Jump to content

Worthwhile discussion - comments


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

(snips) You are making the same mistake the Marines did. You are assuming that the public trusts the military more than the media. You are saying that inherently, the POV of some person in a uniform will always be accepted by the public as more reliable than than that of a person who's job it is to report information as accurately as possible. And so, by your logic, no one could or should be images obtained by a reporter.

It's not about the trust, it's about "checks and balances" and the "rule of law". How about murder victims? Should we have detailed pictorial reports about every possible gruesome crime, for the common good? The public does have a right to "know", doesn't it? The truth is out "there", or isn't it?

From this perspective, it is easy to see the scenario is wrecked from the beginning. There's a conflict of interest, a legitimate race between different objects of legal protection (i.e. between right to privacy against corporation's right to print money... er, I meant papers), which can not be settled based on how journalists (~ dupes) themselves feel about their self-worth.

A somewhat wider perspective is needed.

You are saying, the only valid news is the news which the military sees fit to print. And when the news is unpleasant, it sure looks like it to me, you are blaming the messenger.
No, I'm not saying anything to that direction. I am saying that exploitation of the dead marines for purely personal or even common gain (let's admit this, okay?) should not be among the options what a decent human being would do. Obviously, the journalist in question didn't feel that way and the Marines reacted correspondingly. He did sign a waiver, didn't he? He knowingly broke his contractual obligations for opportunistic reasons, damn the ethics or what not. Nobel Peace Prize, Pulitzer Prize, Academy Award, Hero of the Sorbonne University Award or what ever was almost reachable.

After all, if the Marines don't like talking to relatives of Marines killed by roadside bombs, they could do lots of things. They could just stop driving on the friggen' road. They could tell their civilian leaders "Hey, this is a no-win situation you've stuck us in." They could learn Arabic or Pashto, and maybe get an honest local take on what the locals think of foreign troops in their country. They could tell the public, honestly, "You know, this policy of ours, well, the one you have us following, it's getting Marines killed and if we keep it it up, it's going to get more Marines killed and frankly that's about all it's going to do."

But they don't. The hew to a wonderful double standard that runs throughout most of the professional military, to wit: "I am a soldier and I take orders and don't question them, I don't get paid to think. But if some one questions my opinion, especially if my opinion or views are questioned by a person whose job it is to seek out the truth, well people like that are traitors, and what's more, I know better than they how to do that job. My military opinion is the only one the public should have access to. I know best, because I wear a uniform. Any one who contradicts me is wrong, because they're not me."

It's a nice attitude, and as long as the soldiers talk only among themselves they can pretend it's a valid attitude for quite along time. But fail to win a war, fast, and the people paying the bills are going to ask questions.

If you have locked out the media, and take over the reporting job yourself, you have no one but yourself to blame for the whirlwind you will inevitably reap.

Mostly you're arguing about different topic. We can endlessly talk about politics and what went wrong, we are living in free countries. Even in (ex-)soviet block it has always been possible to criticize the US and conduct of her armed forces, from conflict to conflict, odd or not. :P

Do we need real-life illustrations or reality TV-p*rn to do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about the trust, it's about "checks and balances" and the "rule of law". How about murder victims? Should we have detailed pictorial reports about every possible gruesome crime, for the common good? The public does have a right to "know", doesn't it? The truth is out "there", or isn't it?

If you ask me, the answer is "yes". The public should have access to pictures of gruesome murders. Why should they not? My opinion, the more true-life murder pictures that were out there, the more second thoughts there would be about committing murders.

From this perspective, it is easy to see the scenario is wrecked from the beginning. There's a conflict of interest, a legitimate race between different objects of legal protection (i.e. between right to privacy against corporation's right to print money... er, I meant papers), which can not be settled based on how journalists (~ dupes) themselves feel about their self-worth.

A somewhat wider perspective is needed.

Certainly. And one key aspect of a wider perspective is, the public good is not just served by supressing information. Sometimes, the public good is served by making public information.

In the case of the dead soldier photographs, it is arguable that a substantial portion of the general public should be able to see them, because if they do not, the impact of their political decision - support politicians that take their country to war - is muted. If the public is to choose which policies and leaders to support, then it is very hard to argue that a muted perception of what is going on, improves the public's decision-making.

After all, these pix at least theoretically weren't a slam dunk for the anti-war crowd. Sometimes, pictures of dead US soldiers have made the public mad, and made the public support a war even more.

The fact that the US society is pretty divided makes the pictures, to my mind, even more valid for publishing. Either way, how does one side get off telling the other what they can and cannot see?

And in any case, I fail to see how a soldier walking down a dangerous street in say Bagdad is somehow morally superior to the photographer in the same place. Both are volunteers, and if some are careerists, odds are, both are doing their job because they're professionals, and both have fairly good grounds for believing they're doing that job, and taking those risks, for the good of society.

I don't subscribe to the idea that only people with guns get to decide right and wrong. But if you do, well fine, the soldier is a hero and the photgrapher is a jackel.

The assumption that you appear to working with is, there is nothing more important than the welfare of the soldiers, therefore, since horrid photos "insult" the soldiers and make explaining what happened to soldier relatives really hard, that's enough grounds to censor the pictures.

I reject that. Soldiers serve the society, not the other way around. Soldiers saying "We know better than you what you the society need to know about us" is not only counter to the needs of a free society, it is soldiers whining rather than sucking it up and doing what they are paid to do. To my mind, they should find and fight the enemy, not gripe and complain about their image in the media. One of the cornerstones of the US military is that it is apolitical, but let a photographer make public some pictures of some dead Marines, and suddenly the entire US Marine Corps has definate and extremely opinions, couched in the most moral of tones, about interpetations of the First Amendment.

To my mind, they can't have it both ways. Either they're really apolitical and if they get hammered in the media they just shut up and let the lawyers deal with it; or they admit they're political and US citizens with Freedom of Speech and the right to vote, and like any other citizen answer for their actions in a public forum, to wit, what's with the moral tone with all these dead civilians, and why is it you the soldier are supporting hideously expensive combat operations in wars with increasingly questionable grounds?

No, I'm not saying anything to that direction. I am saying that exploitation of the dead marines for purely personal or even common gain (let's admit this, okay?) should not be among the options what a decent human being would do. Obviously, the journalist in question didn't feel that way and the Marines reacted correspondingly. He did sign a waiver, didn't he? He knowingly broke his contractual obligations for opportunistic reasons, damn the ethics or what not. Nobel Peace Prize, Pulitzer Prize, Academy Award, Hero of the Sorbonne University Award or what ever was almost reachable.

You are assuming a priori that the pictures should not have been published, under any circumstances. You're welcome to the opinion and there are plenty of people that think the same as you, but problem is, there are plenty who disagree too.

Since when are you and/or the military inherently better at deciding what the society shouldn't see?

You are also assuming that reporters only chase stories for shock value, and that they will always sell out their principles for career boost. I suggest you read the NYT article that Gunnergoz linked us to. The photographer thought hard about what he did and the rules of censorship, it wasn't like he was making public everything he shot. Odds are extremely good, and I mean about 1000 - 1 in favor, that that photographer had shots far, far nastier than the ones that got published. Heck, the Marines said "No pictures of dead marines where you can identify them." It is a sure bet he had them, but he didn't make those public. Read the article. He was following the rules.

The problem is, the Marine rules didn't manage to keep censored these particular hard images. So, the Marines instead of being men and admitting they goofed, they left a loophole, are now getting all hissy about journalistic ethics and offended families. Me, I'd say there's a big element of buck-passing going on here. It wouldn't be so nice if relatives started asking questions like "My son/husband/father died because you Marines told him to drive down that road...how again was that death of my loved one helped out US society? What exactly do the Marines themselves think of a strategy that forces them to drive down roads through places full of people that want to kill them, on 'patrols'?"

Well, like I keep saying, the military has made its decision. It has pretty much decided it prefers controlling the information itself, and the media can go hang, who needs reporters with the troops? And so now there are almost no reporters with the troops, and those that are are pretty pissed off at all the censoring and being reporters alot of them will get around it if they can.

If that's not a recipe for a military public relations train wreck, I don't know what is. You would think after Vietnam they would have learned the lesson that it just doesn't pay to become antagonists with the media, not in a war when you are the soldiers. But I guess not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick,

No worries, I'm used to people not reading my stuff sometimes, it comes with the territory. You're doing what I would expect any intelligent member of the society would do: Don't read/watch stuff that you think wastes your time. Good for you!

I fully agree with you every one is fallible. If I use lots of big words and insist arguements rationally constructed, and then contradicted or accepted, hey, we are all products of our upbringing. That's not quite the same as my assuming superiority or God forbid righteousness over you or any one else. I'd be happy if you could see the distinction.

The only thing I will object to is your saying I'm being nasty about what you said about the NYT. I am not being nasty, I am expressing an opinion.

Final note, don't you think you can bait me and people like me some other way than simply saying "documented", "liberal", "bias," and "NYT" all in the same sentence? That's just unimaginative and lazy, you really should work harder for your entertainment.

P.S. - The name is Stefan

No problem Steve, I stopped reading your long-winded posts about a year or so ago when it became apparent that like the New York Times (and Dorosh) the gist of your posts was always the same. In all honesty I do consider you to be a good guy, extremely convinced of you're own righteousness and superiority but that is easy to overlook when one is aware that we all have weaknesses and room for improvement. You're getting nasty over the fact that I felt bringing the extreme and documented bias of the NYT to light for some who may not be aware of that fact will be over-looked and forgiven.

Best wishes,

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote BD6: "You would think after Vietnam they would have learned the lesson..."

The lesson was learnt - and then ignored, forgotten and unlearnt.

Much the same thing with the financial management of a modern society - half-smart, ignorant or just plain stupid: we haven't had many competent leaders in the last decade.

Really enjoying the writing, by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the jist of this thread is that you guys (with the exception of Abbott) have never read the NYT and have never detected a bias? And that is from the people who accuse him of not liking too many words. That is truly astonishing.

As for the topic at hand, I read this story as having more to do with human nature then official policy. As the story states, the photog in question is still credentialled to work (however, "no unit will accept him"). If you were the person reviewing his creds and work on an application to work with your unit, would you want him along? ("that's the sick f*ck that likes to take pictures of dead Marines", or more succinctly this, from the story "Worry that marines might hurt him was high enough that guards were posted to protect him"). Would you potentially want him with you to take pictures of your fellow soldiers?

As another way of putting it, just because he is legally within his rights, doesn't mean that his behavior is acceptable.

This entire topic of photographing coffins and dead is macabre. I cannot comprehend the parasitic insistence of these people that other people risk life and limb to protect them so that they can produce something of questionable value.

If these guys really thought this sort of content had any value, they would put their ass on the line and go out unofficially and get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick,

The only thing I will object to is your saying I'm being nasty about what you said about the NYT. I am not being nasty, I am expressing an opinion.

Final note, don't you think you can bait me and people like me some other way than simply saying "documented", "liberal", "bias," and "NYT" all in the same sentence?

Heh, Gotcha Steve. You're expressing an opinion and I am baiting, check.

Oh yeah and I am being lazy and unimaginative by pointing out a well known and accurate fact of a bias that is noted across America but some overseas may not be aware of. Check.

I stopped reading your stuff and a couple other guy's stuff around here because over the years you and they have nothing more to say but the usual mantra of hate spewed at America and Americans. You're posts are often (always the same), long winded hate filled anti-U.S. tripe, intermixed with personal egotistical superiority. Until I read this Forum for a few years I never realized how many people overseas had grown up being nurtured on hatred of my country and her soldiers. The folks I knew and worked with always appreciated our help.

The New York Times is a joke to many of the people in this country, you appear to be ignorant of that fact. But jump in with the usual gang to try and shout down any opinion that goes against your disdain of the United States. As I said earlier (and in all seriousness) I don't think you are a bad guy, just another enemy of my country. I have lived, ate, drank and worked with a lot of guys just like you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the jist of this thread is that you guys (with the exception of Abbott) have never read the NYT and have never detected a bias? And that is from the people who accuse him of not liking too many words. That is truly astonishing.

Just the usual group of Socialists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gunner,

I have not read the article nor do I care to. I know first hand what dead men look like and I try to forget. I do not plan to comment on the article, I only commented on the source of the article and stand by those comments.

I know that you are a nice guy and if I have upset you I apologize.

Regards,

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coffins have been photographed and video-taped and aired by the British media, and England still seems to be standing, and as far as I know there wasn't even a hue and cry. I don't think there have been dead squaddies in the media, but if so it's only a matter of time.

Also, I think it's worth remembering that the photographer that took those pictures was walking patrol with the infantry, and unlike the infantry, if some one tried to kill him, he had no way of shooting back. So like I say, that to me undermines the authority of some PAO officer to tell that photog what is or is not a valid news photograph. The guy was a news professional on the ground, in the combat zone. That sounds to me like a person equipped to decide what is or is not a proper war photo.

As far as the NYT goes, like it or not it is one of the top newspapers in the world. Their journalistic standards are second to none. What you see as bias, I see as (almost always) good to excellent reporting.

After all, the definition of professional military reporting is not: Report always that the military is great, and more exactly report about the military what the military tells itself. For instance, the military loves to tell itself it is doing a great job against the insurgencies, look at all the reconstruction work going on! Of course the locals must love the military! The military loves to tell itself it is a Band of Brothers and a Corps of Warriors. And the assumption is, the whole world is impressed.

Reporters are under no obligation to parrot what the military says to itself and others, as the unvarnished truth, or even to give such claims particular credence. Nor are they under any obligation to protect loved ones, support the war effort, stroke the tender egoes of the soldiers and officers who are so worried about how they are depicted in the media. Reporters need to be critical, in the sense that they should take nothing at face value. A soldier saying things are going great, or he's never heard of problems in that unit, or that lots of Iraqis are his friends, shouldn't be accepted as telling the truth by the reporter, just because the soldier said it and seems to believe it.

Stuff like that needs proof. But many soldiers in wars these days seem to think not. They seem to be of the opion that whatever the unit accepts as reality,well, that's the truth for the entire world - because they said so. If some one disagrees, if their judgement differs, well they're wrong and probably traitors.

Perfectly natural, of course, but again, why should a reporter accept that at face value?

Reporters are responsible to do one thing: Get the truth to the readers/viewers, about what the readers/viewers are interested in. The reporter doesn't work for the soldiers, the reporter isn't obligated to be nice to the soldiers, or if it gets down to it help the soldiers.

The reporter's job is different, and problems begin if soldiers or reporters think they are on the same side. They aren't. Of course, sometimes both can do their jobs without interfering with each other. But just as a reporter has no business telling a captain how to call in air or discipline an NCO, a captain has no business telling a reporter what is or is not news.

Sure, the journalist can be wrong. If the reporter makes the wrong call, for instance reports a fact wrong or maybe publishes a picture of a dead soldier when the readers/viewers don't want to see that, well, that reporter could be out of a job or a career. It's not like errors don't carry punishment. Just the same as if the captain calls in air wrong, he is going to be out of a career or maybe even in jail.

If the soldiers want to be offended, if they want to second-guess the photographer's decision on the validity of a news photograph, of course the military can cold-shoulder the photographer, make use pool feeds, give him exclusives with REMF officers, lost his equipment, bump him from chopper hops, etc. etc. There are plenty of perfectly acceptable ways to be nasty to reporters. The military of course is an organization of people and people have feelings and emotions, and if those are hurt then certainly the military people can take whatever action they please within the limits of the law.

Of course, there is the not insignificant problem that if the military locks out too many reporters, then there will be no one left interested in writing about the military. Indeed, that process is already well in progress, and so we have a military convinced through and through its actions are newsworthy and praiseworthy, but unable these days to find many reporters willing to report what the military wants said about itself.

Can it be so suprising that, as that marginalization process continues, public confidence in what the military is saying about itself is waning? Yes, I know, within the units every one believes in the mission, is 100 per cent dedicated, they say the civlians just don't understand.

But that's wrong. The problem is, the military more and more seems unable to understand that it is not the center of the society, that this is not Sparta, that there is no draft, that the wars are by and large not popular wars, that the military is far from a cross-section of American society, and that, frankly, the soldiers are a relatively small professional minority within that society.

The fact is that it the civilian society, with its civilian not military values, and informed by the media not the military, that are paying the bills. No matter what the military says or thinks, no matter how many hooahs get yelled or provincial reconstruction reports that get filed, if the civilian society decides the military is wasting money, if the wars aren't giving the civilians the results the civilians want, that's all she wrote. The civilians will pull the plug.

The lack of understanding goes both ways. The soldiers just don't understand either, when it comes to the media they have their military world with its priorities and values, and civilian values just come second. And of course if the soldiers don't understand the civilians, and the civilians don't understand the soldiers, then two things are clear: (1) There is going to be confusion and (2) The civilians outnumber the soldiers by a substantial margin, and the civilians are paying the bills.

The US civilians learn about the world around them through the media. That's mainstream, bloggers, underground, all that information put together. Since civilians almost all of them have lives of their own (gotta work to pay taxes to pay for all those re-enlistment bonuses and Javelins and MRAPS and air-conditioned TOCes and Burger Kings and so on), the civilians have to pick and choose their information sources, and like everything else in a free market reliability, quality, and proven record works.

This is why you can make money selling independant news produced by professional newsmen to the general public, but you will lose money doing the same thing with Pentagon Press statements. The public demands information, the media provides it.

The military, unsurprisingly since they are professionals at wars and medal precedence and shiny boots and so forth, just sucks at being newsmen.

Making the media into an adversary in the present wars may just well be the single biggest strategic error the US military has made this century. All they had to do was let the press do their job, and face the facts as they came. Remember General Stillwell in China/Burma? He said: "If you can prove it, print it!" And he got excellent press, even when he was losing, which actually was most of the time.

But no, the modern military policy from on high has been, apparently, to fight and win the media war - while being close to totally ignorant about the weapons and tactics you would use, and professional skills that you need, for such a fight.

Like I said, reap the whirlwind. The military has brought all this negative reporting on themselves, by their own actions, and now they are blaming the messenger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abbott

Damn straight. If you can make judgements about the kind of person I am, without reading what I write, then it seems fair enough to me that I get to call your posts "baiting" and my posts "opinion-expressing." After all, I have the advantage, I read what you write, I don't skip a word.

That line about your being lazy and unimaginative was a joke, I figured you really were baiting me this time so I wanted to call you on it. Guess I was wrong, bad on me. Sorry if I seemed insulting, didn't mean to be.

But you've got me wrong on the hatred/enemy thing. I love my country. Really. I bet I know the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the Founding Fathers and all that jazz better than most of my fellow countrymen. You can call that egotistical if you want, but me, I just wish more Americans knew better what an amazing country got created after 1776.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each is endowed by his creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the, er, purfuit of happineff."

Great words, noble words, amazing words. Too bad you may not read them here, har har.

Anyway, and moving right along, you should hear me whale on the foreigners about how great our country is. And don't forget I volunteered and served in uniform, in the US military, at a time when military service generally wasn't considered patriotic, just stupid. You should have heard all my effete liberal friends telling me how I was ruining my life. They were wrong about that, but I'll be durned if I am going to equate patriotism with saying only nice things about the military. They screw up, I'm going to sound off - Lord knows they didn't keep it to themselves when I screwed up, when I was wearing the uniform. But hate America? Nah, that's a bum rap, you've got the wrong guy.

As for the NYT, well, yeah sure, lots of people think it's a useless liberal rag. That isn't the same thing as it actually being a useless liberal rag; after all, if they have been in business for three centuries they must be doing something right. They seem to be doing pretty well in keeping a loyal readership - can all those New Yorkers just be willing to pay all those years to read packs of lies day after day? Or just maybe the NYT does its job well, that's how they've stayed in business this long?

I sure hope we have that beer someday, I am positive I would enjoy it.

Heh, Gotcha Steve. You're expressing an opinion and I am baiting, check.

Oh yeah and I am being lazy and unimaginative by pointing out a well known and accurate fact of a bias that is noted across America but some overseas may not be aware of. Check.

I stopped reading your stuff and a couple other guy's stuff around here because over the years you and they have nothing more to say but the usual mantra of hate spewed at America and Americans. You're posts are often (always the same), long winded hate filled anti-U.S. tripe, intermixed with personal egotistical superiority. Until I read this Forum for a few years I never realized how many people overseas had grown up being nurtured on hatred of my country and her soldiers. The folks I knew and worked with always appreciated our help.

The New York Times is a joke to many of the people in this country, you appear to be ignorant of that fact. But jump in with the usual gang to try and shout down any opinion that goes against your disdain of the United States. As I said earlier (and in all seriousness) I don't think you are a bad guy, just another enemy of my country. I have lived, ate, drank and worked with a lot of guys just like you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Bigduke seems to involve himself more in hyberboles and strawmen than debating the actual issue here.

It's irrelevant what many journalists groupthink amongst themselves and whether they are doing a great job or not, peace be upon them.

Somehow this discussion resembles doing drugs. Even if a puff or two would make your ordinary liberal/libertarian activist feel like a million social security checks/a 24 carat gold bullion, this alone is not enough to disregard the law altogether.

In a sense, some journalists are acting like they are above the society, above the common man, as if they were in a God-given mission to educate the masses. To prepare an Omelette, the way how you break the eggs does matter!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what if "the law" includes the obligation to inform the public of the goings on of public entities, including the military? What if "the law" permits citizens the right to go to print (and by inference, photo) with depictions of current events - including those that the government may be less than pleased to see publicized?

So called "conservatives" rail on about "preserving and extending freedom" but Freedom of the Press is one of the freedoms that seems to make them pretty queasy.

I find the so-called "liberal media" is simply that which which questions the powers that be and their actions. The so-called "conservatives" seem far more interested in obfuscating, concealing or misdirecting the public so that the powers-that-be and their base can do what they like without undue scrutiny or awkward questions.

Bias in any form in media is, to me, objectionable if it is concealed as something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSgt Viljuri,

And what law was broken here? I see no laws broken. What the soldiers say and think, that's not law. It isn't even necessarily the truth. What's more, since when is questioning a soldier's opinion an amoral act?

Me, I see a conflict between what a combat photographer and his editors thought was an appopriate war photograph, and what soldiers and their chain of command thought was appropriate. Pretty simple, and quite to the point as far as I can see.

I am arguing the military as an organization is poorly equipped, if not singularly ill-equipped, to act as newsmen. I am similarly arguing that considering he was on the ground and he was a professional war photographer, second-guessing the guy who took the picture is pretty dumb. He was the reporter at the scene. If any one could know whether a picture communicates to his readers/viewers what he saw/experienced, it's him.

You are saying no, the soldiers are a better judge of what should and should not be news and further, that news professionals disagreeing with soldiers are pretty much by definition parasites, bloodsuckers, jackals, and careerist scum. You are saying any fool can be a reporter, and further, that reporters by their very nature are incapable of considered judgement.

You are, at the same time, saying soldiers engaged in a war, and with loyalites almost totally to their unit, retain clear-headed judgement and a total respect for the truth, even at the expense of pain to their fellow soldiers or their relatives, or the risk of shorting society on information. You are saying members of a professional military should be trusted implicitly, that they don't think of spin, don't lie, and would never even consider manipulating information to help fight the war.

That was hyperbole.

If you have some grounds for your apparent belief that soldiers are the best judge of what is and is not news, then let's hear it. If it is actually your opinion that newsmen in a war should just repeat what the soldiers tell them, ape the mores of the soldiers, accept the values of the troops, choose rah rah troops over independent reporting, then I for one would be interested to learn why you think that would be a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Bigduke seems to involve himself more in hyberboles and strawmen than debating the actual issue here.

Heh. Funny you should bring logical fallacies into this. The second post of this thread was an Ad Hom, as confirmed by

I do not plan to comment on the article, I only commented on the source of the article ...

I'm amazed that anyone thinks this worth discussing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was an embedded reporter, who had voluntarily signed a contract and was otherwise under a courtesy of a military organization. He was not your Iraqi freelancer doing his stuff on his own. Simply put, this reporter fella could not use his discretion freely, as there where limits of what kind of "cooperation" the Marines were agreed to provide him.

Pacta sunt servanda. Surely this young reporter dude is not a whisteblower of any kind, people do know Marines and local Iraqis are not toon superheroes (dunno about the Marines themselves), and get hurt in a combat against the local insurgents and because of terrorist attacks. Due to unfortunate terrorist action, he got an opportunity to shoot lots of graphic content, which included dead bodies of the Marines.

An opportunity to score big for personal benefit or a wide ranging common policy issue? Who cares. Too bad he signed that waiver. What would Jesus do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus would have published the truth regardless of the establishment - the money changers in the temple.

And professional media is not in a role of money changers here? Who is doing the dying, who is trying to profit financially?

At least we could make a good guess who are the pharisees in this case, and we might have a hunch about the presiding Papal authority too!

Not that there are too many holy persons in the region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no - the military is in the role of the money changers here - money is not the issue - the issue is the establishment gilding over the truth.

the pharisee's were using the temple as an excuse for money changing. the military are using their "contracts" as an excuse for censorship.

What fecking truth? You can't handle the truth! :)

As Fox Mulder once famously said, the truth is out there. News propaganda reaches sometimes another level of existence, but is it closer to truth? Drinking Kool-Aid will not help in this or other issues, let alone bring the truth any closer.

Clearly professional news people are the second incarnation of the Pharisees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is doing the dying

In Iraq, on average: one reporter per week. (source: RSF)

who is trying to profit financially?

I understand that the USMC is an all-volunteer force, that they receive financial incentives to enlist, and that they all get pay and allowances whilst in Iraq (source: MarineCorpsTimes). Do you have different information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, Miller (who would like you to refer to him simply as "Zoriah," ala "Madonna" and "Prince") is a blogger. He posted the photos along with a detailed 1st-person account of the aftermath of the blast on his website Zoriah.com. He has no editors, nor does he have a background in professional journalism. The fact that he managed an embed at all speaks highly of the military's openness to the media.

Funny that the NYT did not include in their slideshow this image he published on his blog a few days after the Marine was killed:

WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC

I've seen a number of photos equally as graphic from WWII. All were published long after the war.

There is no right to embed with U.S. forces. It's a privilege that is based not simply on written ground rules, but also a relationship built on trust between the reporters and the units who provide for their security and well-being during their embeds.

Mr. Miller violated that trust when he posted these pictures and words to his website. This breach of trust lies at the heart of our decision to remove Mr. Miller from his embed and from our area of responsibility and to refuse him an opportunity to return in the future.

1st Lt. Brian Block, Camp Fallujah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly professional news people are the second incarnation of the Pharisees.

clearly someone is making a profit from Iraq......and trying to hide "the truth" behind the walls of "the temple" of military necessity.

they are the pharisees, despite your poorly reasoned attempts to persuade us otherwise.

As you asked - what would Jesus have done? As I answered - he would have spoken the truth, he would have pointed out what was actually happening, despite entrenched interests trying to prevent him.

Can you show us how it is that "professional news people" are trying to stop the truth being spoken in this case? What is it they are trying to prevent? That would certainly be a marvelous construction and worth a read.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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.


×
×
  • Create New...