Replies

Exhibit A: Just a minute ago on abc news, they teased a package that appeared to be about two disc jockeys getting fired for while cutting jokes while playing the Berg tape audio; but in the package itself, without so much as taking a breath, they immediately segued into "conservative commentator Sean Hannity says he played the tape on his radio show because..." (Sean was a little inarticulate but eventually came out with 'an attempt to balance the saturation of Abu Gharib prison photos' -- a fair answer but one that missed the point due to abc's intent to snooker Sean with this piece).

First of all, the set-up on Hannity by abc in pre-loading the first part of the package with some loser disc jockeys is just heinous and completely unacceptable. But then they compounded the problem by talking to some lib prof weenie who kissed abc ass by suggesting the media has done a good job, having "been consistent by not showing the Perl tapes, the American contractor tapes, the Berg tape, etc." How ludicrous!

Nowhere at anytime did abc ask the dubious prof or even Hannity the pertinent point: Denying those tapes their due broadcast consitutes a grevious error of omission by abc and an abysmal denial of objective news coverage. And they wonder why we don't trust them anymore...

Denying those tapes their due broadcast consitutes a grevious error of omission by abc . . .

I would not expect any major news outlet to broadcast the beheading of an American, regardless of political motives. It's part of a self-imposed decency we have in our midst, and it's okay.

The internet provides ample opportunity to observe just about anything for those who are interested, but the digital age also bit us big time insofar as major media can now broadcast, with political motives, those things that once upon a time were part of censorable litigation - better kept out of view for the general welfare.

We have a seemingly big problem when it comes to "the right to know," on the one hand, and the "need to shut up" on the other hand. We need to ask whether it is always beneficial to know everything about everything. Egads. I work with people who think they have a God-given need to know everyone elses' business, and they talk as if they know it all, all puffed up with their assumed knowledge and indignation when they don't even know Jack Schitt as a friend, let alone a relative.

Sometimes it's better just to shut up, bear down, read, evaluate, learn, and do something productive.