The untold story of Cindy Sheehan

[RGRWJB]

What is most interesting is that the press gives this little bunch of people who are protesting with Cindy so much air time without discussing Cindy's background. This is a case of more press bias. It has been pointed out on just a couple of media outlets that Cindy divorced her first husband and left her son with him to be raised while she became a political activist for the Democrat Party She had very little to do with her son in his growing years. She remarried. The 1st husband remarried. The original father raised the son with his new wife. They miss their son and mourn the loss of his life. They have stated that they are very proud of their son and that they agree with the stance of America/Iraq and on terror. They said that their son was eager to serve and to go fight the terrorists in Iraq. He volunteered. How many news stations carried their interview? Not many. So

the son dies in Iraq and then Cindy shows up to make a Stink. She gets an audience with Bush. That was not enough. She goes to Crawford and demands another audience. How many news stations carry the ongoing saga of Cindy? Practically all of them. Cindy didn't care about her

son. She let another woman raise him.

 

Cindy doesn't care about the other soldiers in Iraq. Cindy cares about her liberal, feminist agenda and about using the death of her son to lobby against Republicans and Bush. And the press is helping her. Why?

 

Then 2 days ago, Cindy's 2nd husband filed for a divorce from Cindy. Cindy sounds like a feminist opportunist who did not have the sense of responsibility to even raise her own son. It looks like her 2nd husband is fed up with Cindy. We middle Americans should be fed up with Cindy also.

[karlunity]

Thanks RG.

Cindy always seemed a bit "put on". Now I know why.

 

Karl

[nyteflyre66]

You've got that right .She is an opportunist with a big mouth and small brain.

What is most interesting is that the press gives this little bunch of people who are protesting with Cindy so much air time without discussing Cindy's background. This is a case of more press bias. It has been pointed out on just a couple of media outlets that Cindy divorced her first husband and left her son with him to be raised while she became a political activist for the Democrat Party She had very little to do with her son in his growing years. She remarried. The 1st husband remarried. The original father raised the son with his new wife. They miss their son and mourn the loss of his life. They have stated that they are very proud of their son and that they agree with the stance of America/Iraq and on terror. They said that their son was eager to serve and to go fight the terrorists in Iraq. He volunteered. How many news stations carried their interview? Not many. So

the son dies in Iraq and then Cindy shows up to make a Stink. She gets an audience with Bush. That was not enough. She goes to Crawford and demands another audience. How many news stations carry the ongoing saga of Cindy? Practically all of them. Cindy didn't care about her

son. She let another woman raise him.

 

Cindy doesn't care about the other soldiers in Iraq. Cindy cares about her liberal, feminist agenda and about using the death of her son to lobby against Republicans and Bush. And the press is helping her. Why?

 

Then 2 days ago, Cindy's 2nd husband filed for a divorce from Cindy. Cindy sounds like a feminist opportunist who did not have the sense of responsibility to even raise her own son. It looks like her 2nd husband is fed up with Cindy. We middle Americans should be fed up with Cindy also.

3638[/snapback]

 

[Guest MorgansBoss]

There is always another side to every story. In the old days of truely responsible journalism it was usually looked into and if it disproved or even seriously discredited the original story the story was usually dropped or at least qualified by giving the "other information" along with the original story. In today's sensationalism driven, unashamedly biased press such things are simply dismissed. It would make the story less interesting. Unfortunately most Americans only take the time to hear, see or read the 30 second "info-bite" and don't care to be informed about "the rest of the story." Americans have always loved an underdog and they WANT sensationalism... which may be why the talking heads are so eger to provide it.

 

I have been part of too many interviews, "reported events" and "news". I have seen first hand how reporters and even managing editors intentionally edit out or omit things that would not support the line they are promoting. Bitter? You bet I am, but for a good reason - first hand experience!

 

The sad part about this is that the press can report nearly anything claiming "Freedom of the Press" - a right intended to guard against the sort of one-sided information most present. A free press must also be a responsible press!

[fritz]

I have seen first hand how reporters and even managing editors intentionally edit out or omit things that would not support the line they are promoting

 

Yep,

 

And we see it every year at election time---newspaper editors coming out with their own slant to the candidates. It works both ways (both parties). And a small town weekly newspaper can be very biased as well. It don't have to be the Washington Post.

 

 

fritz

[Guest MorgansBoss]

Even worse is when that small town editor is given (substantiated) information that is ... "less than flattering" about a local politician and rather than "report it" he simply tell's the guy at their next lodge meeting! Hope I don't offend anyone but when "Bortherhood" of a fraternal organization outweighs a public servent's obligation and duty, he needs to change professions!