... not a PBS watcher? NewsHour with Jim Lehrer closes with name, rank, hometown and age, accompanying a picture of every fallen soldier as the news is broken and pictures are made available, each shown in silence for 5 or 6 seconds.


In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
I'm not saying that each one should have a detailed write-up - but would 15 fucking seconds really hurt that bad? Rank, name, location and event of death - Is that really so much to ask? Regardless if you support the war or not, you should still care about the troops.

Wake me when they have a debate moderated by Jim Lehrer. I always find those to be the most telling and constructive.

When i first heard of this, I was admittedly quite appalled. Now having seen the evidence of so many peoples scorn, i can honestly say it was tastefully, not to mention done with great humour, done. Tom Lehrer would be proud!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'sex, whips, bruise, welt, pain, S snd M, 60s' to 'tom lehrer, sex, whips, bruise, welt, pain, S snd M, 60s' - edited by calvados

Every time you think reporting in the US couldnt possibly get any worse, they come up with shit like this and sinks to a new low *terrible

Thankfully, there are some exceptions in this madness, watch this interview with Gravel thats actually about politics instead of this crap.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Mike-Gravel-on-PBS-The-NewsHour-with-Jim-Lehrer

I think that's the point bigbikeman - it wasn't made by just anyone, anywhere. It was part of one of the only news casts on US television that has any credibility left.

Theo - I disagree that Lehrer should have called him on that. It's the editorial part of the show and he is not acting as editor, but moderator. The fact that Shields didn't call him on it suggests that the reaction here (particularly to that terribly edited quote in the description) is pretty clearly overblown.

It's Shields and/or Lehrer's job to shame him for making such a statement, but it would appear they both just let it slide.

Tom Lehrer FTW!

I love Tom Lehrer. I have so many of his songs now on my computer at home. He makes me laugh.

Hilarious! Although perhaps a bit more of context might be appropriate.

"New Math was a brief dramatic change in the way mathematics was taught in American grade schools during the 1960s. The name is commonly given to a set of teaching practices introduced in the U.S. shortly after the Sputnik crisis in order to boost scientific education and mathematical skill in the population so that the supposed intellectual threat of the Soviet engineers, reputedly highly skilled mathematicians, could be met. In the consciousness of many Americans in the late 20th and early 21st century, New Math is reputed to have been a relatively ineffective approach, sometimes the object of mockery."

"Tom Lehrer wrote a satirical song named New Math which centered around the process of subtracting 173 from 342 in decimal and octal. The song is in the style of a lecture about the general concept of subtraction in arbitrary number systems, illustrated by two simple calculations, and highlights the emphasis on insight and abstract concepts of the New Math approach. Lehrer's explanation of the two calculations is entirely correct, but presented in such a way (at rapid speed, with minimal visual aids, and with snide remarks thrown in) as to make it difficult for most audience members to follow the rather simple calculations being performed. This is intended to poke fun at the kind of bafflement the New Math approach often evoked when apparently simple calculations were presented in a very general manner which, while mathematically correct and arguably trivial for mathematicians, was likely very confusing to absolute beginners and even contemporary adult audiences. Summing up his opinion of New Math is the final sentence from his introductory remarks to the song: "...in the new approach, as you know, the important thing is to understand what you're doing, rather than to get the right answer."

Tom Lehrer was/is one of the greatest satirists ever. But he stopped doing comedy because he said that satire was dead. He said comedians couldn't possibly satirize current politics because it was already so ridiculous...... He said that years before Bush and crew got into power.

Tom Lehrer was a maverick musical satirist, an par with any contemporary, just cleaner, sweeter.....

Wernher von Braun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun

Tom Lehrer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lehrer

Don't have time to watch all of it but looked relatively interesting, if not particularly original. The convergence of the world's economic, political, military and communication systems has certainly had a huge effect on the nature of news, especially in the United States. It's for that reason that I try to get most of my news from the News Hour with Jim Lehrer on PBS, as it has remained disentangled from the politics and money, and the politics of money, that has destroyed the creditability of network and particularly cable news. When CNN devotes it's 5:00-8:00PM timeslots to Nancy Grace and Entertainment news, it's pretty clear where their priorities are.

The real reason I decided not to watch all of this video however is that it did not appear that it was going to investigate the most important question associated with it's subject matter. The guy already seems to have decided what ethical war reporting is, and is devoting his movie to showing how war reporting of the Iraq War is unethical. I am already aware that reporting of the Iraq War, especially in it's run up, was hardly critical; I don't need an hour and a half long video to tell me that. What I would like to see examined is to what extent media manipulation during wartime is permissible in a democracy. I raise this question because the United States' most glaring military weakness is it's dependence upon popular support for any war it chooses to undertake. The Media war therefore becomes nearly as important as the ground war, yet two entirely different sets of rules and outlooks apply to the two wars.

An ethical war is the most desperate action a state can take, it is the least worst of bad options undertaken to acheive a greater good that exists in the long term. For a population accustomed to instant gratification, sacrifice and struggle for an uncertain positive outcome in the distant future is anathema. That's why leaders of states exist: to have the broader perspective of what is in a state's, and hopefully the international community at large as well, best interest. In democracies however, those leader's power is dependent upon the support of a general populace that is incapable of looking at the long term. To what extent then, is a leader ethical in taking undemocratic action to serve the best interests of the people? During wartime this becomes a question of what price victory. It's easy to dismiss this as an absurd question, that of course we shouldn't allow undemocratic action by our leaders because that would be undemocratic, but to do so would be to say that if the majority has decided it wants to march off a cliff then those in a position to redirect them should stand aside and let them march to their doom. Not all wars, and not all policies are such life and death issues, but even in less desperate situations I think it's an appropriate question to ask.

I bring all of this up because it seems fairly clear that the American public has decided that the sooner American involvement in Iraq ends, the better. The problem with that line of thinking is that Iraq is located in the Middle East, not South East Asia. Even if tomorrow the entire nation rallied behind a plan to end dependence on foreign oil and to cut all ties with our allies in the region, it would still take us several decades to completely disentangle ourselves from the middle east. My point here is that even if we wanted to, we cannot immediately end involvement with the most strategic region in the world. The outcome in Iraq is one that we are going to have to live with for a long time to come, we cannot simply wash our hands of what happens there. So the idea that rapid withdrawal is in America's best interest is in my opinion pure fantasy. It may be nice in the short term to stop having to read reports of American casualties, but in the long term we will have to deal with the consequences of a failed state smack dab in the Middle East. Victory is critical in my opinion, but the American people no longer have the will to win. The politically expedient move is to withdraw but such a move would be to the long run detriment of the nation. The rational decision for our leaders is irrational. This is perhaps the greatest danger of democracy, to what extent should we try to correct it?

I just want to note that the better (longer) version is here ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4775064772125894043&q=tom+lehrer&hl=en ), but I couldn't figure out how to get it from Google Video. They seem to have gone to a new system.