January 08, 2005

War Reporting

by Demosophist

This practice, and it's justification, recounted by The Bullpen just disgusts me:

An Associated Press photographer sat by while terrorists threw grenades at a car carrying Iraqi election officials and then executed them. Sure, the AP photographer would not be able to stop the attack nor should they, however they should not be in bed with the terrorists operating to defeat Democracy in Iraq.

The Associated Press has helped pave the way in calling those that commit terrorist attacks militants, rebels or insurgents. While terrorists behead innocents, strap explosives to their waists and attack innocent Iraqis or target Coallition soldiers with IEDs, the AP only refers to them as a pest. The AP has tried to explain this by saying their reporters could be placed in harmÂ’s way while they interviewed terrorists if they called them terrorists.

So, apparently all the child molesters need to do to get more sympathetic coverage is to start making credible threats to kill a few journalists. What'll they be called I wonder, the "alternatively age preferenced?" Does anyone besides terrorists and sociopaths really need a press like this? (Hat tip: Chad )

(Cross-posted by Demosophist to Demosophia and Anticipatory Retaliation)

Posted by: Demosophist at 08:12 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Since publicity is the enemy goal, arrest these guys and try them as accessories to the crimes they publicize.

Posted by: Gene 6-Pack at January 08, 2005 09:27 AM (7XPVo)

2 ****So, apparently all the child molesters need to do to get more sympathetic coverage is to start making credible threats to kill a few journalists. ***** That's not fair and you know it. Heavily armed suicidal psychopaths pose a REAL danger to journalists and, given the necessary impartiality of the free press, it makes perfect sense for correspondents to call the terrorists 'rebels' or 'militants' - such terms don't endorse the terrorist acts at all, they simply make clear that the journalists aren't on anyone's side. Your analogy with paedophiles just doesn't make any sense - Iraq is a war zone and there are two opposing sides that need to be understood (even if one side is so blatantly wrong)! It's time the American right realised that the UN and the 'liberal elite media' have a DUTY to distance themselves from the policies of the US administration - by doing so they are being true patriots as they're defending the core principles of democracy (i.e. propaganda-free press). So stop getting so pissed off at them!!!

Posted by: Martin at January 08, 2005 12:17 PM (ll2pj)

3 Martin, it's about time the liberal left realized that murder is murder and not "insurgency" and quit quietly endorsing them. Words count, and for anybody to stand by and watch murder occur is heinous.

Posted by: Bill at January 08, 2005 04:07 PM (ScOBm)

4 I've been beating up the Associatedantiamerican Press for 8 months. Glad you newbies finally figgered it out.

Posted by: Eric at January 08, 2005 08:33 PM (lK7Sh)

5 If insurgency cannot encompass murder then please explain the historical battles in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq (WW2), Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Cuba, Argentina etc etc War is murder. It's a war even if you don't recognise the legitimacy of your opponent. War is dictated by the facts on the ground. For a nation that loves warmongering so much it's remarkable how little most Americans know about war. Go watch Dr Strangelove Bill.

Posted by: Martin at January 08, 2005 11:13 PM (ll2pj)

6 Also, there is the possibility that it's not a "when" the mission is accomplished, but "if." Iraq, for all we know, may be a permanent home to a large contingent of US troops, due to the historical instability in the region. But, of course, this is a generalisation as well. War isn't "murder," though it certainly involves "homicide." The two aren't synonymous in either a moral or a legal sense. It is not attacks on the US military by the "insurgents" that makes them illegitimate. It's the abductions, torture, and yes murder of people who clearly are noncombatants and who often have purely humanitarian functions. There's a line, and they've crossed it. That's what this blog is all about.

Posted by: Demosophist at January 11, 2005 09:54 AM (7AGFb)

7 Ah Martin: War mongering America. What perfect nation are you from? They are not rebels. There isn't a real government to rebel against. They are against freedom of choice. They are against having a freely elected government to rebel against. Freedom of choice for all the people of Iraq. The terrorists start every killing with praises to their murderous God. They are a combination of religious fanatics and Sunnis who are afraid of the majority vote. If carrying the weight of freedom around the world is war mongering so be it. I call it taking a courageous stand when others don't. The world needs it. America does the work while other nations less than us reap the benefits. We defeated the communist threat. We will defeat the Muslim threat. Anyone, reporter or other that gives any creedence in any form to the cowardly Islamic killers is in part responsible for future murders. I WILL NOT MAKE EXCUSES FOR ASSHOLES THAT PUT A STORY BEFORE A LIFE. That is not part of a free society. If I see a attack on a defenseless person I don't film it. I try and stop it. Even if I get attacked in the process. It's called manhood. Some severely lacking in some.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 17, 2005 08:27 PM (Vc+ll)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
20kb generated in CPU 0.0194, elapsed 0.1373 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.1273 seconds, 243 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.