Author Topic: British Hero dies saving NY Times reporter  (Read 4503 times)

cooptire

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 397
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
British Hero dies saving NY Times reporter
« 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.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry

Hazcat

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10457
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: British Hero dies saving NY Times reporter
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2009, 10:02:42 AM »
Coop,

Don't you know some animals are more equal than others!
All tipoes and misspelings are copi-righted.  Pleeze do not reuse without ritten persimmons  :D

ratcatcher55

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1039
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: British Hero dies saving NY Times reporter
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2009, 10:18:27 AM »
Not a fair trade in my book

Kid Shelleen

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: British Hero dies saving NY Times reporter
« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2009, 10:20:27 AM »
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.
“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance?”

Thomas Jefferson, 1787

cooptire

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 397
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: British Hero dies saving NY Times reporter
« Reply #4 on: September 09, 2009, 10:48:15 AM »
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.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry

Sponsor

  • Guest
Re: British Hero dies saving NY Times reporter
« Reply #5 on: Today at 02:19:42 PM »

fightingquaker13

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11894
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: British Hero dies saving NY Times reporter
« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2009, 11:31:10 AM »
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

WatchManUSA

  • NRA Life Member - Join the NRA!
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 951
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: British Hero dies saving NY Times reporter
« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2009, 11:32:03 AM »
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.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it and then misapplying the wrong remedies." (Groucho Marx)

Kid Shelleen

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: British Hero dies saving NY Times reporter
« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2009, 11:34:20 AM »
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.
“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance?”

Thomas Jefferson, 1787

WatchManUSA

  • NRA Life Member - Join the NRA!
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 951
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: British Hero dies saving NY Times reporter
« Reply #8 on: September 09, 2009, 11:53:24 AM »
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$$.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it and then misapplying the wrong remedies." (Groucho Marx)

fightingquaker13

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11894
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: British Hero dies saving NY Times reporter
« Reply #9 on: September 09, 2009, 12:06:46 PM »
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

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk