These so-called journalists are just shilling for the enemy with their choice of terminology. Why can't they just call collateral damage what it is: collateral damage.
To shamelessly engage in the use of emotion-laden terms like "civilian deaths" betrays an agenda. Just who's side are they on anyhow?
2007-02-06 04:08:35 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Since liberals stopped the Vietnam War, they think they can do it again.
Americans have no clue as to what being in war is like. We will need to fight our enemy on the streets of America to learn again.
2007-02-06 04:12:20 · answer #1 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 8⤊ 4⤋
Hartman ... Well, you're right, of course. A bigger and more obvious problem is that the media have fotten their purpose. That is, instead of reporting the news and leaving the analysis/interpretation to the views/listeners, there's now more commentary than actual reporting and whether they're doing so intentionally or not, they're introducing their own opinions; in years past, this would not be happening.
And as far as forgetting their purposes goes, I think we can almost say the same for the Congress. Every congressman and senator wants to be the Commander-in-Chief, it seems. They should vote to further fund and support the war ... or if they oppose it, withdraw the funds, instead of all this B.S.ing. They knew how to vote FOR the action in Iraq when it seemed like the right thing to do. Now, though, they've lost their spine (and some other things, too) and all they're doing is messing around with "non-binding resolutions." What does that mean? That they want to make a point, but their point won't be binding and no action need be taken?
They should focus on getting the job done instead of wavering every time someone opens their mouth.
2007-02-06 04:30:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
When I was in the military collateral damage was weapons, building, road and bridges. These days media outlets are run, not by journalist but, corporations. Corporate America is very conservative. Many of them whole-heartily support the war. Therefore we see only their version of the truth. That's why we need to get our news from various sources. REALITY is somewhere in the middle.
2007-02-06 04:23:50 · answer #3 · answered by mediahoney 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Number ONE- The media is indeed biased, but not the way you think. It is owned by big corporate entities and follows their rule. Number TWO: Military parlance has come up with all kinds of langauge "gems" and collateral damage is but one of them. "Friendly fire", the oxymoron to end all oxymorons is also military parlance. A death is a death is a death and NO parlance is going to change that!
2016-05-23 23:45:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have asked myself this question for months(?)[years(?)]. Collateral damage is terrible but it isn't the same as the preplanned and willfull killing of absolutely innocent civilians which the later terminology evokes. I do not appreciate this subtle editorializing that is done by newscasters but I believe most of them are too stupid to understand the damage they cause by their loose use of phrases. (Maybe they sleep through all those communication classes?)
2007-02-06 04:16:31 · answer #5 · answered by Nightstalker1967 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Oh My goodness! I have never read so many crap answers before.
I just want to tell you Thank You for fighting for my Country. You are what makes United States of America great. All of these losers who answered horribly can just get down on their knees and thank the good Lord that you are over there fighting in their place and for their freedom to open their big fat mouths.
Thank You!
2007-02-06 04:55:13 · answer #6 · answered by sunny 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, let's not forget, reporters / journalists want to make money, and the one with the best 'story' will receive praise. They want to use phrases that will stimulate people and get their story read more. All about money and selfishness, insecurity, I'd say. They use that term because they get more reaction that way.
The more people that talk about the article, the more advertisers will pay to put their ad on that paper / page.
2007-02-06 04:19:59 · answer #7 · answered by IronRhino 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree with Schmorgen. When Iraqi civilians get killed, it's called collateral damage. When American civilians get killed it's called terrorism. Why not call it collateral damage as well?.
2007-02-06 05:02:53 · answer #8 · answered by roadwarrior 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
By that rationale, 9/11 was "collateral damage."
I don't think either usage is correct.
2007-02-06 04:49:47 · answer #9 · answered by Schmorgen 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
war has costs - period.
i find it hard to imagine that you decry the description of how innocents are kiled rather than the actual killing of innocents...
2007-02-06 04:38:42 · answer #10 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋