Skip to comments.Stars & Stripes - letters to the editor; Too much FOX News on AFN
Posted on 08/09/2004 5:18:34 PM PDT by Libloather
Letters to the editor for Friday, August 6, 2004
European and Mideast editions
Too much FOX News
Which network was covering the Democratic National Convention on the AFN News channel but FOX News, with nothing but how bad the Democrats are performing. FOX News should be called the Republican News Channel.
Not only did we have to put up with FOX critiquing every speaker at the convention, but we had three hours nearly every evening condemning the Democrats for any proposal they presented.
Has anyone seriously examined the AFN News channel to determine how much time is devoted to FOX? Does anyone seriously believe this is fair and balanced? Is the purpose of American Forces Radio and Television Service to try and brainwash the military audience? It sure looks like it.
(Ret.) Chief Warrant Officer 3 F.J. Kirby
Retired - and this dood can't afford satellite reception?
The very same letter was printed Monday, August 9, 2004 - http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=23702
(Ret.) Lt. John F. Kerry
These libs ARE aware that media and mail was censored during WWII, right?
We aren't even prohibiting such expression this time around (or even prosecuting for treason as with the above broadcasters or people who filled those roles when those were only nicknames for broadcasters, much like "Baghdad Bob" was not the man's professional/stage name).
Italy! Sweet duty Chief. Did you retire there? Maybe you should watch a little more Foxnews yourself. Do you think there's much of it in Pordenone? I'd expect the members of our armed services aren't dumb enough to be "brainwashed" as you suggest. But then, I don't know how it was when you served?
Why not take a poll of the Armed Forces, and let them decide what they want to watch for news -- CNN or Fox?
How childish can you be?
I didn't see this part. Did this come before or after all the stuff on Vietnam? Were there proposals?
In this case, might the "(Ret.)" signify "Retarded"?
A retired Chief Warrant Officer would have signed himself,
F. J. Kirby
Or CWO2, or whatever his rank was.
This is a phoney. Probably some lice-ridden, dope-huffing, same-sex attracted commie scum who never served a day in his life. Stars and Stripes doesn't vet the authenticity of the letters they get, and anybody can write them.
It maybe said that the left-leaning Stars & Stripes has a slight problem with AFN. I witnessed it back in the 80's...
Typical of a socialist - can't even live in the USA he despises our freedoms so much.
It must be terrible to hate yourself as much as he must.
"It maybe said that the left-leaning Stars & Stripes has a slight problem with AFN. I witnessed it back in the 80's..."
Too bad I didn't keep the communications I received from their "ombudsman" when I called them on their leftward slant.
He was a doozy.
Too much FOX News on AFN, eh? Well, I believe there is too much CNN in airports.
"1. You can sign yourself using correct military titles, but Stars and Stripes will use the AP Style Manual, which is different."
I cannot from memory confirm or refute that, but I have to admit that the possibility exists.
"2. I have called on the phone by an editor to verify all of the letters (4 or 5) I have written that have been published. This is because of an incident that occurred on a ship I was on at the time."
I don't think that's SOP. Sounds like they were making a special effort because they got burned.
"admitted that they did not verify the identity of letter writers"
Okay, well, there you are.
"and stated they would now verify each letter that they published."
I'd be really surprised if they were doing that faithfully.
I noticed he is retired and is in Italy.
Sounds like part of the dem minority that exists in the military. Must suck to know that people respect Sgt. Majors more.
That's one of the problems - the Stars & Stripes so-called reporters LIVE in the area of reporting. AFN is there to provide info to the troops - despite the S&S.
"brainwash the military audience"
Back in the early 80s, before the Reagan Revolution really took off, before the Internet, before Rush Limbaugh, back when "national news media" meant NBC, ABC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, and the NT Times and Wash Post (if you could get them) I was a junior officer on sea duty, and I used to get that "deer in the headlights" look when I'd claim media bias.
"No, no, it's just sensationalism," the rest of the wardroom would say.
Well, not when they pass on "sensational" stories that make the left look bad, and if they have to invent stories that make the right look bad, it's not.
But nobody would believe the media were doing that.
So, to that extent, the military audience was "brainwashed" along with the rest of the country. It is very gratifying to me that so many more people "get it" now than did in 1981.
However...the military audience is still brainwashed to some extent by all the CNN and other trash they are exposed to. S&S appears to have backed off their hard-left stance a little in the last decade. You used to see a lot of editorials by the usual suspects--Broder, Dowd, and that unspeakable scoundrel Dionne--and a Buckley column only when he was calling for the legalization of medical marijuana again.
I rarely buy it any more, so that's just an impression. Here's another: the Sunday S&S always used to sell out, and it doesn't any more. I'd really like to see figures on changes in their circulation and their target audience.