QandO
Questions and Observations| « War of the Worlds 2004 | Main | "Those" People » |
|
April 30, 2004 NightLine Regarding NightLine's controversial decision to spend an entire show reading the names of those who died in Iraq.... During the broadcast, anchorman Ted Koppel will read aloud the name of a U.S. service man or woman killed in the Iraq war, as a corresponding photo appears on the screen along with that person's name, military branch, rank and age.Sean at Nosey Online writes... To the right, what Nightline is going to do is tantamount to "undermining the war effort." To the left it's simply "honoring the dead." I know that some of us on the left will be happy of what Nightline is doing because maybe it will influence people. But that's not the point.I'm tossing in with Sean. He's absolutely right. Look, the competing opinions on whether this is right or wrong depend almost entirely on an inference. (speaking in general terms...) As Sean writes, those who oppose the war/support the show, think NightLine simply intends respect for those who gave their lives. Those who support the war/oppose the show think this is a subversive message from NightLine....an attempt to undermine our fortitude. Whatever. In both cases, those are assumptions. They may be right...they may be wrong. The fact is, we cannot know. Another fact is, it does not matter. Their rationalization for the show - whatever it is - does not intrude upon the justification for the show. The WMD rationalization for the Iraq war may have turned out to be incorrect, but that does not mean the war was not still justified. Bear in mind, rationalizations and justifications are separate matters. Is the show justified? So long as the soldiers are treated with respect....yes. Take from it what you will, Pro or Con. It is not our job to discern the inner machinations of the mind of NightLine producers. It is simply our job to evaluate the product. With that said, I do have some complaints: - What about soldiers who give their lives tomorrow? Why honor them before the task is done? And will NightLine do a follow-up with more names in the future? It would have been better to do this at a notable juncture...an anniversary...the end of the war....the handover. Doing it today seems like less than appropriate timing. Still....the fact is that this is a way to honor the troops. The potential motivations of Ted Koppel are irrelevant. UPDATE: (McQ) I have no problem with Kopple doing what he plans on doing if he'll also show us the pictures of the 3,000 people that lost their lives on 9/11 so the deaths of these fine young soldiers will have some context. |
Let us not forget that Sinclair Broadcasting is a very big supporter of the GOP and Bush. They are censoring Nightline at the behest of the RNC.
Posted by: Jadegold at April 30, 2004 11:26 AM
Jon,
I agree with your last two points. Those who died in Afghanistan should definitely be added to the show tonight. As to the timing, I'm not sure either. I have a feeling it has something to do with Pat Tillman's death last week (why should he get more headlines? etc.) but overall I think this kind of a "tribute" should be done after a handover.
Posted by: sean at April 30, 2004 11:36 AM
Oh, and thanks for the link.
Posted by: sean at April 30, 2004 11:40 AM
LMAO... so any supporter of Bush doing anything is now "at the behest of the RNC." Same old jadegold.
Koppel and his producer took the American people for saps and lied when they said they had no idea it was during sweeps. The janitor at ABC friggin' knows when sweeps is... if they'd tried a little more honesty there'd be a little less suspicion. I have no problem with any TV station refusing to set ad revenue rates based on dead soldiers.
Posted by: HH at April 30, 2004 11:46 AM
I have to disagree totally. This show is NOT a well deserved tribute to the fallen. This show is designed to exploit them to make Koppels anti-war point.
How that is a "tribute" to them, I am not sure. To be used as a political pawn - by either side- is reprehensible.
And Sinclair is not "censoring" - they can air whatever they want over THEIR broadcast equipment...
Posted by: shark at April 30, 2004 11:51 AM
Shark,
You are correct. Sinclair has every right to do what they want. The idea that they are "censoring" this is a bit off center. However, if not a "tribute,", then what else do you call showing the faces and reading the names of the fallen? Because to just call it "partisanship" trivializes their deaths.
Posted by: sean at April 30, 2004 12:20 PM
No, sorry, I have to disagree. If it was about honoring the fallen, then they would include those who fell in Afghanistan as well. As the death of Pat Tillman reminds us, we're still engaging the enemy there as well.
This is about Ted Koppel's ego and Nightline's struggle to gain in the ratings. Remember, this was the show ABC considered eminently expendable when David Letterman's CBS contract came up for renewal.
Posted by: Captain Ed at April 30, 2004 12:38 PM
Sean-
"
"However, if not a "tribute,", then what else do you call showing the faces and reading the names of the fallen? Because to just call it "partisanship" trivializes their deaths."
Well, here's we're we'll have to differ I suppose. Because when the faces are shown and the names are read for a PARTISIAN POLITICAL purpose, that is what trivializes their deaths. And that is exactly what I feel Nightline is trying to do. The purpose is not to honor- but to exploit to make a political statement.
Of course, Koppel and Nightline don't say that-but we can agree their rationales are pretty thin. All I have to go on is the track record of bias by Koppel, Nightline, and his parent network. And it's not pretty.
If you disagree, and feel that Nightlines motives are pure (outside of ratings of course) then lets agree to disagree.
Posted by: shark at April 30, 2004 01:49 PM
I think some of you are missing the distinction I drew between the thing being "justified" and "rationalized". Koppel's rationalization, whatever you believe it might be, has no bearing on the show's justification.
Is it dignified? Is it respectful of their sacrifice? Then it is justified.
What you take away from it is independent of their intentions.
Posted by: Jon Henke at April 30, 2004 01:55 PM
Shark,
I do not think Nightlines intentions are "pure," and never have. You can't have pure intentions in a ratings fueled industry. I am talking about my opinion. If I watch Nightline tonight, it will be out of respect for the dead, not because it fuels my partisan fire. I reckon I'd feel just like I did when I watched the halftime show at the 2002 Super Bowl and the names of all those who died on 9/11 were projected on a screen behind Bono.
That said, my feelings are the same as Jon's on this one.
Posted by: sean at April 30, 2004 02:18 PM
Because to just call it "partisanship" trivializes their deaths."
Just to clarify this point. You are looking through to the intentions of the Nightline staff. I am taking it for face value. Our fallen soldiers.
Posted by: sean at April 30, 2004 02:21 PM
Sean ... I can see and understand your point. Yes, no problem, your personal reason to watch is to honor those fallen soldiers. Admirable.
As for Nightline, this IS sweeps week. And, if this were about honoring the soldiers, one would assume they'd include those who've fallen in Afghanistan. Its my understanding they're not.
So I have to conclude that perhaps their intent ISN'T about "honoring fallen soldiers" since they're excluding some. And the coincidence of sweeps week and the opportunity to make an issue of the deaths in Iraq are just too convenient for me to assume their best intentions.
Posted by: McQ at April 30, 2004 02:27 PM
Koppell on the situation:
"I was born and grew
up in England. I was a small child in London during the second
World War. We used to spend our nights during bombing raids in an
air raid shelter in the back. There was rationing, there were
blackouts. There was an awareness of the war which I think is
somehow a little bit lacking here in the United States at this time...."
Koppell during the war:
"My level of
cynicism about the reasons that took us to war against Iraq remain
just as well-developed as they were before I went"
You have to wonder just WHAT kind of awareness he wants you to have...seems obvious to me
A bit more:
On speaking about the similarity of the Nightline show to the Life Magazine photo spread:
"I think the anti-war movement was
well underway by the time the Life Magazine spread occurred, but
you're absolutely right, that was one of the things that our
executive producer, Leroy Sievers, mentioned to me and he said,
'You remember the impact of that. What if we did something like that"
Now THAT sounds like a bit of an admission...
Posted by: shark at April 30, 2004 03:06 PM
Actually shark, that makes the point that it is an attempt to sway public opinion against the war ... why compare it to the LIFE spread otherwise?
Kopple tries to negate its impact a bit by saying that he thought the anti-war movement was well underway at the time, but he still gives a nod to the LIFE impact.
Its interesting to me. We lost more men in a single practice landing for D-Day than we have in the entire year in Iraq.
This isn't about the deaths in Iraq. This is about politics and sweeps ... period.
Posted by: McQ at April 30, 2004 03:19 PM
Have to jump in and agree with those that feel if this was about honoring war dead, then those that gave all in Afghanistan would also be featured. This is a dishonest spectacle which I will not view. In fact, my remote control is likely to have trouble finding the ABC affiliate in my hometown any time soon.
Posted by: The Opinionator at April 30, 2004 05:08 PM