Personally, I'm not all concerned about the journalists and am sick and tired of the emphasis the reporters are putting on the loss of their own. How narcissistic can you get? What about the children released from prison ?!! What about the who's and why's of blowing up a pregnant woman?!!
I worked on the student newspaper when I was in college (UT--Arlington) and most of the staff were diehard "going to be journalist" types who were already working as stringers on real papers (Dallas Morning News, etc.. They drank and smoked alot, barely went to class, and thought they had it all figured out. I just don't take journalists that seriously.
It's a tragedy when anyone dies, not just a journalist. Bigger things are happening.
THANK you. It's obvious to anyone with any sense that the good, positive and uplifting images, stories, photos, accounts are taking a backseat to "children killed", "reporters injured" stuff. You pretty much have to put on FOX (haha...that just kills some of you, I know) to see anything remotely positive (or, at the very least, that U.S. Marines aren't going around targeting babies and journalists).
I've worked at a couple of newspapers over the years and your above assessment was dead on. I worked paste-up/composition years ago and would stand there while an editor cut stories to fit my template, or crop out photos to fit a certain space. The power they wield is amazing. And every one I worked for/with was HUGELY left of center. This one guy in particular would constantly (by omission, usually) tweak a story to make any of the following look horrible: police, military, Republicans, business people, etc.
One day I called him on it, in a friendly, inquisitive way, and we had a bit of a "discussion" about it.
In the end, I transferred over to the ad/marketing department so I didn't have to be around those people.
But they all (reporters especially) wanted to "change the world". My response was always "you're in the wrong profession, then. Why don't you just simply try WRITING about the world? That's what an objective journalist should do...".
Fell on deaf ears, I'm sure.
But they were a sorry bunch. Worse than any high school or college clique. Arrogant know-it-alls who looked at anything remotely right-of-center as racists, sexist, homophobic, oppressive, jingoistic.
Maybe that's why I have such a deep-seated dislike of that belief system and accompanying attitude?
THANK you. It's obvious to anyone with any sense that the good, positive and uplifting images, stories, photos, accounts are taking a backseat to "children killed", "reporters injured" stuff. You pretty much have to put on FOX (haha...that just kills some of you, I know) to see anything remotely positive (or, at the very least, that U.S. Marines aren't going around targeting babies and journalists).
This is surreal.
"Positive and uplifting images, stories, photos, accounts are taking a backseat to "children killed", "reporters injured" stuff."
THANK you. It's obvious to anyone with any sense that the good, positive and uplifting images, stories, photos, accounts are taking a backseat to "children killed", "reporters injured" stuff. You pretty much have to put on FOX (haha...that just kills some of you, I know) to see anything remotely positive (or, at the very least, that U.S. Marines aren't going around targeting babies and journalists).)
This is funny.
Pscates wants to see 'positive', 'uplifting' images of war and he has to go to Fox to see them. Pscates believes that everyone apart from the Fox network has an agenda biased towards the display of (and I quote) " U.S. Marines ... going around targeting babies and journalists."
I wish there were a pissing-itself-laughing smilie.
On the reporting, Hell, I'd just settle for the truth.
As for the journalists---they've simply lost touch with reality. The Pentagon told them to get the hell of Dodge before all this started--they took a serious risk and shouldn't whine about the consequenses.
As for the journalists---they've simply lost touch with reality. The Pentagon told them to get the hell of Dodge before all this started--they took a serious risk and shouldn't whine about the consequenses.
As for the Pentagon, when firing a shell at a civilian target they're taking a big risk. I hope they don't piss and whine about the consequences.
Pscates wants to see 'positive', 'uplifting' images of war and he has to go to Fox to see them. Pscates believes that everyone apart from the Fox network has an agenda biased towards the display of (and I quote) " U.S. Marines ... going around targeting babies and journalists."
I wish there were a pissing-itself-laughing smilie.
I don't exactly understand what your gripe is.
I don't know about the Fox thing either. I get my news from a wide variety of sources in an attempt to filter out the bias--Fox, BBC, NPR, Wall Street Journal, Seattle Times, Anchorage Daily News, Dallas Morning News, among others. (My favorite source is the Wall Street Journal, not because the stories are the most timely or "unbiased" but certainly the best written.) And aside from the WSJ, there is overemphasis on the death of the journalists and underreporting on the evils of Saddam's regime. We listened to the briefing to the press yesterday and today, and the questions from the press kept coming back to the journalists, again and again. So the "stories" you see are the answers to the questions reporters ask. And the questions they ask are what is important to them. And what is important to many (most?) journalists seems to be, well there we are back at our bias.
I had that second latte anyway and get the feeling I have drifted off topic too far.
I stand by what I say, even if it doesn't make sense!
«So the allegation that Al-Jazeera personnel (or Télécinco personnel) were targeted by the coalition is ignorant.»
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
That's your opinion, and that's all it's worth.
Given that targetting journalists is not standard or even unusual authorised practice in the armies of the coalition; and that rumors aside, there's no evidence that journalists were indeed targetted (as in: positively identified as journalists and purposefully targetted as such) by the said armies, such allegation is indeed ignorant.
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
And by the way, if you think that kind of thing doesn't happen in war, you're ignorant. And that's not opinion but fact.
That the coalition armies targetted journalists, on purpose?
And on what, pray tell, do you found this allegation, other than your opinion?
"Positive and uplifting images, stories, photos, accounts are taking a backseat to "children killed", "reporters injured" stuff."
Dude, it's a WAR. It's not Oprah.
Dude, I'm QUITE aware of what this is. I don't mean to imply that I want it to be a "soft focus, slow-motion Jerry Bruckheimer" thing at all. You got me wrong.
But it's simply very telling about - in the midst of the good things happening - what keeps getting played over and over. I think it's the media's natural tendency to see the bad, report the shady, play up the tragedy, etc.
For every Iraqi freed from oppression or let out of some skanky holding pen, we seem to see 6-8 stories of stuff that went wrong or bad.
Pscates wants to see 'positive', 'uplifting' images of war and he has to go to Fox to see them. Pscates believes that everyone apart from the Fox network has an agenda biased towards the display of (and I quote) " U.S. Marines ... going around targeting babies and journalists."
I wish there were a pissing-itself-laughing smilie.
Not at all, Hassan. You got it wrong...see above post.
In any case, I'll get to work on that new smiley.
It just irks me that the good that is being done (call it positive or uplifting...I do) seems to be downplayed or overshadowed by any and all missteps.
The U.S. does enough in this world that deserves to be criticized. I for one need no reason to believe we're bad enough to fire tank shells on a civilian target because we saw someone using binoculars.
Comments
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
So the allegation that Al-Jazeera personnel (or Télécinco personnel) were targeted by the coalition is ignorant.
That's your opinion, and that's all it's worth.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
That's your opinion, and that's all it's worth.
Uh yeh.
Which is what I said.
Originally posted by Harald
Uh yeh.
Which is what I said.
And by the way, if you think that kind of thing doesn't happen in war, you're ignorant. And that's not opinion but fact.
Originally posted by Fangorn
Personally, I'm not all concerned about the journalists and am sick and tired of the emphasis the reporters are putting on the loss of their own. How narcissistic can you get? What about the children released from prison ?!! What about the who's and why's of blowing up a pregnant woman?!!
I worked on the student newspaper when I was in college (UT--Arlington) and most of the staff were diehard "going to be journalist" types who were already working as stringers on real papers (Dallas Morning News, etc.. They drank and smoked alot, barely went to class, and thought they had it all figured out. I just don't take journalists that seriously.
It's a tragedy when anyone dies, not just a journalist. Bigger things are happening.
THANK you. It's obvious to anyone with any sense that the good, positive and uplifting images, stories, photos, accounts are taking a backseat to "children killed", "reporters injured" stuff. You pretty much have to put on FOX (haha...that just kills some of you, I know) to see anything remotely positive (or, at the very least, that U.S. Marines aren't going around targeting babies and journalists).
I've worked at a couple of newspapers over the years and your above assessment was dead on. I worked paste-up/composition years ago and would stand there while an editor cut stories to fit my template, or crop out photos to fit a certain space. The power they wield is amazing. And every one I worked for/with was HUGELY left of center. This one guy in particular would constantly (by omission, usually) tweak a story to make any of the following look horrible: police, military, Republicans, business people, etc.
One day I called him on it, in a friendly, inquisitive way, and we had a bit of a "discussion" about it.
In the end, I transferred over to the ad/marketing department so I didn't have to be around those people.
But they all (reporters especially) wanted to "change the world". My response was always "you're in the wrong profession, then. Why don't you just simply try WRITING about the world? That's what an objective journalist should do...".
Fell on deaf ears, I'm sure.
But they were a sorry bunch. Worse than any high school or college clique. Arrogant know-it-alls who looked at anything remotely right-of-center as racists, sexist, homophobic, oppressive, jingoistic.
Maybe that's why I have such a deep-seated dislike of that belief system and accompanying attitude?
Originally posted by pscates
THANK you. It's obvious to anyone with any sense that the good, positive and uplifting images, stories, photos, accounts are taking a backseat to "children killed", "reporters injured" stuff. You pretty much have to put on FOX (haha...that just kills some of you, I know) to see anything remotely positive (or, at the very least, that U.S. Marines aren't going around targeting babies and journalists).
This is surreal.
"Positive and uplifting images, stories, photos, accounts are taking a backseat to "children killed", "reporters injured" stuff."
Dude, it's a WAR. It's not Oprah.
Originally posted by pscates
THANK you. It's obvious to anyone with any sense that the good, positive and uplifting images, stories, photos, accounts are taking a backseat to "children killed", "reporters injured" stuff. You pretty much have to put on FOX (haha...that just kills some of you, I know) to see anything remotely positive (or, at the very least, that U.S. Marines aren't going around targeting babies and journalists).)
This is funny.
Pscates wants to see 'positive', 'uplifting' images of war and he has to go to Fox to see them. Pscates believes that everyone apart from the Fox network has an agenda biased towards the display of (and I quote) " U.S. Marines ... going around targeting babies and journalists."
I wish there were a pissing-itself-laughing smilie.
As for the journalists---they've simply lost touch with reality. The Pentagon told them to get the hell of Dodge before all this started--they took a serious risk and shouldn't whine about the consequenses.
Originally posted by ena
As for the journalists---they've simply lost touch with reality. The Pentagon told them to get the hell of Dodge before all this started--they took a serious risk and shouldn't whine about the consequenses.
As for the Pentagon, when firing a shell at a civilian target they're taking a big risk. I hope they don't piss and whine about the consequences.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
This is funny.
Pscates wants to see 'positive', 'uplifting' images of war and he has to go to Fox to see them. Pscates believes that everyone apart from the Fox network has an agenda biased towards the display of (and I quote) " U.S. Marines ... going around targeting babies and journalists."
I wish there were a pissing-itself-laughing smilie.
I don't exactly understand what your gripe is.
I don't know about the Fox thing either. I get my news from a wide variety of sources in an attempt to filter out the bias--Fox, BBC, NPR, Wall Street Journal, Seattle Times, Anchorage Daily News, Dallas Morning News, among others. (My favorite source is the Wall Street Journal, not because the stories are the most timely or "unbiased" but certainly the best written.) And aside from the WSJ, there is overemphasis on the death of the journalists and underreporting on the evils of Saddam's regime. We listened to the briefing to the press yesterday and today, and the questions from the press kept coming back to the journalists, again and again. So the "stories" you see are the answers to the questions reporters ask. And the questions they ask are what is important to them. And what is important to many (most?) journalists seems to be, well there we are back at our bias.
I had that second latte anyway and get the feeling I have drifted off topic too far.
I stand by what I say, even if it doesn't make sense!
Originally posted by bunge
That's your opinion, and that's all it's worth.
Given that targetting journalists is not standard or even unusual authorised practice in the armies of the coalition; and that rumors aside, there's no evidence that journalists were indeed targetted (as in: positively identified as journalists and purposefully targetted as such) by the said armies, such allegation is indeed ignorant.
Originally posted by Harald
And by the way, if you think that kind of thing doesn't happen in war, you're ignorant. And that's not opinion but fact.
That the coalition armies targetted journalists, on purpose?
And on what, pray tell, do you found this allegation, other than your opinion?
click here
Originally posted by ena
Looks like it wasn't a tank after all!
I hope this is true.
Originally posted by bunge
I hope this is true.
I think you mean untrue
Originally posted by Harald
This is surreal.
"Positive and uplifting images, stories, photos, accounts are taking a backseat to "children killed", "reporters injured" stuff."
Dude, it's a WAR. It's not Oprah.
Dude, I'm QUITE aware of what this is. I don't mean to imply that I want it to be a "soft focus, slow-motion Jerry Bruckheimer" thing at all. You got me wrong.
But it's simply very telling about - in the midst of the good things happening - what keeps getting played over and over. I think it's the media's natural tendency to see the bad, report the shady, play up the tragedy, etc.
For every Iraqi freed from oppression or let out of some skanky holding pen, we seem to see 6-8 stories of stuff that went wrong or bad.
Do you not agree?
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
This is funny.
Pscates wants to see 'positive', 'uplifting' images of war and he has to go to Fox to see them. Pscates believes that everyone apart from the Fox network has an agenda biased towards the display of (and I quote) " U.S. Marines ... going around targeting babies and journalists."
I wish there were a pissing-itself-laughing smilie.
Not at all, Hassan. You got it wrong...see above post.
In any case, I'll get to work on that new smiley.
It just irks me that the good that is being done (call it positive or uplifting...I do) seems to be downplayed or overshadowed by any and all missteps.
That's all.
If we wanted the journalists in the Palestine Hotel dead they would be dead.
It's really that simple.
Originally posted by groverat
It's really that simple.
If you're really simple minded it is. But the reality is that if you want someone dead, but don't want to get caught, your accuracy drops.
If you want to control a city, or even a country, but you don't want to get caught, your ability to achieve your goal is seriously reduced.
It's really that simple.
Originally posted by Scott
I think you mean untrue
You do a disservice to your fellow citizens.
The U.S. does enough in this world that deserves to be criticized. I for one need no reason to believe we're bad enough to fire tank shells on a civilian target because we saw someone using binoculars.
Good God, what some of you PSYCHOS will believe.