2004 - not a good year for journalists - Page 2




 
--
 
January 10th, 2005  
Kane
 
Quote:
Further these reporters who go into to Combat Zones, or deal with dangerous situations know the risks going in. They get no tears from me, I will reserve them for the military causalties.
Basically if they decide to go into a combat zone, they know they're risking their own lives. Ever since they are told that they are making tremendous risks, in their own hearts towards their careers, they are dedicated reporters. Although some of them can be a pain in the butt, I hold nothing against them.
January 10th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
Yeah they have the right to report. I don't like them embedded however. And I have no use for the Clown who filmed the Marines in Fallujah nor his "take" on it.

Further these reporters who go into to Combat Zones, or deal with dangerous situations know the risks going in. They get no tears from me, I will reserve them for the military causalties.
"To Devil Dogs of the 3.1:

Since the shooting in the Mosque, I've been haunted that I have not been able to tell you directly what I saw or explain the process by which the world came to see it as well. As you know, I'm not some war zone tourist with a camera who doesn't understand that ugly things happen in combat. I've spent most of the last five years covering global conflict. But I have never in my career been a 'gotcha' reporter -- hoping for people to commit wrongdoings so I can catch them at it.

This week I've even been shocked to see myself painted as some kind of anti-war activist. Anyone who has seen my reporting on television or has read the dispatches on this website is fully aware of the lengths I've gone to play it straight down the middle -- not to become a tool of propaganda for the left or the right.

But I find myself a lightning rod for controversy in reporting what I saw occur in front of me, camera rolling.

It's time you to have the facts from me, in my own words, about what I saw -- without imposing on that Marine -- guilt or innocence or anything in between. I want you to read my account and make up your own minds about whether you think what I did was right or wrong. All the other armchair analysts don't mean a damn to me."
http://www.kevinsites.net/


trust me 03, you should read it

i also do not agree with the "imbedding" of journalists, sure it gives us pretty and spectacular pictures but the lose the most vital thing for reporting the news... objectivity. they are to open to use by the military for their own ends.
January 10th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
I did read it. It smacks of "Please don't hate me, cause I nailed ya in the Keester." To me. As far as I'm concerned he can go play in a cross fire.
--
January 11th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
I did read it. It smacks of "Please don't hate me, cause I nailed ya in the Keester." To me. As far as I'm concerned he can go play in a cross fire.
awww give it a go, you'll be just as surprised as i was (but for different reasons!) at his balance. esp on his report on the taking of fallujah
January 27th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
Hey you got to remember that not all reporters are the same, and either way they're doing the world a service and whether you like it or not, without free press, democracy probably cannot survive.
Remember that reporters have brought the stories of soldiers to life. The most famous recent example would be Mark Bowden. The other was Joe Galloway who co-wrote "We Were Soldiers."
Not all actually go to the place at the time of conflict but you do know what I mean. People like these force the bad eggs in the military from spreading false information about conflicts, hurting the credibility and honor of the armed forces.

That's just the way I see it.
Then there are those who report lies. But what profession doesn't have its share of bad eggs?

By the way, there is no such thing as complete objectiveness. Ever. It is impossible.