of stories that cross the press' desk to what we were discussing (censorship).

Was that an attempt to muddy the waters? Please elaborate on the connection.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

No. I'm saying that Consultant's definition of 'restraint' amounts to censorship.

I have no idea how you tied in the number of stories that cross the press' desk to what we were discussing (censorship).

Was that an attempt to muddy the waters? Please elaborate on the connection.

I would absolutely advocate self-censorship. Nothing inherently wrong with it. It's a tool, and like any tool it can be used for good or ill. In this case, I'm not sure what I would have done as the decision maker at a media outlet. On the one hand, it's a good story, people would be interested, it brings these dipshits into the light so everyone can laugh at them. On the other hand it will certainly cause issues with the Muslim world.

If CNN decided not to run the burning Quran story - who censored them? How does them deciding not to do something amount to censorship? This is illogical.

cen·sor·ship
   /ˈsɛnsərˌʃɪp/ Show Spelled[sen-ser-ship]
–noun
1.
the act or practice of censoring.
2.
the office or power of a censor.

Who is the Censor if this is censorship?

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

No. I'm saying that Consultant's definition of 'restraint' amounts to censorship.

I have no idea how you tied in the number of stories that cross the press' desk to what we were discussing (censorship).

Was that an attempt to muddy the waters? Please elaborate on the connection.

What I was trying to get across was an extension of Con's point. His use of the term "restraint" is not censorship. Any way you slice it. He was positing that there were good and bad sides to the media publishing the story about the Quran burning.

In his comments he said that media showing some "self-restraint" about stories that they run with, with concern for things other than ratings, would not be a bad thing.

You said that his term "restraint" was, and I am paraphrasing, basically code for censorship.

He then asked if you were serious. Because in his example, he clearly stated that it would be the media organization(s) deciding to "restrain" themselves. Since censorship requires an external actor, who is the censor if the media restrains itself?

You then said as a response - that you didn't understand the example and maintained that Con was advocating censorship (which he clearly is not).

So, now that we're all up to speed....my question to you was this; if any media organization omits coverage of a story, by your definition, they must be being censored? If so, then by who or what? The point that Con was drawing and that I am drawing is that media organizations pick and choose what they will cover and report on. They decide that internally (in large part) and therefore the stories that are not covered are omitted either through arbitrary decisions or ..... self restraint in some cases.

So, no attempt to muddy the water...just trying to see where you really sit on the issue of censorship in the media and their willingness to cover some stories (generally the ones sure to stir up the most shit and therefore boost ratings) over others. Because, it is plain to see that not all media organizations cover the same stories, and in some cases stories aren't covered at all. Is the lack of coverage evidence of censorship? Or more likely arbitrary decision making and/or self-restraint on the part of that organization?

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Agreed that there's nothing with a bit of self-filtering by news administrations. FDR's wheelchair scenario comes to mind. Now, I don't extend this to things like censoring dissent against the predsident or the war during wartime, which I think is one of the most important jobs of the press. Showing stuff like book burning just get drum up some ratings, though, is hardly a noble cause.

Much like this group of morons. Hardly newsworthy, South of noble.
We have been shown American Flags being burned every time something happens anywhere in the Middle East. Sure, it pisses us off, but I don't think anyone has retaliated because of them.

It must be a pretty slow news day........or....something else may be going on that we aren't hearing about. That worries me more than some cave-dweller's reaction to his favorite book being burned by some idiots....who he most likely hated anyway.

Originally Posted by dex71

Much like this group of morons. Hardly newsworthy, South of noble.
We have been shown American Flags being burned every time something happens anywhere in the Middle East. Sure, it pisses us off, but I don't think anyone has retaliated because of them.

It must be a pretty slow news day........or....something else may be going on that we aren't hearing about. That worries me more than some cave-dweller's reaction to his favorite book being burned by some idiots....who he most likely hated anyway.

actually the issue given by the General (and one I agree with) Is more that it can be used to recruit more members, not so much that it will piss off the people already engaged in terrorism.