Kennedy 0 #51 December 9, 2003 QuoteThe fact is, the American Revolution was initially unpopular on both sides of the Atlantic. Most colonists wanted to remain British subjects. You're right, there is a difference between "initially unpopular" and "four in ten didn't care." Using his logic, we can say eighty percent of the population didn't want to stay british subjects. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #52 December 9, 2003 It was journalism -- spot journalism. According to reports I had read the journo was with them but had no prior knowledge of the impending missle attack. She was simply there when it happened.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #53 December 9, 2003 Everyone here should know I'd be one of the first to denounce anyone giving aid and comfort, but I have to agree with bill on this one. Insurgents are going to attack with or without the camera present. The frog didn't cause the attacks. I take exception to the "rioting crowds" footage we always see, though. I watched on episode in DC. People milling about waiting for the crew to set up. Then the organizer uses the megaphone and the all start jumping and shouting. Camera shuts off and they all go back to whatever. Makes me wish I had a camera at the time.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #54 December 9, 2003 Quote No, because his being there encourages them to do something like what they did. Interviewing them is one thing, but the terrorists wanted to give the photog a good pic, so they obliged him. Again, providing that forum for their act of terrorism is advocating their position, in my opinion. I think your tolerance of that is a load of crap! Journalists tells stories. If possible, both sides. That's called being fair and balanced. To do otherwise is to simply be a propaganda tool of the state.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #55 December 9, 2003 >Yes, of course she would be talking her palestinian terrorist >mastermind friend out of attacking. Too bad Rumsfeld couldn't talk his WMD-using friend out of killing so many Iranians with chemical weapons. But we liked that he was killing Iranians, so that was OK. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #56 December 9, 2003 >Some of your posts seem to imply that our reaction to Sept. 11 >should be to apologize, and forgive them. Our reaction to Sept 11 should be to find Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and arrest or kill all of them. It should not be to kill Syrians, or Palestinians, or Iranians, or Iraqis. And if we do that - if we go out and, say, kill nine Afghani kids - we _should_ apologize. And usually we do. But in general it's better to not kill them to begin with if we don't have to. Just because we're mad about 9/11 is insufficient reason to kill people who had nothing to do with it. "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 attacks" - GW Bush, 9/18/2003 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #57 December 9, 2003 I hope you are right - that the journalist truly just 'happened to be there'. QuoteJournalists tells stories. If possible, both sides. That's called being fair and balanced. To do otherwise is to simply be a propaganda tool of the state. I think they can tell stories from both sides without being 'embedded' during one of their attacks. It seems that it would also be OK with you if they followed along during an attack on our military, as if we would be better served by having the camera angle from their side. These reporters are not spies working on our behalf. edit to add: "Here we are, the men behind me are about to launch several RPG's into the hotel in the distance, and only you are here to see it all on Action News at 11:00". WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? This is choosing sides, not just interviewing and reporting a story.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #58 December 9, 2003 Simply being there is (usually) not choosing sides. The code of ethics of most journalists (yes, they do have them) is to be an impartial observer. Do some journalists cross the line? Yes. I would be lying to tell you otherwise because I know better, but the basics taught in Journo 101 is that you don't take sides. If you happen to be a war reporter embedded with the 101st, you tell the story of "who did what to whom" from the only real perspective you can -- looking out from our gun positions toward whomever they happen to be shooting at. If you are a more adventurous and independant freelance or otherwise journo and happen to find yourself of the other side of the war, you report what you see from over there. Doing so isn't taking sides -- it's just reporting what you see. If, on the other hand, your story takes you somewhere and the insurgents are staging news, then it becomes a bit more difficult situation to deal with. Many reporters have died because they didn't do what the insurgents have asked them to do. This is an ethical and survival call on the reporters mind. War reporting is not pretty and anyone that thinks it's an easy and simple task to remain neutral and remain alive really ought to read some history on the subject. If you get a chance, HBO has been airing off and on this month "Live from Bagdad". While I can't say that everything depicted is exactly accurate, it matches up with a LOT of what I've been told by people that were there. CNN got a lot of flack for their reportage during the first Iraq war for a lot of the same reasons you seem to be upset over this issue of the appearance of taking sides. I can assure you, nothing was further from the truth in that instance and I doubt there was much if any taking of sides in this case either.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #59 December 9, 2003 Germany never liberated France, they invaded and we, eventually, went to their defense. Those French who chose to join the resistance were looked at as freedom fighters by us and terrorists by the Germans. It is all a matter of your perspective. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bendywendy 0 #60 December 9, 2003 Ok, I'm too lazy to read through the whole thread especially saying it's 'one of those threads'. Politics, theories, philosophies... they get so ugly. My .02¢ is that a journalist can travel with whomever they want in the name of journalism BUT stop the whining and crying when they get killed. It isn't a game of tag. There are no time-outs. No special immunity because you have a press badge. Don't go setting up a newsroom in a building with the terrorists (or us for this matter) and then get all outraged when the other guys bomb your room. If you want to play right in the middle of the fire then you take your chances just like anyone else. So by all means go run around with whomever you want to quote and film. Just be prepared to die alongside them if it comes to that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #61 December 9, 2003 I didn't do an indepth reading of EVERY post in this thread, but most of the posters here are aware that I am a conservative. I think the act that was covered was brutal. I also have about the same respect for the media that WOULD cover this as I do for OBL and SH. The fact is that we would like to promote our Constitution world-wide. Saying that it is only OK for only the US to have freedom of the press would be to undermine what we hold dearest to us. Yes, it was in bad taste. Yes it was SUPPOSED to illicit a feeling of anger from the Americans. This incident is not very different from Hanoi Janes account and support of the North Vietnamese. It is very unpleasant. It is, in this country, not illegal. I do not support what this reporter did, but I can't justifiably condemn it either. I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chute 0 #62 December 9, 2003 Wether your taking pictures next to the terrorist or your pulling the trigger. Both are terrorist acts in my book. Should not have been there in the first place. Look everybody I have a video of hundreds of people getting shot aout of the air. And here is an exclusive interview of the attacker. He (or she) is a dumb ass!!!!!!!Bottomless Beers and Blue Skies! * Brother_Brian * D.S.W.F.S.B. #2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerry81 10 #63 December 9, 2003 In my cold, objective opinion, there is little difference between reporters showing American blowing Iraqis up and this reporter showing Iraqis (trying to) blow up this jet. Journalists inform about stuff that happens. You should be more upset when they only show you things you want to see than when they also cover unpleasant and emotionally distressing events. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,149 #64 December 9, 2003 QuoteWether your taking pictures next to the terrorist or your pulling the trigger. Both are terrorist acts in my book. Should not have been there in the first place. Look everybody I have a video of hundreds of people getting shot aout of the air. And here is an exclusive interview of the attacker. He (or she) is a dumb ass!!!!!!! If journalists don't tell you what's going on in the enemy camp, then you only have your government's word for it. And we all know how truthful governments are. The journalist was doing what journalists do - reporting on something. Not everything that happens in the world is Mary Poppins with a spoonful of sugar.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,149 #65 December 9, 2003 Quote The fact is, the American Revolution was initially unpopular on both sides of the Atlantic. Most colonists wanted to remain British subjects. Really? Facts to support your claim? It apparently wasnt hard to raise an army and get the french to step on board. Quote Considering that the French and English had been enemies since the 11th century, getting the French on board was hardly a major achievement. Just 25 years later the French under Bonaparte were attempting to take over the world, and had it not been for the Royal Navy we'd all be speaking French right now.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,118 #66 December 9, 2003 >Wether your taking pictures next to the terrorist or your pulling the > trigger. Both are terrorist acts in my book. Should not have been >there in the first place. It is the job of the journalist to "be there." You may not like that job, but I am glad that we have a better idea of what's really going on. Fighting blind is a good way to get our soldiers killed. Blind politicians make poor decisions and blind voters make poor choices in the voting booth. Democracy doesn't work without an informed voting population - and they have to be informed both of the good news and the bad. >Look everybody I have a video of hundreds of people getting shot >aout of the air. And here is an exclusive interview of the attacker. And if that interview helped bring that attacker to justice - you'd want it supressed? Would you prefer he keep killing US soldiers? I'd prefer that we stop him and people like him - and we need every bit of information we can get to do that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goose491 0 #67 December 9, 2003 QuoteIn my cold, objective opinion, there is little difference between reporters showing American blowing Iraqis up and this reporter showing Iraqis (trying to) blow up this jet. Journalists inform about stuff that happens. Right on. As sad as it is to see your side being attacked... your side is being attacked. I almost couldn't beleive it when I read "Outrage" and that it should be considered such that a journalist be documenting an event in history. Come on people! Are you serious? Supporting their side by showing airing their attacks? Please, last time I checked, we were all happy about freedoms of speech and free-press. Gonna give me free rein to censor the news you watch at night? What makes you think you can have anything of value to say about censoring the frenchs journalism? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goose491 0 #68 December 9, 2003 QuoteWether your taking pictures next to the terrorist or your pulling the trigger. Both are terrorist acts in my book. Should not have been there in the first place. Hogwash , I don't know if I should laugh or cry at that statement. Your grandchildren may be looking at those pictures in history class one day. I doubt very much that the lesson learned will be "It was an outrage for that French photographer to have been there on that day." So you would argue that the only thing the French should be taking pictures of is the French? Would you say the same of the U.S.? QuoteLook everybody I have a video of hundreds of people getting shot aout of the air. And here is an exclusive interview of the attacker. He (or she) is a dumb ass!!!!!!! Do you think you could possibly count the number of 'enemy' buildings, cars/trucks, bridges and people that you've watched blow up on American T.V.? Didn't you ride the bombs all the way down like countless north Americans did on CNN? Is that not the same thing? Or is it different because we are filiming 'the enemy' being blown to smitherines? This bold stance of yours takes the ignorant "You're either with us or against us" attitude to new lows. Now, please don't pigeonhole me as a terrorist because of my defense of free-press in the presence of one. That crap certainly won't fly twice removed. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goose491 0 #69 December 9, 2003 Quote Me personally, I would have taken out the guy with the SAM regardless of the outcome.... at the very least I wouldnt have filmed it if I wanted to save my ass. Bwahahaaa! That's why you ain't no journalist. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goose491 0 #70 December 9, 2003 Did I just merc this thread? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites WFFC 1 #71 December 9, 2003 QuoteDo you think you could possibly count the number of 'enemy' buildings, cars/trucks, bridges and people that you've watched blow up on American T.V.? Didn't you ride the bombs all the way down like countless north Americans did on CNN? Is that not the same thing? Or is it different because we are filiming 'the enemy' being blown to smitherines? It's 'perceived' different because we were eliminating the 'enemy'. Wars are not only fought on the battlefield but in the court of public opinion. Take this Vietnam war photo for example. We've all probably seen it at some point. Remove the colors and stripes and flags from all the uniforms and insert whatever flag on each individual you wish and come up with your own conclusion. Example, the guy without the gun is SH (or OBL) and the other is an Iraqi who spent years in one of SH's camps or is it a private from company XYZ who got a little overzealous in the fight and wanted to 'take care of a problem'? If it's an Iraqi pulling the trigger, justice is done by their own people, if it's the private, it's wrong. thoughts? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goose491 0 #72 December 9, 2003 an interesting post. Photograph by Eddie Adams Would anyone put it to me that it was an Outrage that Eddie took that shot? Just think of how perfect the world would be without pictures of bad thing happening. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites WFFC 1 #73 December 10, 2003 Quotean interesting post. Photograph by Eddie Adams Would anyone put it to me that it was an Outrage that Eddie took that shot? Just think of how perfect the world would be without pictures of bad thing happening. I've seen the video too, also been a while. The still photo is much more powerful an image than the movnig pictures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 643 #74 December 10, 2003 QuoteTerrorist is in the eye of the beholder. One man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. I suspect loyalists during the American revolution looked on those who later became known as patriots as terrorists. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right on! My family were United Empire Loyalists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites captainpooby 0 #75 December 10, 2003 Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace Agree Reporters First, Americans Second In a future war involving U.S. soldiers what would a TV reporter do if he learned the enemy troops with which he was traveling were about to launch a surprise attack on an American unit? That's just the question Harvard University professor Charles Ogletree Jr, as moderator of PBS' Ethics in America series, posed to ABC anchor Peter Jennings and 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace. Both agreed getting ambush footage for the evening news would come before warning the U.S. troops. For the March 7 installment on battlefield ethics Ogletree set up a theoretical war between the North Kosanese and the U.S.-supported South Kosanese. At first Jennings responded: "If I was with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans." Wallace countered that other reporters, including himself, "would regard it simply as another story that they are there to cover." Jennings' position bewildered Wallace: "I'm a little bit of a loss to understand why, because you are an American, you would not have covered that story." "Don't you have a higher duty as an American citizen to do all you can to save the lives of soldiers rather than this journalistic ethic of reporting fact?" Ogletree asked. Without hesitating Wallace responded: "No, you don't have higher duty... you're a reporter." This convinces Jennings, who concedes, "I think he's right too, I chickened out." Ogletree turns to Brent Scrowcroft, now the National Security Adviser, who argues "you're Americans first, and you're journalists second." Wallace is mystified by the concept, wondering "what in the world is wrong with photographing this attack by North Kosanese on American soldiers?" Retired General William Westmoreland then points out that "it would be repugnant to the American listening public to see on film an ambush of an American platoon by our national enemy." A few minutes later Ogletree notes the "venomous reaction" from George Connell, a Marine Corps Colonel. "I feel utter contempt. Two days later they're both walking off my hilltop, they're two hundred yards away and they get ambushed. And they're lying there wounded. And they're going to expect I'm going to send Marines up there to get them. They're just journalists, they're not Americans." Wallace and Jennings agree, "it's a fair reaction." The discussion concludes as Connell says: "But I'll do it. And that's what makes me so contemptuous of them. And Marines will die, going to get a couple of journalists." From the Media Research Center at: http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/terrorism/terrorismarchive.html#Americans%20First Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 3,118 #66 December 9, 2003 >Wether your taking pictures next to the terrorist or your pulling the > trigger. Both are terrorist acts in my book. Should not have been >there in the first place. It is the job of the journalist to "be there." You may not like that job, but I am glad that we have a better idea of what's really going on. Fighting blind is a good way to get our soldiers killed. Blind politicians make poor decisions and blind voters make poor choices in the voting booth. Democracy doesn't work without an informed voting population - and they have to be informed both of the good news and the bad. >Look everybody I have a video of hundreds of people getting shot >aout of the air. And here is an exclusive interview of the attacker. And if that interview helped bring that attacker to justice - you'd want it supressed? Would you prefer he keep killing US soldiers? I'd prefer that we stop him and people like him - and we need every bit of information we can get to do that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #67 December 9, 2003 QuoteIn my cold, objective opinion, there is little difference between reporters showing American blowing Iraqis up and this reporter showing Iraqis (trying to) blow up this jet. Journalists inform about stuff that happens. Right on. As sad as it is to see your side being attacked... your side is being attacked. I almost couldn't beleive it when I read "Outrage" and that it should be considered such that a journalist be documenting an event in history. Come on people! Are you serious? Supporting their side by showing airing their attacks? Please, last time I checked, we were all happy about freedoms of speech and free-press. Gonna give me free rein to censor the news you watch at night? What makes you think you can have anything of value to say about censoring the frenchs journalism? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #68 December 9, 2003 QuoteWether your taking pictures next to the terrorist or your pulling the trigger. Both are terrorist acts in my book. Should not have been there in the first place. Hogwash , I don't know if I should laugh or cry at that statement. Your grandchildren may be looking at those pictures in history class one day. I doubt very much that the lesson learned will be "It was an outrage for that French photographer to have been there on that day." So you would argue that the only thing the French should be taking pictures of is the French? Would you say the same of the U.S.? QuoteLook everybody I have a video of hundreds of people getting shot aout of the air. And here is an exclusive interview of the attacker. He (or she) is a dumb ass!!!!!!! Do you think you could possibly count the number of 'enemy' buildings, cars/trucks, bridges and people that you've watched blow up on American T.V.? Didn't you ride the bombs all the way down like countless north Americans did on CNN? Is that not the same thing? Or is it different because we are filiming 'the enemy' being blown to smitherines? This bold stance of yours takes the ignorant "You're either with us or against us" attitude to new lows. Now, please don't pigeonhole me as a terrorist because of my defense of free-press in the presence of one. That crap certainly won't fly twice removed. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #69 December 9, 2003 Quote Me personally, I would have taken out the guy with the SAM regardless of the outcome.... at the very least I wouldnt have filmed it if I wanted to save my ass. Bwahahaaa! That's why you ain't no journalist. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #70 December 9, 2003 Did I just merc this thread? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WFFC 1 #71 December 9, 2003 QuoteDo you think you could possibly count the number of 'enemy' buildings, cars/trucks, bridges and people that you've watched blow up on American T.V.? Didn't you ride the bombs all the way down like countless north Americans did on CNN? Is that not the same thing? Or is it different because we are filiming 'the enemy' being blown to smitherines? It's 'perceived' different because we were eliminating the 'enemy'. Wars are not only fought on the battlefield but in the court of public opinion. Take this Vietnam war photo for example. We've all probably seen it at some point. Remove the colors and stripes and flags from all the uniforms and insert whatever flag on each individual you wish and come up with your own conclusion. Example, the guy without the gun is SH (or OBL) and the other is an Iraqi who spent years in one of SH's camps or is it a private from company XYZ who got a little overzealous in the fight and wanted to 'take care of a problem'? If it's an Iraqi pulling the trigger, justice is done by their own people, if it's the private, it's wrong. thoughts? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #72 December 9, 2003 an interesting post. Photograph by Eddie Adams Would anyone put it to me that it was an Outrage that Eddie took that shot? Just think of how perfect the world would be without pictures of bad thing happening. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WFFC 1 #73 December 10, 2003 Quotean interesting post. Photograph by Eddie Adams Would anyone put it to me that it was an Outrage that Eddie took that shot? Just think of how perfect the world would be without pictures of bad thing happening. I've seen the video too, also been a while. The still photo is much more powerful an image than the movnig pictures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #74 December 10, 2003 QuoteTerrorist is in the eye of the beholder. One man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. I suspect loyalists during the American revolution looked on those who later became known as patriots as terrorists. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right on! My family were United Empire Loyalists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #75 December 10, 2003 Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace Agree Reporters First, Americans Second In a future war involving U.S. soldiers what would a TV reporter do if he learned the enemy troops with which he was traveling were about to launch a surprise attack on an American unit? That's just the question Harvard University professor Charles Ogletree Jr, as moderator of PBS' Ethics in America series, posed to ABC anchor Peter Jennings and 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace. Both agreed getting ambush footage for the evening news would come before warning the U.S. troops. For the March 7 installment on battlefield ethics Ogletree set up a theoretical war between the North Kosanese and the U.S.-supported South Kosanese. At first Jennings responded: "If I was with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans." Wallace countered that other reporters, including himself, "would regard it simply as another story that they are there to cover." Jennings' position bewildered Wallace: "I'm a little bit of a loss to understand why, because you are an American, you would not have covered that story." "Don't you have a higher duty as an American citizen to do all you can to save the lives of soldiers rather than this journalistic ethic of reporting fact?" Ogletree asked. Without hesitating Wallace responded: "No, you don't have higher duty... you're a reporter." This convinces Jennings, who concedes, "I think he's right too, I chickened out." Ogletree turns to Brent Scrowcroft, now the National Security Adviser, who argues "you're Americans first, and you're journalists second." Wallace is mystified by the concept, wondering "what in the world is wrong with photographing this attack by North Kosanese on American soldiers?" Retired General William Westmoreland then points out that "it would be repugnant to the American listening public to see on film an ambush of an American platoon by our national enemy." A few minutes later Ogletree notes the "venomous reaction" from George Connell, a Marine Corps Colonel. "I feel utter contempt. Two days later they're both walking off my hilltop, they're two hundred yards away and they get ambushed. And they're lying there wounded. And they're going to expect I'm going to send Marines up there to get them. They're just journalists, they're not Americans." Wallace and Jennings agree, "it's a fair reaction." The discussion concludes as Connell says: "But I'll do it. And that's what makes me so contemptuous of them. And Marines will die, going to get a couple of journalists." From the Media Research Center at: http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/terrorism/terrorismarchive.html#Americans%20First Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
