Comments on: War Journos Under Fire

By: barbaylive

barbaylive — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 05:44:30 +0000

One of the worst injustices to a War Reporter is how the press decides to “edit” their material… And I believe that “selective edits” become the dangerous and unnecessary obstacles to a War-reporter’s safety…
To get an idea of an MSM editor’s motives, view this recent event:
–A Tree Falls In the Forest–
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/10/018743.php
AN ARAB PROVERB STATES — “Four things come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the neglected opportunity.” –General Sanchez
———
Bottom line: If we don’t raise the standard of the industry with respect to press fairness; we loose the important words of journalists who provide integrity to convey world events; only later to see them compromised.

By: Lucille

Lucille — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:41:31 +0000

Here’s a question nobody is asking: How do you accomplish anything in a land where people have spent the last 1000 years learning that violence is the solution to all problems? The Arab Nations have no history of debate or discourse, only decree.
The fact that they are “targeting” journalists shouldn’t surprise anyone. Who better to target? Who receives more coverage than a kidnapped/slaughtered journalist? And I use the word slaughtered on purpose. What the terrorists are doing is not murder. In their own minds they are slaughtering animals that have no right to live.
While it is possible they have legitimate grievances, no one will ever hear them over the screams of slaughtered innocents.

By: Tom Paine

Tom Paine — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 15:37:13 +0000

The “media” has had three years to work out the problems of how to cover this war.
They have failed — catastrophically.

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:59:05 +0000

The current news we are getting is already biased. So, embedded reporters will simply report with a different bias. How can accurate reports be made by reporters holed up in hotel rooms?
Embedded reporters would provide a more accurate view of what progress is being made. Most reports right now are from Baghdad, which is not the only city in Iraq by far.
The only reports worth anything right now are from embedded reporters. Anything else is just speculation and assumption.

By: ginnie deason

ginnie deason — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:15:52 +0000

The journalists in Iraq are the best source of what is really happening. The Bush administration has demonstrated time again that they lie and cover up issues. We, the citizens, are responsible for the actions of this country even when we are horrifed by the actions of the president. We need to know.

By: Mora

Mora — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 20:34:34 +0000

I don’t read Iraq news anyway so they should all feel free to do what they think best. I still won’t read it, the place bores me. Call me when you’ve all won.

By: Shawn Abel

Shawn Abel — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:57:22 +0000

What’s better, no news or biased news? Well… that depends. And the answer is debateable. Biased news is potentially more harmful than no news. We can all agree that, in the context of reporting the situation of Iraq to the West, both biased news and no news suck. So I guess the $64,000 question is: does embedding threaten objectivity, and how much?
I’m not going to pretend I can answer that question. I guess my only point is that your question is not as rhetorical as I think you meant it.

By: mynewsbot

mynewsbot — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:32:17 +0000

Shoot the savages