riggerrob 643 #76 December 10, 2003 Freedom of the press! Hah! The worst thing about living in the USA was only reading one side of every story. The only way to read both sides of an international story was to find the "Economist" or "Paris Match" or "der Spiegel." Oh wait a minute, those magazines are almost impossible to find in Los Angeles or Riverside Counties. I used to subscribe to "Soldier of Fortune" magazine - not for their right wing stance - because it provided a second perspective on wars in far-off places. For example, back in the 1970s I read dozens of SOF articles about the "white" side of the war in Rhodesia, then I listened to a black, communist fund raiser talk about the other side of the argument. I wondered if he was even talking about the same war! The bottom line is that you will never hear all of the story from one source. Well-informed people consult a variety of media from a variety of countries because that is the only way to see the big picture. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #77 December 10, 2003 This is also the same series, "Ethics in America" wherein former military personel (I believe it's the same one that said he'd hate to have to rescue the wounded journo, but he'd do it anyway) say it is ok to torture people, so, you sort of have to take things in the context of the entire series. It's a facinating series if you ever get a chance to watch it. BTW, the series was produced in the late 1980s.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #78 December 11, 2003 I remember the series. It was very good. Criticizing/condeming a reporter is not censorship. They are fully entitled to do their thing, but they should be prepared to face the criticism. If you can't find the Economist, or whatever liberal magazine you want, it is because of the effect of the free market, not censorship. Go buy a subscription. It is also extremely hard to find the National Review when I want to read it while on a business trip, but I don't want it enough to buy my own subscription. If the enemy thought they could get caught because of info gathered from the filiming of the act, they would stop allowing the press to be with them, journalists would never willingly allow for the military to use the film for that purpose. Peter (something) of CNN refused to be debriefed by our military after coming back from Baghdad in the first gulf war. If you chose to side with the enemy, you should be prepared for what many others will think of you because of that choice. This one has been interesting!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
WFFC 1 #79 December 12, 2003 QuotePeter (something) of CNN Arnett Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erroll 80 #80 December 12, 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!!!!!!! Morality is one of the subjects that should be dealt with with great circumspection. This is especially true when it pertains to journalists. Read the book for the famous [url "http://digitalfilmmaker.net/Bang/bang_frame.html">'vulture and starving child' photograph , Marinovich and fellow photographer Ken Oosterbroek were shot while covering a firefight outside Johannesburg. As Oosterbroek lay fatally injured, Silva was torn between taking pictures of his comrade and pulling them to safety. Three months after the shooting, Carter, who was out celebrating the Pulitzer at the time of his closest friend's death, took his own life." And this: "The boldness that earned the group its nickname, that prompted them to rush headlong into dangerous situations in pursuit of an image, forces them to consider the difficult moral questions that lie at the heart of their work. For example, how far should one go to pursue an image? When should journalists put aside their impartiality and get involved? These were the moral dilemmas the four members of the Bang-Bang Club grappled with on a daily basis." Don't be too quick to judge. Note: Text in italics inserted by me. Highlights are mine too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nick 0 #81 December 12, 2003 QuoteBy your definition, UBL is a freedom fighter and Al Qaeda must be a charity organization Just as some people thought that the IRA were freedom fighters when in fact they were terrorists killing innocent people (in addition to the milatery and police forces) in Northern Island and main land Briton. Nick Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #82 December 13, 2003 QuoteThe worst thing about living in the USA was only reading one side of every story. The only way to read both sides of an international story was to find the "Economist" or "Paris Match" or "der Spiegel." Oh wait a minute, those magazines are almost impossible to find in Los Angeles or Riverside Counties. ... The bottom line is that you will never hear all of the story from one source. Well-informed people consult a variety of media from a variety of countries because that is the only way to see the big picture. Problem solved - at least partially. http://www.newsstand.com "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
