Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

6 Pages«<3456>
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline entermymatrix03  
#61 Posted : Tuesday, May 20, 2008 7:26:05 PM(UTC)
entermymatrix03


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/24/2004(UTC)
Posts: 2,872
Location: United States, Georgia

The only thing that bothers me about Obama is that he doesn't salute the flag. If you represent this country, you need to salute the symbol of your country. I also think he isn't showing respect to everyone who has faught/fallen for our country when he doesn't salute the flag. I think that it is a slap in the face of all Americans. 

But, again, out of the current canidates- I do want him to win due to the change that he would bring. 

Offline FSeven  
#62 Posted : Tuesday, May 20, 2008 7:49:51 PM(UTC)
FSeven


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/13/2008(UTC)
Posts: 176
Location: Dirty Jersey

 

entermymatrix03 wrote:

The only thing that bothers me

about Obama is that he doesn't salute the flag. If you represent this

country, you need to salute the symbol of your country. I also think he

isn't showing respect to everyone who has faught/fallen for our country

when he doesn't salute the flag. I think that it is a slap in the face

of all Americans. 

But, again, out of the current canidates- I do want him to win due to the change that he would bring. 

 

Just

to clarify, Obama didn't put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem. That's what everyone was getting up in arms about. In

my 33 years, I've never done it either. All that's really required is

to remove any headwear. 

It's the Pledge of Allegiance that requires the hand over the heart. 

Obama

responded to the hoopla by saying that his Grandfather taught him when he was 2 that you put

your hand over your heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. During the

national anthem, you sing. 

According to Anne Garside, director

of communication for the Maryland Historical Society, home of the

original manuscript for The Star-Spangled Banner,modern custom does not

require a hand over the heart. "I think the bottom line is that you

show respect with your demeanor," she said. "Whether you put your hand

over your heart, hold your hat at shoulder or waist level, is really in

this day and age irrelevant." 

Next time you catch a baseball game, watch how many people DON'T put their hands over their heart. 

The whole ordeal has been a colossal failing of the media. With all the cheesy emails about Obama and the rumors about him being Muslim, I think the hand over the heart thing is just another sad attempt to undermine the guy. But then again, if that's the most anyone has against him, it's a whole lot less than Clinton's dirty laundry and McCain's flip-flopping. 

These folks must be bad patriots too.

UserPostedImage

Same

with those guys on the right there. I'm sure they absolutely DESPISE

their country. They didn't even remove their hats for Christs' sake![:P]

UserPostedImage

This guy fails too.

UserPostedImage

Dozens of bad patriots here too. 

UserPostedImage

 

Offline Crisis Causer  
#63 Posted : Tuesday, May 20, 2008 8:02:45 PM(UTC)
Crisis Causer


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/15/2002(UTC)
Posts: 1,652
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

The whole 'hand over the heart' thing bugged me too.  Not only is it not required, but it's so weak and low to attack a candidate based on THAT instead of his positions.  It's just ridiculous.

Offline Savage Animal  
#64 Posted : Tuesday, May 20, 2008 8:31:27 PM(UTC)
Savage Animal


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/17/2008(UTC)
Posts: 360
Location: Upstate New York

FSeven wrote:

 

[quote user="entermymatrix03"]

The only thing that bothers me

about Obama is that he doesn't salute the flag. If you represent this

country, you need to salute the symbol of your country. I also think he

isn't showing respect to everyone who has faught/fallen for our country

when he doesn't salute the flag. I think that it is a slap in the face

of all Americans. 

But, again, out of the current canidates- I do want him to win due to the change that he would bring. 

 

 

Just

to clarify, Obama didn't put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem. That's what everyone was getting up in arms about. In

my 33 years, I've never done it either. All that's really required is

to remove any headwear. 

It's the Pledge of Allegiance that requires the hand over the heart. 

Obama

responded to the hoopla by saying that his Grandfather taught him when he was 2 that you put

your hand over your heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. During the

national anthem, you sing. 

According to Anne Garside, director

of communication for the Maryland Historical Society, home of the

original manuscript for The Star-Spangled Banner,modern custom does not

require a hand over the heart. "I think the bottom line is that you

show respect with your demeanor," she said. "Whether you put your hand

over your heart, hold your hat at shoulder or waist level, is really in

this day and age irrelevant." 

Next time you catch a baseball game, watch how many people DON'T put their hands over their heart. 

The whole ordeal has been a colossal failing of the media. With all the cheesy emails about Obama and the rumors about him being Muslim, I think the hand over the heart thing is just another sad attempt to undermine the guy. But then again, if that's the most anyone has against him, it's a whole lot less than Clinton's dirty laundry and McCain's flip-flopping. 

These folks must be bad patriots too.

Same

with those guys on the right there. I'm sure they absolutely DESPISE

their country. They didn't even remove their hats for Christs' sake!Stick out tongue

This guy fails too.

Dozens of bad patriots here too. 


 

 

 

[Y][Y][Y] 

 

You sir are quickly becoming one of my favorite forum members, your post's are well thought out, researched, and factual. Thank you.  

Offline entermymatrix03  
#65 Posted : Tuesday, May 20, 2008 8:56:31 PM(UTC)
entermymatrix03


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/24/2004(UTC)
Posts: 2,872
Location: United States, Georgia

FSeven wrote:

This guy fails too.

 

Epic fail. lol.He'd forget to breathe if someone didnt remind him!

Offline amdcrankitup  
#66 Posted : Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:03:51 PM(UTC)
amdcrankitup


Rank: Advanced Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/29/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,826
Location: South Carolina

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)

Great post FSeven The BS scattered on Obama is just that BS. I know somewhere in my life I might have been one of those people in those pictures.

I love my country and wouldnt consider living anywhere else!

Offline FSeven  
#67 Posted : Wednesday, May 21, 2008 4:16:43 AM(UTC)
FSeven


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/13/2008(UTC)
Posts: 176
Location: Dirty Jersey

hehe what do you think EMM? Flatulence? Indigestion? Nausea? Maybe the White House chefs cooked up a burrito supreme? Either way, it would be one of the few times hot air has escaped from somewhere other than his mouth.

I picture Dubya doing the "Nausea, Heart Burn, Indigestion, Upset Stomach, Diarrhea" dance.


Offline entermymatrix03  
#68 Posted : Wednesday, May 21, 2008 8:07:20 AM(UTC)
entermymatrix03


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/24/2004(UTC)
Posts: 2,872
Location: United States, Georgia

I agree, i could see ol' George doing the dance.

Also, sorry for the ignorance on my part. I guess next time i'll do a little more research instead of listening to the news. Damn CNN and Fox!  

Offline FSeven  
#69 Posted : Wednesday, May 21, 2008 8:54:26 AM(UTC)
FSeven


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/13/2008(UTC)
Posts: 176
Location: Dirty Jersey

Bah! No apology necessary! I like to think that's what these types of threads are REALLY for; for introducing varying viewpoints and for learning things from others that we ourselves might not have known. 

US News is disgustingly innacurate and has an agenda. It's okay for general news but anytime I hear something controversial or seemingly one-sided, I tend to come to the Internet to search it out and find that 10 out of 10 times, the media was glaringly wrong or biased in it's reporting. 

I tend to stick to NPR and BBC, although BBC seems to have a crusade against all Muslims even though only a few radicals were responsible for the terrorist atrocities committed against Britain recently. I just don't subscribe to holding an entire group of people responsible for the actions of a handful.

If you have a few minutes to kill, read this excerpt from the book

'Fearless' in which author Gavin de Becker dissects the evening news and gives guidelines

on how to deconstruct it. I got quite a chuckle from it.

Gavin de Becker has written several insightful books on violence, fear, and the constant tug-of-war between the two.

Media Fear Tactics

It

would be interesting if the standards of Truth in Advertising were

applied to television news as they sometimes are to television

commercials. In that unlikely situation, TV news writers would be

required to use phrases and words that convey accurate information – as

opposed to the phrases and words they use today.

I want to help

you break the code of alarming newspeak so that you can more easily

find the valuable information that may (or may not) be part of a story.

Given

the disturbing reasons we've all been watching so much TV news, it

would be understandable to overlook the sheer ridiculousness that is

inherent in some of the sensationalism. Occasionally, the way TV news

is delivered can be downright funny, and indeed, the ability to laugh

at something indicates that we are beginning to gain perspective on it.

Accordingly, some of what follows is funny, and I have a very clear

purpose in offering it: I want to help change your experience of

television news, help you actually watch it differently. I want to

provide some tools you can use to ensure that when you watch TV news,

only actual information gets through.

Though not offered as a comprehensive glossary, here are some examples of words and phrases I think you’ll quickly recognize:

POSSIBLE: As in “Next Up: Possible links between Saddam Hussein and tooth decay…”

The

word “possible” doesn’t really have the specificity one hopes for in

journalism, given that it is completely accurate when applied to

anything anyone can possibly imagine. “A possible outbreak of…” means

there has been no outbreak. “A possible connection between memory loss

and the air you breathe…” means there in no confirmed connection.

“Officials are worried about possible attacks against…” means there have been no such attacks.

Anytime you hear the word possible, it’s probably not happening right now.

LINKS:
“Next up: Possible links between convicted murderer Charles Manson and yesterday’s traffic jams in the downtown area.”

Are

these two things linked? Absolutely, if you loosen your criteria

enough, everything is linked by its presence on the same planet at the

same moment in time – but only a very few links are instructive or

meaningful.

Links are a great news trick, because you can tie a

remote, unconfirmed, or even unimportant story to something that’s

really pushing buttons. “Next up: Possible links to Bin Laden” is all

you have to say to get attention these days.

Almost always when you hear the word link, there is no confirmed link.

“OUR NATION'S…”

“...our Nation’s water supplies…”
“...our Nation’s roadways…”
“...our Nation’s shipping ports…”

They

use this trick to imply some large scale to a story. “A new threat to

our nation’s water supplies” won’t be a threat to our nation’s

anything. Our nation is enormous. Nothing, not even nuclear bombs,

poses a threat to all of any system in our society at the same time.

When they say “our nation’s” anything, they are usually trying to give

grand significance to something that doesn’t have grand significance.

We might not perk up as much if they said, “A new threat to Klopp

County’s water supply…” The incident in which old Doc Ames truck leaked

oil into the reservoir just isn’t gonna scare up enough ratings. But it

could: “Next up, a new threat to our nation’s water supply. An alarming

incident that experts say could happen anywhere!”

SHOCKING NEW DETAILS:
“Shocking

new details when we come back.” Well, first of all, the details are not

likely to be new, and if so critical, why are we waiting till after the

commercial, and anyway, what does shocking mean at this point? Unless

the news anchor reaches through the screen and pulls my hair, I don’t

imagine he could shock me. They’ve ruined another word for themselves.

AUDITORS
OBSERVERS
ANALYSTS
INSPECTORS
LOOPHOLES

“Auditors cite loopholes in security at our nation's libraries.”

That’s

right, anytime you have an audit or an inspection, you’re going to find

something. Auditors are people who’ve been hired to write reports

identifying deficiencies. Have you ever heard of a one-line audit

report? “The auditors didn’t a find one damn thing that could possibly

be improved.” Did you ever hear of an inspector who said: ‘We’ve wasted

six months on this inspection, because the place is bloomin’ perfect.

W[censored]ver’s running this show sure thought of everything.”

The

implication projected in a story about a security loophole is that

someone will come crashing through the loophole – but that is not

necessarily so. They tell you (and the terrorists) about the loophole

because it is frightening, not because it’s enlightening.

“IN A CAREFULLY WORDED STATEMENT…”
“In

a carefully worded statement, the President said…” Is this as distinct

from those statements that world leaders just have the kids throw

together? “Carefully worded” is often used to imply that something is

being hidden.

SERIOUS…
“Officials consider the threat

to be serious.” Is that to distinguish this threat from the threats

they laugh about over lunch? Taking something seriously does not mean

the risk is great or imminent. It just means officials are doing what

anyone would do.

“Officials here are taking no chances when it

comes to school safety.” Sort of. More likely, they’re taking no

chances that reporters will broadcast a report accusing them of taking

chances.

OFFICIALS ARE CLOSELY MONITORING…
Implies

that something is imminent, and worthy of being closely monitored.

“Closely monitoring” is like “Officials are on the lookout for…” Both

phrases suggest that something bad is surely coming, as if officials

are standing outside looking around with binoculars.


COULD
PERHAPS
POTENTIAL
MIGHT

“NASA

reports that a large piece of space junk -PERHAPS as big as a

freighter– COULD enter the Earth’s atmosphere sometime tonight over

North America. Experts warn that it is could potentially slam into the

earth.”

What are we to do with this report? Move a little to the

left or right? They don’t say, of course, that every night, thousands

of pieces of space junk enter the Earth’s atmosphere and completely

burn up before ever hitting the ground, or that no person on Earth has

ever been struck and killed by a piece of space junk. Or that if

something’s as big as a freighter before entry, it might end up as

small as a grain of sand – but it could potentially hit your house, I

suppose.

AN ALARMING PERCENTAGE…
15%, 20%, 25%…
“15%

of Americans are at risk of being seriously injured in car accidents on

our nation’s highways this year.” Whenever you see a percentage cited,

reverse it and think about the other share in the equation. For

example, from the story above you can conclude that 85% of Americans

are not at risk of being seriously injured in car accidents this year.

Sort of good news, all things considered. Also, phrases such “a

sizeable percentage,” or “an alarming percentage” can be applied to

just about any percentage. Get the actual number, and then you decide

if it’s sizeable or alarming to you.

AS MANY AS:
“Experts

warn that as many as 25,000 people in America may be carrying the

deadly gene…” or “As many as twenty states may be susceptible to

radiation leakage disasters.”

“As many as” means somewhere between zero and the number given.

“IN A DEVELOPING STORY…”
A phrase used when they don’t really have the story yet.

FORMER EMPLOYEES:
“But one former employee at the doomed refinery reveals shocking new information…”

What

does he reveal? That they fired him because he was too ethical, or

because they didn’t want to hear the truth? Or that he knew all along?

Anyway, he wasn’t there the night of the fire, so is he the best source

of information? Truth in advertising would require the reporter to say:

“We interviewed one man who hasn’t been to the refinery in three months

– his opinion, next.”

LANGUAGE FROM ONE STORY BEING USED IN ANOTHER:
As

certain words and phrases become symbolic or evocative from one type of

story, they’ll use them in another. In the days after 9/11 I saw a TV

news report about a tropical storm making “a direct hit” on a tiny

coastal community, as if the hurricane were aiming. (And the word tiny

is used because it implies vulnerability. Storms that make direct hits

on tiny places are frightening bullies.) A story about a flight that

experienced extreme turbulence is headlined “Terror in the Sky.”

DEADLY:
As

in the popular “deadly virus;” this word is used to imply that everyone

who gets the virus perishes, when the truth is that very few people die

from the virus. If a really serious virus ends up being fatal for 20

percent of the people who contract it, then truth in advertising would

require language such as: “Next up, a local man is stricken with a

highly survivable virus.”

It’s quite a bit shy of deadly when

someone tests negative for anthrax, yet in the weeks after 9/11, even a

negative test for a “deadly” virus was presented as a frightening thing.

To

put this into perspective, flu-related disorders killed 5000 times as

many people as anthrax in 2001. Is anthrax still scary? Yes, and all

the more so because of the implication that it was everywhere (colored

maps showing the places in the U.S. where anthrax was found or

suspected). It wasn’t everywhere. Reports were everywhere. And the same

report repeated seventy-five times is still the same report. But you

wouldn’t know that by the excited delivery: “New details emerge in that

anthrax case.” Details maybe, but not new – far more likely when you

watch TV news, they’ll be the same “new” details for the tenth time

that day.

A storm is described as deadly: “We’ll have new

information on that deadly hurricane that’s heading up the coast.” A

hurricane qualifies for the word “deadly” when someone, somewhere on

the hurricane’s round-the-hemisphere journey dies as a result of the

storm. That does not mean the hurricane tries to kill all people it

encounters, but that’s the implication – that something dangerous is

coming. You’ll note that the people who die are usually in a situation

far different than yours: They are on a small fishing boat at night off

the coast of Peru, and you’re at home 1200 feet above sea level.

“IN A LAST MINUTE DEVELOPMENT…”
“IN A SURPRISE DEVELOPMENT…”
Usually

means they didn’t get a news crew there in time. Or they didn’t warn

you about it yet, which actually is interesting, since there’s only two

or three possible awful outcomes involving human beings and they

haven’t warned us about yet.

DISTURBING QUESTIONS:
As

in “Disturbing questions have been raised about the safety of our

nation’s…” Yes, the questions are disturbing. They’re disturbing

everyone. Please stop raising them.

“A NEW STUDY REVEALS…”
“A NEW REPORT WARNS…”
“EXPERTS FEAR…”
“EXPERTS WORRY…”

Yes, reports and experts do seem to warn, fear, and worry a lot.

“EXPERTS SAY IT’S JUST A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE…”

They sure do.

BUT NEW YORKERS FEEL…
Global

conclusions drawn from man-on-the-street interviews represent literally

nothing. You can edit a story into “New Yorkers feel terrified,” or

“New Yorkers are ready to move on” – and it all depends upon which of

the five interviews you cut into the piece broadcast.

Here are two quotes brought back by one NBC News crew:

“I

think if you change your life, they’re winning,” says Captain Frank

Carver. “So the more we continue our daily routine, better off we all

are.”

At Pat’s Country Bakery nearby, Joann Charters concedes

she’s still apprehensive. “It’s a really scary feeling with kids in

school. You don’t know what’s gonna happen,” says Charters.”

To

accurately summarize these quotes you’d have to say: “Some people feel

one way and some other people feel another way. Back to you, Tricia.”

Joann

Charters citing that it’s scary because “you don’t know what’s going to

happen” is right on. That’s why it’s scary: because you don’t know

what’s going to happen – not because you do know, not because danger is

advancing toward you, but because it is not.

TV news stories

like this are filler, background, static, irrelevant. You don’t need a

reporter and a video crew to bring you man-in-the-street opinions.

There are men on your street you can get opinions from. Or you could

just talk to your friends and family.

WARNING SIGNS…
Any

list of warning signs implies great risk. I recall a rash of reports

about car-jacking in Los Angeles, and this list of warning signs:

Armed stranger approaches car;
Taps on closed window;
Looks around suspiciously.

And

then they offered the checklist of precautions, given by an “expert on

car-jacking.” (Is there a college course on that?) The checklist:

Keep doors locked;
Don’t let strangers into your car;
Drive away.

This is tantamount to:

“NEXT UP: CRIMINALS WHO HIDE OUT IN YOUR PURSE AND ROB YOU WHEN YOU GET HOME!”

Warning Signs:
Purse feels extra heavy;
Strange noises coming from purse.

OFFICIALS ADMIT…
“Officials

admit that the incident could have developed into a full-fledged riot…”

In this context, admit means that when a reporter asked, “If police had

never reached the scene, and if a hundred other factors had fallen into

place in an extraordinarily unlikely way, couldn’t this have developed

into a full-scale riot?” Yes, it could have – an admission.

EXPERTS…
It

may seem you are getting expert advice on the news, but that’s far from

so. The moment you edit what an expert says, it’s just words you might

as well put in the blender. Would you let a TV news crew mediate your

doctor’s advice? Imagine being challenged by a difficult illness and

your doctor’s compassionate and complete 30-minute presentation was

edited down to 23 seconds.

That’s what the local news brings

you: expert opinion edited, mediated, and minimized by non-experts who

ask questions designed to elicit the most alarming responses. “Yes,

yes, Dr. Stevens, but if it did happen, it would be terrible wouldn’t

it?

NAMES
MONIKERS
When the news media

assign a nickname to a wanted criminal (e.g., The Night-stalker, The

Hillside Strangler) or to a disease (Legionaire’s or Flesh-Eating

Diseases), it is indicative of a hoped-for series of reports. When it’s

a type of crime (Follow-home Robberies), a trend is not far behind.

For

example, freeway shootings and “Road Rage” led to all these headlines:

“AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS TURN FREEWAYS INTO FREE-FOR-ALLS,” “ROAD RAGE:

DRIVEN TO DESTRUCTION,” “HIGHWAY VIOLENCE SPREADING LIKE AN EPIDEMIC.”

Next

comes “Officials are concerned,” and soon enough –as with Road Rage,

you’ve got hearings before the House Subcommittee on Surface

Transportation, and somebody (in this case, committee staff member Jeff

Nelligan) calling the issue, “A national disaster.” Presumably, Mr.

Nelligan would tone that down a bit today – all of us having found a

new meaning for the words “national disaster.”

I TOLD YOU SO…
An

NBC News story quotes a member of a university task force on weapons of

mass destruction: “We’ve been talking about this for years and people

in general have not been interested.” Is there some surprise there –

that someone on a task force about weapons would be talking about

weapons? The intended implication of these stories is that if someone

had just listened, this could all have been prevented. How could

discussions at some college task force have been used to prevent

anthrax scares? If we had listened, what would be different? This is

like an earthquake happening and earthquake experts saying, “We warned

you.” Yes, you did; you said there’d be an earthquake sometime. If only

we’d listened.

DISASTER UNREADINESS…
These are stories

where TV news people cannot lose. They ask hospitals or public health

officials or the utility company or the fire department if they can

handle a disaster of X magnitude. If the response is yes, they just

keep upping the disaster magnitude until the response is no.

Here’s

an example from NBC News: “A survey of 30 hospitals in four states and

Washington, D.C., found them ill-equipped to handle a widespread

biological disaster.” A guaranteed fear-inducer, pokes right at our

insecurity. First off, just asking the question implies that a

“widespread disaster” is coming, and it’s even better if the survey was

part of a “new study,” because that implies that the question itself is

well founded.

Either way, the basic premise of the story is

true: If hospitals currently able to handle 500 patients an hour get

5000 patients in some terrible hour, they will be unprepared. The

standard of care will drop. Is there something surprising about that?

Do TV news writers think Americans assume there is some extra team of

200 doctors and an extra 5000 fully-equipped hospital beds waiting in

their community somewhere just out of sight?

Indeed, hospitals

are unprepared for that which they have never had to be prepared. Being

able to deal with what predictably comes down the pike and putting your

resources where they are most likely to be needed is good planning. An

emergency room would have to trade some daily-used resource to be ready

for mass casualties that don’t appear to be coming. Yes, as the world

changes and events change, so does preparation – but expecting

hospitals to be fully prepared, for example, to treat thousands of

inhalation anthrax casualties when there’s been a few lethal cases in

30 years would constitute bad planning.

One can make an

“unprepared” story about anything; America’s police are unprepared for

a “widespread crime disaster;” our supermarkets are unprepared for a

“widespread food shortage.” It all depends upon how you define the word

widespread. Put a microphone in some official’s face and ask if he’s

adequately prepared for an attack on the harbor by Godzilla, and you’ve

got an unreadiness story.

WILL NEVER BE FORGOTTEN…
“Being

stuck in the elevator for six days is an experience Betty Hamilton will

never forget.” This is used as a measure of how serious an incident it

was, but did anyone imagine she was going to forget it? “I think I was

stuck in an elevator for six days, but I can’t quite remember.”

THE WRAP-UP…
Pay

attention to the very last line in news reports. They are rarely

summaries, but rather are designed to keep the story open for more

reports. Most often, the closing line takes a last bite at the fear

apple, one final effort to add uncertainty and worry. “Many here are

left wondering if it will ever be safe.” “Fear continues its tight grip

on this tiny community.” “Whether more will die remains to be seen.” In

the world of TV news, frightening stories never end. We never hear the

words “And that’s that.”

Let’s put a few of these newsroom

strategies together into a story and see how it looks. As the basis for

our mock TV news report, I’ll draw on something that actually happened

to my assistant. Earlier this year, her wrist was injured when a dog

bit her.

THE TEASER:
“NEXT UP: DOGBITES! THE

BONE-CRUSHING POWER OF DOGS. Experts warn that even friendly dogs can

bite, sometimes without provocation. And they’re everywhere. A new

Government study estimates as many as 300 dogs per square mile, with

the numbers climbing each year. How many backyards in your neighborhood

are hiding a deadly menace? We’ll tell you what experts say – when we

come back.

THE STORY:
A shocking bite from the dog

everyone described as “a little angel” leaves one area woman nursing

her wounds. Dog-jaw experts say that even a small dog can produce as

much as 500 pounds of biting force, and given the rate at which dogs

breed, it’s just a matter of time before more people are placed at

risk. A former employee with the Department of Health says hospitals

are unprepared for a major increase in dogbites, and officials are

closely monitoring this situation that could pose a deadly threat to

our nation’s neighborhoods. Disturbing questions have been raised about

loopholes in the licensing system, and observers point out that dogs

who bite can receive licenses and be released into neighborhoods.

THE WRAP UP:
It’s

no surprise that many local residents are living in fear: “You never

know when somebody is walking their dog right behind you. We’re

scared.” Officials say links between the recent dogbite and one that

occurred in the tiny town of Ames, Iowa have not been confirmed, but

either way, it’s a nightmare few will ever forget. And one that many

fear will not be over in the morning.”

Coming to understand

these popular phrases and strategies, and being able to see around them

has made me appreciate those news reports that are direct, clear, and

informative. Since many news people use these tricks, those who do not

stand out as all the more special and valuable.

If you watch TV

news, you’re probably going to spot lots of sensationalizing tactics

I’ve missed, and maybe even start a list of your own. If finding them

becomes an occasionally enjoyable part of your news-viewing experience,

that in itself will be great news.

Gavin de Becker 


Offline entermymatrix03  
#70 Posted : Wednesday, May 21, 2008 1:02:14 PM(UTC)
entermymatrix03


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/24/2004(UTC)
Posts: 2,872
Location: United States, Georgia

OMG! Vote for the longest post in the history of the forums! lol. I started reading and I now have to get back to work. Looks like I'll have to finish up after work tonight. : )

Offline Savage Animal  
#71 Posted : Wednesday, May 21, 2008 7:47:12 PM(UTC)
Savage Animal


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/17/2008(UTC)
Posts: 360
Location: Upstate New York

 I have never read that book, or heard of that author, but those are the exact things my wife and I scoff at each and every time we watch the news. News readers are so full of crap it's disgusting. 

Offline Atomic Rooster  
#72 Posted : Thursday, May 22, 2008 10:14:57 PM(UTC)
Atomic Rooster


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/29/2006(UTC)
Posts: 49
Location: California

 Not that I like it, but I'll be voting for McCain. I just can't vote for either of them democrats. [:|]

Offline FSeven  
#73 Posted : Tuesday, May 27, 2008 6:04:39 AM(UTC)
FSeven


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/13/2008(UTC)
Posts: 176
Location: Dirty Jersey

Atomic Rooster wrote:

 Not that I like it, but I'll be voting for McCain. I just can't vote for either of them democrats. Indifferent

Just curious, what your thoughts are? Why McCain? Why not Obama or Hillary? For some, politics are a personal thing and if you do not wish to share on that basis, I respect that.

Offline amdcrankitup  
#74 Posted : Tuesday, May 27, 2008 6:39:45 AM(UTC)
amdcrankitup


Rank: Advanced Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/29/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,826
Location: South Carolina

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)

I cant bring myself voting for McCain.I respect his military backgrond but I just think he is a little bit of a war monger and will do nothing more than carry on the Bush policies! Dont get me wrong I want some strong on defense but its time for a change!

Offline Savage Animal  
#75 Posted : Tuesday, June 3, 2008 8:25:20 PM(UTC)
Savage Animal


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/17/2008(UTC)
Posts: 360
Location: Upstate New York

 Clintons out! It's Obama or Mcain. Unfortunately my money is on Obama.

Users browsing this topic
6 Pages«<3456>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.