But he's ignored my argument, as have you.

 

How many different arguments do we have going on? I responded to BF's claim.

 

Yours is what? They shouldn't show it? If so, I'm ambivalent. The beauty of it being online is that if I don't want to see it I don't have to go to their website, find it among many others, and actually click on it.

 

If that's not your argument I'll gladly respond to whatever it is. I got tied up trying to refute a different argument.

 

Come on , RTS. If there is ONE person on here that you KNOW doesn't run from a good debate.....

To make it easier when you guys are disagreeing with me in this thread I've made a menu of debates. That way when you respond you can just type a number and I'll know which debate we're having.

 

1. WXIX had only financial gain on their mind when they did their report.

2. WXIX was insensitive for showing the video (regardless of motive).

3. Websites make a lot of money simply by having people "come" to their websites.

4. Would the surviving spouse want the video shown?

 

This way when TDY comes in and says he's with BF and RTS we can actually know which debate he's referring to. Maybe we can even entice him to share his thoughts.

But he's ignored my argument, as have you.

 

With that, it became clear that the decision had zero to do with respect for the families, and everything to do with driving traffic to their web site and the advertisements found there.

 

I am saying that I do believe that they did show respect for the families (more so than the other news outlets) and they really are not profiting off of advertisements.

 

Didn't we on Bluegrasspreps have an entire thread of live footage of the tsunami destroying homes, buildings, boats, cars. Some of which I'm sure had people in them? Does that mean we do not respect them?

That is irrelevant to this discussion. BF is implying that it this was motivated through financial opportunity. Clyde is showing that it is not. BF is arguing something that is simply not there.

It's all a matter of opinion, and I prefer to be cynical...because it goes with my avatar.

Edited March 19, 201115 yr by Birdsfan

Hahahahaha!!! You go BF!

 

And RTS!

 

I'm with you guys.

We need to form a coalition of the enlightened!

Your first argument in this thread is that the few people who might have decided to view the video online was somehow going to make a lot of money for WXIX.

Could you show us where I used these words?

I am not defending WXIX. I'm not a reactionary person. I would fully expect that the video would be shown. It wouldn't change a darn thing.

I think that's easy for you to say now without it having actually happening and I pray that it never does for anyone close to you. I've lost someone close to a horrible car crash and I sure wouldn't have wanted any news outlet claiming they had sympathy for my family and then saying "but hey, you can see it our website". Mighty short lived sympathy there in my book.

 

How many different arguments do we have going on? I responded to BF's claim.

 

Yours is what? They shouldn't show it? If so, I'm ambivalent. The beauty of it being online is that if I don't want to see it I don't have to go to their website, find it among many others, and actually click on it.

 

If that's not your argument I'll gladly respond to whatever it is. I got tied up trying to refute a different argument.

 

Come on , RTS. If there is ONE person on here that you KNOW doesn't run from a good debate.....

Since when does any debate in any forum not have more than one argument? Most of the time there are multiple points in any given thread.

 

You don't have to view it, no. How does that begin to address the fact that others can and it's not sympathetic to the victims family?

 

I wasn't trying to say you were running from the debate, if I came across that way, I apologize.

 

To make it easier when you guys are disagreeing with me in this thread I've made a menu of debates. That way when you respond you can just type a number and I'll know which debate we're having.

 

1. WXIX had only financial gain on their mind when they did their report.

2. WXIX was insensitive for showing the video (regardless of motive).

3. Websites make a lot of money simply by having people "come" to their websites.

4. Would the surviving spouse want the video shown?

 

This way when TDY comes in and says he's with BF and RTS we can actually know which debate he's referring to. Maybe we can even entice him to share his thoughts.

2 and 4 would be my points.

I am saying that I do believe that they did show respect for the families (more so than the other news outlets) and they really are not profiting off of advertisements.

 

Didn't we on Bluegrasspreps have an entire thread of live footage of the tsunami destroying homes, buildings, boats, cars. Some of which I'm sure had people in them? Does that mean we do not respect them?

I see it all as being done with a wink and a nod, I don't see where they are any better than the other news outlets.

 

No names were given in those videos nor do we have any way of knowing who any of those people were or if there were even any people in them for sure or not. I see it as apples and oranges.

I think that's easy for you to say now without it having actually happening and I pray that it never does for anyone close to you. I've lost someone close to a horrible car crash and I sure wouldn't have wanted any news outlet claiming they had sympathy for my family and then saying "but hey, you can see it our website". Mighty short lived sympathy there in my book.

 

Since when does any debate in any forum not have more than one argument? Most of the time there are multiple points in any given thread.

 

You don't have to view it, no. How does that begin to address the fact that others can and it's not sympathetic to the victims family?

 

I wasn't trying to say you were running from the debate, if I came across that way, I apologize.

 

2 and 4 would be my points.

 

You are 100% correct that it's easy for me to say how I THINK I would react. However, since I haven't gone through the situation like you have how else am I supposed to answer that question?

 

My point in posting the different arguments was that you said I was avoiding the argument. I wasn't sure which one you were referring to.

Could you show us where I used these words?

 

You said their goal was to boost ad sales. Let me guess. You're going to hide behind the fact that you didn't say "a lot." It's like we're in a court of law here. Everyone knows what you meant. No one believes that you meant they were trying to raise ads sales by $5.

 

Your original contention was that they were dishonest and were trying to drive people to their website. I could make the argument that you were correct but NOT for your stated reason. If I were them I'd try to drive traffic to my site to build brand loyalty. I'd want to get them in the habit of going to XIX for all news ESPECIALLY TV. You could THEN make the argument it was $$ driven. You took the wrong path though by saying they were trying to make money on their site. Incorrect as shown about 38 times of which you have to refute (Hint: NYT).

 

You have every right to have a bad taste in your mouth. You just can't back it up with the argument you put forth.

You are 100% correct that it's easy for me to say how I THINK I would react. However, since I haven't gone through the situation like you have how else am I supposed to answer that question?

 

My point in posting the different arguments was that you said I was avoiding the argument. I wasn't sure which one you were referring to.

Fair enough, Clyde. We can agree to disagree on this one. As always, I enjoy debating with you.

Fair enough, Clyde. We can agree to disagree on this one. As always, I enjoy debating with you.

 

Ditto, my friend.

 

I hope I'm never in the situation to KNOW how I would feel.

Ditto, my friend.

 

I hope I'm never in the situation to KNOW how I would feel.

My prayers that you NEVER are either. :thumb:

Fair enough, Clyde. We can agree to disagree on this one. As always, I enjoy debating with you.

Can I hire you for the next time I say something stupid?

If I were them I'd try to drive traffic to my site to build brand loyalty. I'd want to get them in the habit of going to XIX for all news ESPECIALLY TV. You could THEN make the argument it was $$ driven.

Well, you'll have to excuse me for not being a seasoned P&R veteran, as yourself. I may have been slightly off on the concept, but I knew what I was trying to say.