(no subject)

[changeyourstars8]

New York has no national monuments or icons, according to the Department of Homeland Security form obtained by ABC News. That was a key factor used to determine that New York City should have its anti-terror funds slashed by 40 percent--from $207.5 million in 2005 to $124.4 million in 2006.

I really can't think of anything to say here. I hope I'll find out this was all a big practical joke tomorrow, but at this point, I'm so not counting on it.

Comments

[jadelynx.livejournal.com]

Actually, I'm having trouble finding any news articles that give Homeland Security's take on this whole thing, though NPR had quotes from Chertoff himself.

What the news agencies don't seem to care to report is that NY actually got MORE money based on the lack of "icons". The meaning behind icon made things like the Statue of Liberty and the Empire State Building be worth less in the grand scheme of things because their scale for granting money is based on the number of lives at risk. Since generally you don't have people *in* a statue, money isn't usually allotted for statues or other icons as much as it would be for any building where there are people at great risk. Rather than naming these buildings that obviously house people (even if temporarily) as icons and remove the amount of money budgeted to protect them, those in charge opted to call them buildings or whatever the actual term is, and therefore give more to the budget to protect them.

NYers are upset over the loss of the money they have been given, but they aren't taking into account that for the last several years they've been given a significant amount more than most of the rest of the country. What they should take into account is that NY being protected is good, but what if terroists decide to start attacking our food supplies? Should we not protect places that provide our vegetables or our meat? Wouldn't NYers feel a little attacked if suddenly the cost of carrots rose higher than the cost of gas?

I dunno, the whole thing angers me because most of us have to rely on news agencies to provide us all this information and they are warping it, and most likely intentionally, because this way the news is selling. Grr. Idiot news people.

[allthelivesofme.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the info. :-) I tried to look up some more stuff on it, and found a .pdf file that was supposedly the text of the memo that explained things, but when I tried to open it, it froze my computer. Feh.

[rosevaughn.livejournal.com]

Normally...I'd bite my tongue on this issue...but on this, I can't.

((most of us have to rely on news agencies to provide us all this information and they are warping it, and most likely intentionally, because this way the news is selling. Grr. Idiot news people.))

It's nice to know that ten years of education and two degrees have made me an idiot news person.

Media sources do not intentionally warp the news. We can't do that. It's illegal. We report the information we are given. And unfortunatley, sometimes we are given the incorrect information.

And they way the news is selling is the way the viewers want it. Nice news doesn't get viewers. Believe me. It's been tried, many times. Unfortunatley, people want the gross and gory. It gets the ratings. Plain and simple.

I have worked in newsrooms for the past six years. Until you have as well, and you know EXACTLY how they and the people in them work, don't assume anything. We're just doing our jobs like the rest of the people in this country.

[jadelynx.livejournal.com]

It's nice to know that ten years of education and two degrees have made me an idiot news person.

Education does not make a person any less of an idiot. That being said, if you choose to put yourself in the shoes of those I call an idiot news person, go ahead. I didn't. ::shrug::

Media sources do not intentionally warp the news.

Baloney.

Nice news doesn't get viewers. Believe me. It's been tried, many times. Unfortunatley, people want the gross and gory. It gets the ratings. Plain and simple.

Just because that's the way it is doesn't make it right. It also doesn't change the fact that people get a warped view of world affairs because the things being reported on aren't always accurate, or are skewed in the report. I'm not arguing why it's done, just saying it is.

I have worked in newsrooms for the past six years. Until you have as well, and you know EXACTLY how they and the people in them work, don't assume anything. We're just doing our jobs like the rest of the people in this country.

You are the last person that needs to be telling me to not assume things about people. Sheesh.

All in all, I don't take what you, one person immersed in the media industry, has to say about the situation. A) because you are one person, and don't represent the entire news media and B) because you are so entrenched, you aren't going to have any fairer of a view on it than someone who is constantly being misled, as I am. I'm not saying your POV is worthless, just not one I'm gonna put all my trust in. Nothing against you, just the situation. I've seen the news tell the "truth" while skewing it so ridiculously as to create more trouble than should have been. There isn't an argument in the world that will convince me otherwise.

[rosevaughn.livejournal.com]

((There isn't an argument in the world that will convince me otherwise.))

That's too bad. Because we're just trying to make a living. Just like you are.

I may not represent the entire media, because some of them are corrupt jerks. Some, not all. But I know it. I know the process. I know how to get the story and get it on. I know what goes on during the meetings and the conversations. And until you can tell me exactly what goes on during the news day, you can't say with any 100% truth that media sourced intentionally warp news. I'll say it again. It's illegal.

[allthelivesofme.livejournal.com]

And they way the news is selling is the way the viewers want it. Nice news doesn't get viewers.

I believe this, but I do find it unfortunate, because this is exactly why the only 'news' program I watch is The Daily Show. Because I really don't need to fill my brain with how many car accidents and homicides and OMG New Disease that Hasn't Been Fully Researched But it Might Kill Us All Will YOU Be Next News at Eleven.

Which brings me to the next subject, which is the news media 'warping' the news. I kindof agree with both of you here, because I do think that a lot of the news is warped, I'm just not sure how much of it is intentional.

Take protests, for example. You can have thousands of well-dressed, well-behaved people, and the camera will zoom in on the one guy wearing grungy clothes trying to throw things at the cops. Intentionally warping things to make protestors look bad, or going for the angle that might get more viewers?

Or stranger kidnappings. Most of the time, when children are abducted, it's by a parent or someone else they know. But the media focuses a lot on stranger kidnappings, to the point where parents are overly fearful of that when there's a slim statistical chance of it happening. (same thing applies to rape cases, with the 'someone you know vs. stranger' chances)

How much of it is intentional for whatever reason, and how much is just automatically going after Man Bites Dog stories so much that eventually men biting dogs seems to be the norm?

[rosevaughn.livejournal.com]

And I'm not quite sure if this is the kind of story you're looking for, but here's a story fro the DHS:

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0921.xml