SkinsGridiron.com – Independent coverage of the Washington Redskins

Study: Democrats Get More A.M. Airtime
Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:22 PM EDT
The Associated Press
By DAVID BAUDER
NEW YORK (AP) — A conservative media watchdog organization charged Wednesday that the network morning news shows have spent considerably more time this year on Democrats running for president than on Republicans.
Network news executives rejected any suggestion of bias, and said they have a considerably harder time getting Republican candidates to appear on their shows.
Through July 31, the ABC, CBS and NBC morning news shows devoted 284 campaign segments to Democratic candidates and 152 to Republicans, according to the Media Research Center. Another 81 stories discussed both parties or a possible independent run by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
"The double standard has got to stop," said L. Brent Bozell, the group’s founder. "What you hope is that there would be fairness. If you are going to give that much coverage to the Democrats, give it to the Republicans, too."
The disparity was most pronounced in January, with 52 stories on the Democratic campaign and five for the Republicans. That’s the month that the campaign rivalry between Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama began.
News executives say they strive for fairness, but the Clinton-Obama January jockeying is an example of how news drives their airtime decisions.
So, bottom line: 284 campaign segments to Democratic candidates and 152 to Republicans. Is this fair? Is the mainline media demonstrating bias and if you feel that they’re not, please explain.

Thanks. 

http://adelphia.net/news/read.php?ps=1018&id=13961508&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS

Who are the Republican candidates again?
Just kidding.
Perhaps it’s because 2 of the Democratic candidates are creating history. A black man and a woman running for the highest office in the US is pretty big news. And the Democratic candidates have been in the spot light more often, more debates, forums, speeches, etc.

Study: Democrats Get More A.M. Airtime
Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:22 PM EDT
The Associated Press
By DAVID BAUDER
NEW YORK (AP) — A conservative media watchdog organization charged Wednesday that the network morning news shows have spent considerably more time this year on Democrats running for president than on Republicans.
Network news executives rejected any suggestion of bias, and said they have a considerably harder time getting Republican candidates to appear on their shows.
Through July 31, the ABC, CBS and NBC morning news shows devoted 284 campaign segments to Democratic candidates and 152 to Republicans, according to the Media Research Center. Another 81 stories discussed both parties or a possible independent run by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
"The double standard has got to stop," said L. Brent Bozell, the group’s founder. "What you hope is that there would be fairness. If you are going to give that much coverage to the Democrats, give it to the Republicans, too."
The disparity was most pronounced in January, with 52 stories on the Democratic campaign and five for the Republicans. That’s the month that the campaign rivalry between Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama began.
News executives say they strive for fairness, but the Clinton-Obama January jockeying is an example of how news drives their airtime decisions.
So, bottom line: 284 campaign segments to Democratic candidates and 152 to Republicans. Is this fair? Is the mainline media demonstrating bias and if you feel that they’re not, please explain.

Thanks. 

http://adelphia.net/news/read.php?ps=1018&id=13961508&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS

Who are the Republican candidates again?
Just kidding.
Perhaps it’s because 2 of the Democratic candidates are creating history. A black man and a woman running for the highest office in the US is pretty big news. And the Democratic candidates have been in the spot light more often, more debates, forums, speeches, etc.

Super-Democrat says:

McAuliffe says media ‘in the tank’ for Obama
By Klaus Marre
Posted: 05/13/08 11:43 AM [ET]
Terry McAuliffe, campaign chairman for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), said Tuesday that the former first lady is hamstrung by a biased media.

“Clearly it has been a biased media, no question about it,” McAuliffe said on Fox News. When asked how much of the mainstream media is “in the tank” for Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), who leads Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination, McAuliffe estimated that about 90 percent of the media favor Obama.

“It is what it is. We’re not complaining,” he stated. “We have to deal with the hand we’re dealt with.”

McAuliffe added that “every independent study has said that this is the most biased coverage they’ve ever seen in a presidential campaign.”

He also praised Fox News, which is often viewed as a conservative media outlet, as “one of the most responsible in this presidential campaign.”

No way. The media just runs wherever the action is. Yes, historically, they are harder on the perceived frontrunner, so in the beginning they were harder on Clinton, and then later, Obama. Also, what else is going on in the world makes a difference in coverage. If there is no other big news story, a small, petty matter between the campaigns can become a big news-filler.

Outsiders want to help but the protesters say stay out. Iranians have called Obama’s statements “pitch perfect.”

Cartoon of the difficulties the fascists are having: "Expel all of the correspondents! But they are all correspondents!" http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/outofline/2009/06/tehran_twitters.html

Former Prince Reza Pahlavi tells US National Press Club how outsiders can contribute to the people of Iran, he said: 1. They appreciate media’s generous attention to their plight. 2. Keep political leaders informed about the brutal violence of plain clothed thug who harm unarmed people. 3. Do not interfere. Attempts will give tyrants excuse. Don’t fall for cruel cynicism for political gain. He cries for the people and Neda.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zv5VMShOyk

Heart touching Author Melody Moezzi says: Politics doesn’t matter anymore. The government is murdering its people, even her relatives whom supported Amadinajab are upset. We are all in the opposition now. You cannot beat our grandmothers and expect us to support you. Iranians care about freedom and people not the government. Do not be afraid Neda. Give us her power. The people will win. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTk7oBodXmU

Independent Journalist Kouross Esmaeli says Senator “bomb bomb Iran” has no credibility with anyone in Iran, is ignorant of Iran’s history, and is just trying to score political points. Kouross Esmaeli talks about Iranian politics, “women’s right to participate,” “choice to wear veil,” and “cannot hold back women.”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMYmVHxg_Jo

Iran’s Former Crown Prince says regime is irreformable and keeps country in medieval times. He wants secular government.
http://www.vidoosh.tv/play.php?vid=1494

Boycott Nokia & Siemens for providing Iran with censoring tech. The story is from the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.html

How Non-Iranians can help:
- Change your location and time zone on Twitter to Tehran, Iran (that’s GMT+3:30).
- Change your profile icon to green in some way.
- Set up a proxy and send a DM to @ProtesterHelp.
- DO NOT retweet posts verbatim from Iran. This puts the users at risk. The Iranian Minstry of the Interior is watching Twitter closely now. Don’t use names and reword the post.
- Submit e-mails to CNN, MSNBC, Fox and other news sources about the Iranian Revolution; demand more coverage.
- DO NOT DDOS (PageReload) Iranian government websites. It slows all Iranian traffic, doing more harm than good in this information war. Source: http://gr88.tumblr.com/post/124416676/how-non-iranians-can-help-twitter

Sign UN petition, marches, contact UN and White House requesting some type of intervention by the the UN to stop this horror.

What else can I do?

Very simple. Not to interfere their internal crisis. Lets they solve it them self like US internal affair are un touch by anybody else.

Outsiders want to help but the protesters say stay out. Iranians have called Obama’s statements “pitch perfect.”

Cartoon of the difficulties the fascists are having: "Expel all of the correspondents! But they are all correspondents!" http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/outofline/2009/06/tehran_twitters.html

Former Prince Reza Pahlavi tells US National Press Club how outsiders can contribute to the people of Iran, he said: 1. They appreciate media’s generous attention to their plight. 2. Keep political leaders informed about the brutal violence of plain clothed thug who harm unarmed people. 3. Do not interfere. Attempts will give tyrants excuse. Don’t fall for cruel cynicism for political gain. He cries for the people and Neda.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zv5VMShOyk

Heart touching Author Melody Moezzi says: Politics doesn’t matter anymore. The government is murdering its people, even her relatives whom supported Amadinajab are upset. We are all in the opposition now. You cannot beat our grandmothers and expect us to support you. Iranians care about freedom and people not the government. Do not be afraid Neda. Give us her power. The people will win. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTk7oBodXmU

Independent Journalist Kouross Esmaeli says Senator “bomb bomb Iran” has no credibility with anyone in Iran, is ignorant of Iran’s history, and is just trying to score political points. Kouross Esmaeli talks about Iranian politics, “women’s right to participate,” “choice to wear veil,” and “cannot hold back women.”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMYmVHxg_Jo

Iran’s Former Crown Prince says regime is irreformable and keeps country in medieval times. He wants secular government.
http://www.vidoosh.tv/play.php?vid=1494

Boycott Nokia & Siemens for providing Iran with censoring tech. The story is from the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.html

How Non-Iranians can help:
- Change your location and time zone on Twitter to Tehran, Iran (that’s GMT+3:30).
- Change your profile icon to green in some way.
- Set up a proxy and send a DM to @ProtesterHelp.
- DO NOT retweet posts verbatim from Iran. This puts the users at risk. The Iranian Minstry of the Interior is watching Twitter closely now. Don’t use names and reword the post.
- Submit e-mails to CNN, MSNBC, Fox and other news sources about the Iranian Revolution; demand more coverage.
- DO NOT DDOS (PageReload) Iranian government websites. It slows all Iranian traffic, doing more harm than good in this information war. Source: http://gr88.tumblr.com/post/124416676/how-non-iranians-can-help-twitter

Sign UN petition, marches, contact UN and White House requesting some type of intervention by the the UN to stop this horror.

What else can I do?

Very simple. Not to interfere their internal crisis. Lets they solve it them self like US internal affair are un touch by anybody else.

October 26, 2006, 9:28 a.m.

Funeral for a Tyrant
A morally disorienting gathering in Havana.

By Otto J. Reich

This time the rumors are real: Castro is dying of stomach cancer. He may have already died, even before the funeral preparations were finished, so the news is not out. Confirmation of the terminal illness comes from the usual sources but in a non-conventional manner. The Cuban government has been summoning to Havana representatives of the major international media to negotiate the best seats, camera angles, and interviews with the despot’s political survivors, and to inform them of the ground rules for coverage of the state funeral.

The foreign media are being told that the model for Castro’s funeral is that of Pope John Paul II a year ago. The Cubans actually believe — or pretend — that the death of a tyrant deserves the same attention as that of the world’s great men of peace.

This is one of Castro’s lasting legacies to his countrymen: moral disorientation. The Cuban ruling class has been so isolated from reality for so long by fear and Castro’s airtight press control that they equate the burial of a mass murderer with that of a prince of the Church. No doubt there will be “dignitaries” at the funeral: fellow revolutionary leaders from the last repressive regimes on Earth: Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Sudan, for example; and leaders of failed states like Zimbabwe and Bolivia; and representatives of the world’s resentful Left and the Hollywood Left (pardon the redundancy).

Some examples of distinguished invitees will include terrorists whose organizations once instilled panic in entire populations but are now forgotten except to their victims. Many of them were trained in Cuban camps back when Castro called for world revolution and predicted he would outlive capitalism: Argentine Montoneros, Uruguayan Tupamaros, Nicaraguan Sandinistas, Salvadorean FMLN, Colombian ELN, MIR, FARC, and others; Chileans, Brazilians, Guatemalans, Angolans, Ethiopians, Palestinians, Syrians, even Vietnamese. The list is virtually endless. Not long ago, Castro himself admitted publicly to having “supported wars of national liberation in every country in this hemisphere with the exception of Mexico”. I believe everything except the exception; his hand has been present in much of Mexico’s violence as well.

One security problem the Cubans will face is that some of the “revolutionaries” who they trained in techniques of assassination, torture, kidnapping, bank robbery, explosives, and other tricks of the trade now hate each other and may use the occasion to settle old debts. The explosions heard in Havana may come not only from ceremonial cannons. The guests will have to be carefully screened for poisoned-tipped umbrellas and other Cold War artifacts.

Among the guests coming to Havana for the Third-World Burial of the Century will be Western capitalists anxious to see how they can exploit Cuban workers, who are assigned to the employer by a Cuban state entity which then collects the salary and delivers five percent — yes, five percent — to the worker and keeps the rest to pay for the expenses incurred by the generous socialist state. There will be the bottom feeders of the capitalist world willing to go anywhere or do anything for the Almighty euro or peso. You know the ones, those who have given capitalism a bad name, the exploitation of man by man, and whose example is in turn used by the revolutionaries against the good capitalists. There will recognizable faces of American and other TV, oblivious to the irony of “covering” a press event orchestrated by a government which has not allowed a single free or independent newspaper, magazine, radio or television station for almost five decades.

Caught up in the spectacle of the funeral, the smiley faces of the free world’s morning shows, the “serious” news readers of evening newscasts, of 24-hour news channels and “prestige press” will unlikely mention the “Ley Mordaza” (literally muzzle law), law number 88 of 1998, which calls for penalties of up to 30 years in prison for any Cuban caught telling the foreign press of any flaw in Cuba’s economic or human-rights record. It is unlikely they will ask to interview the prisoners who have violated Castro’s Orwellian laws and are serving terms of as much as 27 years for committing journalism without a license or stating that the economy does not produce enough to feed the people.

There may be international labor leaders in attendance, who will equally disregard the absence of any but the official Cuban Communist labor organization. Not wishing to offend their hosts, they will not mention the Castro law which condemns to eight years in prison anyone guilty of even attempting to establish a non-government labor union. On second thought: Why should they mention it now, when they have been silent for so many decades?

Some of those leaders present may even be government officials from democratic states, having been elected in free elections such as the ones which disappeared in Cuba half a century ago. That irony will escape them also. Then there will be some genuinely elected Christian or social democrats, from Europe and Latin America. Those who have been silent about, and therefore complicit in, the longest dictatorship in this hemisphere’s history. A wise man once said that “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” The history of Cuba in the past 50 years proves him right.

I hope soon.

I don’t like wishing death on anyone, but this man has been responsible for the misery of millions, for decades.

Kennedy shoulda taken ‘im out when he had the chance. Say what you will, Nixon wouldn’t a screwed the Bay of Pigs up.

NEW YORK — John McCain supporters who believe they haven’t gotten a fair shake from the media during the Republican’s candidacy against Barack Obama have a new study to point to.

Comments made by sources, voters, reporters and anchors that aired on ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts over the past two months reflected positively on Obama in 65 percent of cases, compared to in 31 percent of cases with regards to McCain, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs.

ABC’s "World News" had more balance than NBC’s "Nightly News" or the "CBS Evening News," the group said.

Meanwhile, the first half of Fox News Channel’s "Special Report" with Brit Hume showed more balance than any of the network broadcasters, although it was dominated by negative evaluations of both campaigns. The center didn’t evaluate programs on CNN or MSNBC.

"For whatever reason, the media are portraying Barack Obama as a better choice for president than John McCain," said Robert Lichter, a George Mason University professor and head of the center. "If you watch the evening news, you’d think you should vote for Obama."

The center analyzed 979 separate news stories shown between Aug. 23 and Oct. 24, and excluded evaluations based on the campaign horse race, including mention of how the candidates were doing in polls. For instance, when a voter was interviewed on CBS Oct. 14 saying he thought Obama brought a freshness to Washington, that was chalked up as a pro-Obama comment.

When NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reported Oct. 1 that some conservatives say that Sarah Palin is not ready for prime-time, that’s marked in the negative column for McCain.

ABC recorded 57 percent favorable comments toward the Democrats, and 42 percent positive for the Republicans. NBC had 56 percent positive for the Democrats, 16 percent for the Republicans. CBS had 73 percent positive (Obama), versus 31 percent (McCain).

Hume’s telecast had 39 percent favorable comments for McCain and 28 percent positive for the Democratic ticket.

It was the second study in two weeks to remark upon negative coverage for the McCain-Palin ticket. The Project for Excellence in Journalism concluded last week that McCain’s coverage has been overwhelmingly negative since the conventions ended, while Obama’s has been more mixed.

Meanwhile, another survey issued Friday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed that television continues to be Americans’ main source for campaign news, particularly the cable news networks.

But there were clear partisan differences in where people turned.

For instance, of the people who said they got most of their campaign news from Fox News Channel, 52 percent identified themselves as Republican, 17 percent as Democrats and 30 percent as independents, the Pew center said.

MSNBC viewers interested in campaign news identified themselves at 11 percent Republican, 50 percent Democratic and 36 percent independent. The breakdown for CNN: 13 percent Republican, 45 percent Democrat, 38 percent independent.

The study was based on a survey of 2,011 people taken Oct. 17-20 and 24-27. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent.

Funny how the Democrats don’t care about this when it is them that rails on Fox news for being biased, when in reality they are by far the fairest network.

no doubt

"April 8, 2003, 4:35 pm EDT
THREE JOURNALISTS KILLED IN BAGHDAD

Three journalists were killed in military operations in Baghdad Tuesday, including an incident in which a U.S. tank fired at a hotel housing hundreds of international reporters.

Central Command spokesman Capt. Frank Thorp in Doha, Qatar expressed regret for the loss of life, but said coalition forces would continue to strike at Iraqi resistance.

"We don’t target journalists. But we will continue to target Iraqi military forces," Capt. Frank Thorp, a Central Command spokesman in Doha, Qatar, said on Tuesday.
In one incident, two journalists were killed and at least six others were injured after a U.S. tank opened fire on Baghdad’s Palestine hotel, the home base for several hundred international reporters covering the Iraq war.
Reuters television cameraman Taras Protsyuk, 35, was killed in the blast, the news agency confirmed in a statement Tuesday. An experienced war journalist, Protsyuk covered conflicts in Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Kosovo. Protsyuk, a Ukrainian national, had worked for Reuters for ten years.
"We are devastated by the death of Taras, who had distinguished himself with his highly professional coverage in of some of the most violent conflicts of the past decade," Reuters Editor-in-Chief Geert Linnebank said in a statement.
Cameraman Jose Couso, 37, from the Spanish television network Telecinco died after surgery for injuries to his leg and jaw, the Spanish network confirmed.
"Clearly the war, and all its confusion, has come to the heart of Baghdad," Linnebank said.
"But the incident nonetheless raises questions about the judgment of the advancing U.S. troops who have known all along that this hotel is the main base for almost all foreign journalists in Baghdad," Linnebank told the Associated Press.
Reuters said three other staffers were injured in the blast: Paul Pasquale, a British television satellite dish coordinator; Lebanese national Samia Nakhoul, who was the Reuters bureau chief in the Persian Gulf; and photographer Faleh Kheiber, an Iraqi national. Doctors treating them said their wounds were not life threatening.
Journalists inside the hotel reported they saw a tank aiming up at the 18-story building just before the blast. The U.S. tank apparently fired one shell, which struck the balconies on the 14th and 15th floors of the Palestine Hotel. Journalists also said they never heard any other firing from inside the hotel
"I never heard a single shot coming from any of the area around here, certainly not from the hotel," British Sky television correspondent David Chater told Reuters.
U.S. Army Col. David Perkins, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division’s 2nd Brigade stationed near the hotel, said Iraqis launched rocket-propelled grenades at coalition tanks from the front of the hotel, upon which one of his tanks returned fire. Several unidentified U.S. troops told the AP that they saw binoculars fixed on them from an upper floor of the hotel and, suspecting there was a "spotter," or sniper, on the hotel’s rooftop, the tank opened fire on the hotel.
Perkins expressed regret for the incident, but blamed the Iraqi government for endangering the lives of civilians, including the journalists.
"By militarizing these areas, [Iraqi president Saddam Hussein] is putting these people at risk," Perkins told the AP. "The soldier’s primary responsibility is to protect himself and his crew."
In a separate incident occurring less than a mile away, correspondent Tareq Ayyoub died from serious wounds sustained after Al Jazeera’s office was struck in an earlier U.S. bombing mission, officials from the Qatari-based satellite channel said. A cameraman was also injured, though his wounds were not severe. An Abu Dhabi television office in the area was also damaged, though it remains unclear if anyone was injured.
Al Jazeera officials described Ayyoub, a Jordanian national, as a "martyr of duty" and a "dear and loyal colleague."
U.S. State Department spokesman Nabil Khoury in Doha, Qatar called the bombing "a grave mistake."
But, Al Jazeera chief editor Ibrahim Hilal accused the U.S. military of targeting Al Jazeera’s offices.
Local residents "saw the plane fly over twice before dropping the bombs. Our office is in a residential area and even the Pentagon knows its location," Hilal told the AP from the channel’s headquarters in Doha, Qatar.
Al Jazeera’s Baghdad office, a two-story house in a residential area, is located on a road which connects the Information Ministry with the old presidential palace compound, Al Jazeera officials told the AP.
"We are witnesses to what is happening. We are not a party..The killing of colleague Tareq Ayyoub and the bombardment of the Al Jazeera office is to cover up the great crime which the Iraqi people are subjected to at the hands of the United States," Al Jazeera correspondent Majed Abdul-Hadi said from Baghdad.
Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, who later held a press conference in front of the Palestine Hotel, the primary site for official Iraqi briefings, said coalition forces were targeting civilian areas.
"They bombed residential areas. They bombed Al Jazeera. They are in a state of hysteria and haste. They imagine that by killing civilians, they’ll win," he said. "These villains will not win."

As many of you might now, Mike Sanford, R-SC governor, was revealed to have repeatedly cheated on his wife.

Sanford, as a governor, has been consistently against not only gay adoptions, but gay marriage, on the principle that marriage is between "one man and one woman" and also on the grounds that same sex marriage would destroy the "sanctity of marriage."

Today, on several news stations covering the issue, they briefly mentioned that Sanford’s infidelity, and the infidelity of other recent Republicans who shared his views, could have some impact on the LGBT cause considering the disparity between their actions and their views (i.e. being so concerned with the "sanctity of marriage" when it applies to homosexuals and yet not respecting their own marriages enough to stay faithful to their spouse), especially in regards to independent voters.

So, my questions for you are:

1) Do you agree with the anchors and believe that this incident and others like it will have any effect upon either how people view the members Republican party and their views on same-sex marriage, or do you disagree and think it has little effect?

2) How does this issue make you yourself feel?

3) Do you think the general public will notice the hypocrisy of Sanford’s views vs. his actions, or do you not think the issue will get a lot of coverage in that area?

I was surprised news anchors mentioned the irony of the issue at all, and I’d love to see what you think about it yourselves.

(I am in no way trying to demonise the Republican party, nor am saying that all Republicans are against same-sex marriage; I’m talking about Sanford and people like him).

1) Yes, but I’m not sure it will sway them very far. I think most people have made up their minds about same-sex marriage, unfortunately- to the point that any more information just tends to either confirm what they believe or don’t believe.

2) I’m bored with it all at this point.

3) Yes, but he also has the "God excuse" behind him ("I strayed from the path."), which tends to win points. Anti-gay Christians will not see any hypocrisy in his actions- just a man who got tempted by the Devil and is now asking for God’s forgiveness. To them, homosexuality, or Sanford’s stances on such, has no bearing on this.

1.What two events convinced President Truman to help France in Vietnam, eventually leading to greater U.S. involvement in the country’s affairs?

A.The fall of China to Communism and the outbreak of the Korean War
B.Japan’s surrender in World War II and the fall of China to Communism
C.The establishment of a Communist government in Vietnam and the Korean War
D.The establishment of a Communist government in Vietnam and the fall of China to Communism

2.After the Geneva Accords, Vietnam was

A.a colony of France, and was required to trade only with that country.
B.a satellite nation of the Soviet Union, with a pro-Communist government.
C.divided at the 17th parallel, with the Viet Minh in the North and a pro-Western government in the South.
D.an independent country, but was invaded by Japan shortly after the Accords

3.After the French left Vietnam, the United States stepped in to

A.make sure free elections were held, as specified by the Geneva Accords.
B.protect the pro-Western Diem government in South Vietnam.
C.act as a peacekeeper along the border between North and South Vietnam.
D.try to cause a popular uprising against Ho Chi Minh.

4.As the fighting began between the Vietcong and South Vietnamese army, President Eisenhower tried to help South Vietnam by

A.sending food.
B.dropping napalm on Vietcong strongholds.
C.sending military advisers.
D.providing American troops.

5.What event weakened the South Vietnamese government and led to America’s deeper involvement in Vietnam?

A.The overthrow and execution of Ngo Dinh Diem by Vietnamese generals
B.The assassination of South Vietnamese government officials on Bloody Sunday
C.The 1956 election required by the Geneva Accords
D.Ngo Dinh Diem’s banning of religious flags in celebration of Buddha’s birthday

6.Which of the following shows the correct sequence of events leading up to American involvement in the Vietnam conflict?

A.Creation of Vietcong, Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Geneva Accords, Ngo Dinh Diem overthrown
B.Geneva Accords, creation of Vietcong, Ngo Dinh Diem overthrown, Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
C.Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Ngo Dinh Diem overthrown, Geneva Accords, creation of Vietcong
D.Ngo Dinh Diem overthrown, Geneva Accords, creation of Vietcong, Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

7.After attacks on American bases in South Vietnam, Johnson decided to implement Operation Rolling Thunder, which was

A.an attack on North Vietnamese ships and naval facilities.
B.an invasion of Cambodia.
C.the first combat in which American ground troops participated.
D.a sustained bombing campaign against North Vietnam.

8.What 1965 event committed the United States to its deepest involvement in the Vietnam conflict?

A.Providing American aid to Ngo Dinh Diem’s government in South Vietnam
B.The deployment of American ground troops to South Vietnam in 1965
C.The United States’ indirect support of the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem
D.Sending US military personnel to South Vietnam to help train its army

9.How did Americans react to the nightly television news coverage of the Vietnam War?

A.Americans reacted favorably, raising Johnson’s ratings in the polls.
B.Americans became unified behind the war.
C.Americans experienced a credibility gap between what they saw on television and what the government stated about the war.
D.Americans began to support the nation’s hawks.

10.Which of the following describes one way many college faculty and students protested the Vietnam War?

A.They staged sit-ins on campus.
B.They abandoned their classes and gathered informally to discuss the issues of the war.
C.They conducted show trials to illustrate the negative aspects of the war.
D.They held political rallies to support the Johnson administration.

11.All of the following were reactions of many young Americans to the draft during the Vietnam War except

A.leaving the United States.
B.burning their draft cards.
C.going to prison instead of military training.
D.lobbying for legislative change to draft laws.

12.Along with American reaction to the draft, the issue of voting age was also discussed. This resulted in passage of the Twenty-sixth Amendment, which

A.gave the right to vote to all citizens age 18 and older.
B.gave soldiers fighting in Vietnam the right to vote in American elections by mail.
C.gave citizens 21 years of age or older who were drafted the right to vote in elections during their training.
D.gave American citizens who left the country the right to vote by mail.

13.What was the reaction of African American community leaders to the Vietnam War?

A.They objected to the war and worked with members of Congress to negotiate a peace treaty.
B.They organized a March to the White House to protest the war.
C.They objected to the war, because a disproportionately large number of African Americans and poor Americans were being killed.
D.They supported the war because it provid

Do your own homework.