<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: MSM Not Meeting Market Demand</title>
	<link>http://enableate.com/steve/2007/926</link>
	<description>make it happen</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:39:24 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: steve</title>
		<link>http://enableate.com/steve/2007/926#comment-12631</link>
		<author>steve</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:06:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://enableate.com/steve/2007/926#comment-12631</guid>
		<description>No Jamie. I'm simply illustrating the point that there is demand for news coverage in Iraq to be covered a certain way and that the MSM is not meeting that demand. The old axe 'if it bleeds it leads' it not a very suitable response to charges of negative bias in Iraq when many people show an interest in positive coverage. 

Dan,

I would not deny collateral damage. However the objection I raise in the context of collateral damage is based on poor argumentation focused on how US soldiers intentionally violates law just to harm civilians. This, as it turns out, is a common theme amongst the anti-war crowd and is laughably false. I should also like to note that liberals wish to blur the distinction between civilian death by unintentional collateral damage and intentional terrorist action. Such a blurring is dangerous since it ignores intention which is crucial for moral evaluation. 

A dead person by mistake is not the same thing as a dead person intentionally killed to influence policy by getting to top headlines in the press.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No Jamie. I&#8217;m simply illustrating the point that there is demand for news coverage in Iraq to be covered a certain way and that the MSM is not meeting that demand. The old axe &#8216;if it bleeds it leads&#8217; it not a very suitable response to charges of negative bias in Iraq when many people show an interest in positive coverage. </p>
<p>Dan,</p>
<p>I would not deny collateral damage. However the objection I raise in the context of collateral damage is based on poor argumentation focused on how US soldiers intentionally violates law just to harm civilians. This, as it turns out, is a common theme amongst the anti-war crowd and is laughably false. I should also like to note that liberals wish to blur the distinction between civilian death by unintentional collateral damage and intentional terrorist action. Such a blurring is dangerous since it ignores intention which is crucial for moral evaluation. </p>
<p>A dead person by mistake is not the same thing as a dead person intentionally killed to influence policy by getting to top headlines in the press.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan</title>
		<link>http://enableate.com/steve/2007/926#comment-12627</link>
		<author>Dan</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Dec 2007 19:49:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://enableate.com/steve/2007/926#comment-12627</guid>
		<description>I thought those videos were all fakes for purely entertainment purposes anyway.  At least, I assumed that was what your reply would be if I pointed out depictions of atrocities or violations of international law (such as use of cluster munitions in residential areas or firing on wounded individuals) perpetrated by the U.S. forces in said videos.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought those videos were all fakes for purely entertainment purposes anyway.  At least, I assumed that was what your reply would be if I pointed out depictions of atrocities or violations of international law (such as use of cluster munitions in residential areas or firing on wounded individuals) perpetrated by the U.S. forces in said videos.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jamie</title>
		<link>http://enableate.com/steve/2007/926#comment-12623</link>
		<author>Jamie</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Dec 2007 01:25:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://enableate.com/steve/2007/926#comment-12623</guid>
		<description>Wow, what an excellent analysis of how many pro-war movies are posted vs. how many anti-war videos are posted.  Ooops!!!  

I'm supposed to be impressed and change my opinion based off a post where someone mentions that there are pro-war videos on YouTube?  Really, I had no idea there was a single person that was pro-war.  I'm convinced.  You're totally right Steve.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, what an excellent analysis of how many pro-war movies are posted vs. how many anti-war videos are posted.  Ooops!!!  </p>
<p>I&#8217;m supposed to be impressed and change my opinion based off a post where someone mentions that there are pro-war videos on YouTube?  Really, I had no idea there was a single person that was pro-war.  I&#8217;m convinced.  You&#8217;re totally right Steve.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
