The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: cooptire on September 09, 2009, 09:56:03 AM
-
Is it just me, or does the trade off not seem worth it, in any shape or fashion.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,548121,00.html
What chaps me as well is this.
The Times kept the kidnappings quiet out of concern for the men's safety, and other media outlets, including The Associated Press, did not report the abductions following a request from the Times.
These are the same a$$holes who have diarrhea of the mouth when keeping quiet could help save a soldiers life. Or publish photos of a hero's final moments even though his father requested them to NOT do it. Or anything else THEY want to show or say, all with the excuse that the the public has a right to know or some such drivel to justify it.
-
Coop,
Don't you know some animals are more equal than others!
-
Not a fair trade in my book
-
This really, really, really, pi$$es me off. It's the first time that the N.Y. Times has kept quiet about anything.
They have no problem blabing national security secrets that put lives on the line and they have no problem printing anything that can and does hurt our militray personnel, but when it's one of their own.......................hypocritical asshats. >:(
There are not sufficient words to express my anger.
-
Coop,
Don't you know some animals are more equal than others!
Some of those "more equal" animals need some "game management"! The herds need some serious thinning out.
-
Guys, can we put the vitriol on hold, take step back and take a new look at this thing?
1) Unless journalists operate in war zones all we know is what the government tells us. No one on this board is happy with that idea.
2) News organizations have often reported facts pre-maturely in ways that were detremintal to military ops. The standard, as laid out by SCOTUS is that you don't for example, publish news of an impendig op. Geraldo Rivera, of FOX was an example of this. As an imbed he helpfully (to Saadam) drew a map in the sand indicating the direction of units advance. Anything else is fair game governed by ethical standards or statute law (rape shield laws for example).
3) The Times showed restraint and good judgement. Should they do it more often, yes. Would y'all have been so pissed if it were the Washington Times or FOX, I doubt it.
4) The military and the press actually have a pretty cordial, though tense, relationship. This is best illustrated by the imbed program that still exists. I went to high school with the UPI Pentagon reporter. She says there is a very cozy relationship (too cozy in her and my view) between the press and the military. She describded it like the old Warner Brothers cartoon where the sheep dog and he wolf walked to work toghther, then clocked in and spent the day beating the crap out of each other before clocking out and talking baseball.
In short, if you just want to be pissed at the Times, fine, but there are no grounds for it here.
FQ13
-
This really, really, really, pi$$es me off. It's the first time that the N.Y. Times has kept quiet about anything.
They have no problem blabing national security secrets that put lives on the line and they have no problem printing anything that can and does hurt our militray personnel, but when it's one of their own.......................hypocritical asshats. >:(
There are not sufficient words to express my anger.
Here is the kicker to the story:
"Afghan officials over the weekend said about 70 people died when U.S. jets dropped two bombs on the tankers, igniting them in a massive explosion. There were reports that villagers who had come to collect fuel from the tankers were among the dead, and Farrell wanted to interview villagers."
No doubt he was there to write a story to embarrass and condemn the evil US military for bombing the fuel tanker while innocent civilians were present. Even though the air strike was called in by German forces. The reporter was warned it was unsafe to go there but he goes anyway. As a result his interpreter and brave British solder are needlessly killed.
I hope this memory haunts him for the rest of his life.
-
Here is the kicker to the story:
"Afghan officials over the weekend said about 70 people died when U.S. jets dropped two bombs on the tankers, igniting them in a massive explosion. There were reports that villagers who had come to collect fuel from the tankers were among the dead, and Farrell wanted to interview villagers."
No doubt he was there to write a story to embarrass and condemn the evil US military for bombing the fuel tanker while innocent civilians were present. Even though the air strike was called in by German forces. The reporter was warned it was unsafe to go there but he goes anyway. As a result his interpreter and brave British solder are needlessly killed.
I hope this memory haunts him for the rest of his life.
Amen.
-
Guys, can we put the vitriol on hold, take step back and take a new look at this thing?
1) Unless journalists operate in war zones all we know is what the government tells us. No one on this board is happy with that idea.
2) News organizations have often reported facts pre-maturely in ways that were detremintal to military ops. The standard, as laid out by SCOTUS is that you don't for example, publish news of an impendig op. Geraldo Rivera, of FOX was an example of this. As an imbed he helpfully (to Saadam) drew a map in the sand indicating the direction of units advance. Anything else is fair game governed by ethical standards or statute law (rape shield laws for example).
3) The Times showed restraint and good judgement. Should they do it more often, yes. Would y'all have been so pissed if it were the Washington Times or FOX, I doubt it.
4) The military and the press actually have a pretty cordial, though tense, relationship. This is best illustrated by the imbed program that still exists. I went to high school with the UPI Pentagon reporter. She says there is a very cozy relationship (too cozy in her and my view) between the press and the military. She describded it like the old Warner Brothers cartoon where the sheep dog and he wolf walked to work toghther, then clocked in and spent the day beating the crap out of each other before clocking out and talking baseball.
In short, if you just want to be pissed at the Times, fine, but there are no grounds for it here.
FQ13
FQ, your point might be well taken if, in fact he was an imbedded journalist - but, we don’t know that. We don’t know if the reporter, Reporter Stephen Farrell, is an imbedded reporter. The article does not say that that specifically.
However, it implies that he was NOT imbedded by this quote, “Police warned reporters who had traveled to the capital of Kunduz to cover the tanker airstrike that the village in question was controlled by the Taliban and it would be dangerous to go there.”
If he were imbedded I don’t think there would be a need for the police to provide the warning. He would have been there as part of the operation with troops. The British troops mentioned are on a rescue mission to save Stephen Farrell’s sorry a$$.
-
FQ, your point might be well taken if, in fact he was an imbedded journalist - but, we don’t know that. We don’t know if the reporter, Reporter Stephen Farrell, is an imbedded reporter. The article does not say that that specifically.
However, it implies that he was NOT imbedded by this quote, “Police warned reporters who had traveled to the capital of Kunduz to cover the tanker airstrike that the village in question was controlled by the Taliban and it would be dangerous to go there.”
If he were imbedded I don’t think there would be a need for the police to provide the warning. He would have been there as part of the operation with troops. The British troops mentioned are on a rescue mission to save Stephen Farrell’s sorry a$$.
He was not an imbed. But that's okay. I personally think he was a bit reckless, but I'd say that of any decent war correspondent. Hell, would you play a game chicken with Christian Ammanpour? The point is that without guys like this we would know only what Pentagon briefers tell us or the imbeds were allowed to see. This is a tragic story, but everyone involved (soldier, translator, reporter, taliban), knew the job was dangerous when they took it. Having independant reporters keeps the Pentagon honest. Think they wouldn't lie? Remember Tillman. Its a matter of checks and balances. I love the army, I owe my career to them, but I also know better than to trust them if someone doesn't keep them honest.
FQ13
FQ13
-
Uh, guys...it's embedded not imbeded.
;D
-
Uh, guys...it's embedded not imbeded.
;D
Thanks Haz, I honestly didn't know which was correct. Now if only those guys would stop carrying around clips.... ;D
FQ13
-
From the AP
In a New York Times Web blog this month, Munadi wrote that he would never leave Afghanistan permanently and that "being a journalist is not enough; it will not solve the problems of Afghanistan. I want to work for the education of the country, because the majority of people are illiterate."
FQ13,
Does that sound like an agenda to you?
My problem with the NYT and others is that they no longer report news without a bias, typically from a view point I strongly disagree with. They fail to report that their reporters are held but blast all over the front page about contractors and servicemen.
If I want to know whats going on I read Michael Yons blog.
-
My point, is that the news organizations are hypocritical in the extreme. No is arguing that we shouldn't have the reporters there. I saying that the only time they are 'quiet' due to concern about someone's safety, is when it is one of their own. They are almost never quiet when someone else's life is at stake. Or have the common decency to withhold a photo when asked by a family member.
-
I guess there are English teachers everywhere...
FQ, my point is Farrell’s actions contributed to the needless deaths of two people. Without the actions of Farrell neither would have been exposed to peril in that situation.
Granted, all parties knew the dangers but that does not excuse nor expunge Farrell’s responsibility for his actions.
I don't dispute that there is need for journalists to doggedly pursue the truth. The problem is the MSM does not do that today. They seem to want to follow an agenda. Their stories seem to follow a template. Very few are critical of a liberal point-of-view as they are a conservative one. This fact wouldn’t be so bad if their editors pushed a balanced way of reporting but they don’t.
We used to have a media that was more balanced. However, I supposed the media has always been skewed more to the left.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing if today’s journalists who interview people or cover stories, regardless of the person or the subject of the story, keep one little question in the back of their mind, “Why is this guy (person) lying to me?”
But alas me thinks that will never happen again…
-
The hypocrisy of the Time and the AP - among others - know no bounds. They are truly despicable, especially when they keep a straight face and claim they are "news" agencies. They are part of the leftwing that is striving to destroy this country and hope to retain power as the mouthpieces of the powers that come after a democratic republic.
I worry sometimes that there just won't be enough rope, either for them or for us, whoever wins.
-
The hypocrisy of the Time and the AP - among others - know no bounds. They are truly despicable, especially when they keep a straight face and claim they are "news" agencies. They are part of the leftwing that is striving to destroy this country and hope to retain power as the mouthpieces of the powers that come after a democratic republic.
I worry sometimes that there just won't be enough rope, either for them or for us, whoever wins.
Path
You seriously need to chill. Remember that a democratic republic includes folks that disagree with you and your vision of the country. If we define "patriots" as people we agree with it will be a damn small country. To quote (paraphrase) Franklin "Everyone is strange save me and thee, and even thee are a bit strange". Conformity to one idea or vision, or one religion is totalitarianism. Don't let yourself become the enemy Path. Seriously, think about it. I'm not kidding here either.
FQ13
-
Path
You seriously need to chill. Remember that a democratic republic includes folks that disagree with you and your vision of the country. If we define "patriots" as people we agree with it will be a damn small country. To quote (paraphrase) Franklin "Everyone is strange save me and thee, and even thee are a bit strange". Conformity to one idea or vision, or one religion is totalitarianism. Don't let yourself become the enemy Path. Seriously, think about it. I'm not kidding here either.
FQ13
Dude, this is not about disagreement. It IS about a press that CLAIMS to be UNbiased but is, in reality, very biased. Biased in almost everyone's eye's, except their own.
-
The NYT should have "negotiated" his release, after all, it's their ilk that is against war and "talking with the Taliban", is in their eyes" the thing to do....
Next time they can hire the UN or NATO negotiators that should get the "journalist" released, or beheaded in several months....
-
Path
You seriously need to chill. Remember that a democratic republic includes folks that disagree with you and your vision of the country. If we define "patriots" as people we agree with it will be a damn small country. To quote (paraphrase) Franklin "Everyone is strange save me and thee, and even thee are a bit strange". Conformity to one idea or vision, or one religion is totalitarianism. Don't let yourself become the enemy Path. Seriously, think about it. I'm not kidding here either.
FQ13
Drongo!
I like the Franklin quote, not the first time I've heard it. But your definition of "totalitarianism" may be a bit off (I'm being subtle here for no apparent reason - it is way off). Your definition can also describe a village with survival needs, or a nation with a single vision, like JFK focusing this country on reaching the moon before the end of the decade.
But you completely missed my point - the press is biased and hypocritical while piously proclaiming they are not. Period. That was it.
Drongo indeed!
-
Path
You seriously need to chill. Remember that a democratic republic includes folks that disagree with you and your vision of the country. If we define "patriots" as people we agree with it will be a damn small country. To quote (paraphrase) Franklin "Everyone is strange save me and thee, and even thee are a bit strange". Conformity to one idea or vision, or one religion is totalitarianism. Don't let yourself become the enemy Path. Seriously, think about it. I'm not kidding here either.
FQ13
FQ, you need to wake up and smell reality. The NYT has been lying for dictators for 80 years, Google Walter Durante.
Here's some video for you to watch so you don't sound like a total idiot.
http://www.pjtv.com/video/Roger_L_Simon%3A_Talking_Through_My_Hat/Burning_Down_The_New_York_Times_in_Three_Acts__Act_I%3A_All_The_News_That%27s_%22Fit%22/1977/
http://www.pjtv.com/video/Roger_L_Simon%3A_Talking_Through_My_Hat/Burning_Down_the_New_York_Times__Act_2%3A_Walter_Duranty_Meets_the_Holocaust/2036/
http://www.pjtv.com/video/Roger_L_Simon%3A_Talking_Through_My_Hat/Burning_Down_the_New_York_Times%2C_Act_3%3A__The_Times_Sees_a_Shrink__But_It_Doesn%27t_Help/2174/
The "Gray Lady" is an old whore.
-
The "Gray Lady" is also dying in subscriptions, # of papers sold, and is in almost the same fodder as the the Weekly World News,
as is many flagrant liberal slanted newspapers and magazines,....Newsweek, Time, etc,....
Although the crossdressing twins abducted by aliens as sex slaves was a good article,...
-
The only thing that make the NYT better than USAtoday is that the colored inks in USAtoday play havoc with the septic system, they are about even as fish wrap.