e-mail sent to Lerher News Hour re things NOT covered.


PDA






alan
February 17, 2006, 08:53 PM
Gentlemen:

A short time ago, the Friday, 17 February broadcast of The Lehrer News Hour ended, with the usual rendition of U.S. service personnel blown away in Iraq and Afghanistan, this time it was 10 more, bringing the total of dead to, I really cannot remember what. The purpose of this e-mail is NOT to discuss the foregoing.

This evenings broadcast went on about The Olympics, ongoing problems resulting from Katrina, the bungling that seems to be part and parcel of FEMA, ala the Bush Administration, and Dick Cheneyís shooting of his hunting partner, who happily appears to be well on the way to recovery.

Interestingly, not to mention sadly, we now come to things UNMENTIONED. On Wednesday, 15 February, The House Judiciary Committee held an hour or so of hearings, from approximately 4 P.M. to 5:30 P.M., hearings that were web cast, into the antics of an agency of the U.S. government. This agency is commonly known as the ATF, more correctly The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, whose antics have, in the past, been the subject of congressional hearings, none of which turned out favorably for the agency.

Curiously, and notwithstanding the propinquity of the occasion, there was exactly ZERO mention of these House Judiciary Committee Hearings, hearings that barely scratched the surface of ATF transgressions on the law and the civil rights of Americans. Pardon me for making so bold, but why the lack of coverage?

While one could note that I await, with interest, your response, Iím NOT holding my breath, for it turns out that blue is NOT my best color. You all might want to think on the foregoing. More important, you all might want to respond, however re this, your response to the foregoing, I refer your attention to the above comments.

If you enjoyed reading about "e-mail sent to Lerher News Hour re things NOT covered." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Moondoggie
February 17, 2006, 09:09 PM
Alan, no criticism intended, but you lost me in your last sentence.

Old Fuff
February 17, 2006, 10:13 PM
You really expected some sort of balance on The Lehrer News Hour????

After all, the program is based on, "all the news we think you should know...":rolleyes: :banghead:

alan
February 18, 2006, 01:55 PM
Moondoggie:

Criticize if you wish, in this case, it might be well deserved. I apologize for letting my leanings toward being long winded get away from me.

I probably should have stopped with the following, "While one could note that I await, with interest, your response, Iím NOT holding my breath, for it turns out that blue is NOT my best color." That, I think would have been clearer.

Old Fuff:

I hadn't thought that my comments indicated any expectation of "balance" from The News Hour. I did find CURIOUS, the facts of things that were mentioned or rehashed, as opposed to things left unmentioned entirely. BTW, Washington Week in Review, also broadcast on Friday evenings, made no mention of the 15 February hearings either.

I did not expect from media, anything in the way of cheers for criticism of the ATF, though they could have at least made mention of the fact that there is question raised re the nature of ATF's tactics, as is in fact, the case.

I note in closing, that these questions are not things to be ignored, for they address long standing, deep seeded problems with this agency. None of the aforesaid mitigates the blame that lays squarely in the lap of The Congress (House and Senate), those who enact the law, and who fail so badly in their oversight responsibility, however ATF has taken a poor thing, and with knowledge and intent, made it ever-so-much worse. They have also repeatedly, prostituted themselves, bowing down to the vagrant breezes of political fashion.

There goes my longwindedness again. Sorry.

SIOP
February 18, 2006, 03:49 PM
Good for you for taking the initiative to do something other than just gripe.

Unfortunately, it will probably have about as much impact as writing Hillary or Sarah.

Old Fuff
February 18, 2006, 05:49 PM
I did not expect from media, anything in the way of cheers for criticism of the ATF, though they could have at least made mention of the fact that there is question raised re the nature of ATF's tactics, as is in fact, the case.

The Establishment, both government and media, has always taken care of its own. The lack of media attention or congressional action is not accidental. I learned a long time ago that the best way to get to the media was not to write the program (newspaper or whatever) but rather to the commercial sponsors and then cc a copy to the news outlet.

Always hit 'um where it hurts. :evil:

alan
February 19, 2006, 01:01 PM
Old Fluf:

Sounds like a good idea, contacting sponsors, one which I tried in the past.

Given the lack of obvious sponsors in this case, to whom would one address comment?

SIOP:

You are likely correct, however I enjoy writing, have been doing it for more years than I care to remember. Also, as my late father once observed, and this was a conclusion of his that I never disputed, I've always found the sound of my own voice something wonderful to behold.

Finally, I did it becuse I thought that it needed doing. I don't expect any sort of a reply, either from the Lerher show or from Washington Wek in Review, however maybe, just maybe, some of the populace might get curious and begin to question their elected things regarding the subject matter of the hearings themselves.

Thanks for the kind words.

alan

NavajoNPaleFace
February 19, 2006, 01:15 PM
[QUOTE=alan]Moondoggie:

Criticize if you wish, in this case, it might be well deserved. I apologize for letting my leanings toward being long winded get away from me.

I don't think Moodoggie was criticizing.

You see, while I enjoyed your e-mail, and agree with your assessments, I, too, have no idea what the very LAST sentence in your e-mail was saying.

A basic rule in journalism is the most impact is in the first few sentences (or first paragraph) and the last one.

tom barthel
February 19, 2006, 08:24 PM
Alan, I stopped watching the news long ago when it became obvious they were slanting or occassionaly inventing their news. Their sponser's money is wasted on me. I rarely see advertisements. I go straight to the internet for accurate timely news. Twenty first century, real time news services.
Tom:) :)

Old Fuff
February 19, 2006, 09:13 PM
Given the lack of obvious sponsors in this case, to whom would one address comment?

They may not be obvious, but there are sponsors. Usually they list them at the begining or end of the program. In addition you can write the T.V. station that showed the program. They have to list the number and kind of protest letters they receive for the FCC when they're license comes up for renewal. One way or another, they can be reached... :evil:

If you enjoyed reading about "e-mail sent to Lerher News Hour re things NOT covered." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!