CNN a tool for Propaganda ?

[vladimir]

vlad so do I .

But when its the enemy handing you a video THEY made for the express purpose of propaganda is it still " reporting the news " or is it being used as a tool ?

Your a smart guy you figure it out.

if it would be shown in full length and without any commentary, yes, absolutely.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Isn't 60 minutes going down this road too with that interview with the president of Iran. He seem like a good old boy then. But then he gets back to Iran and makes statements about all the infidels must die!

 

[ledhed]

if it would be shown in full length and without any commentary, yes, absolutely.

You must not have watched how it was shown on CNN Anderson Cooper 360 .

 

[vladimir]

Isn't 60 minutes going down this road too with that interview with the president of Iran. He seem like a good old boy then. But then he gets back to Iran and makes statements about all the infidels must die!

bush made equally stupid statements like "who is not with us is with the terrorists" and thus accusing half of europe of supporting terrorism.

amadinedjad is an elected leader, of course one can interview him.

You must not have watched how it was shown on CNN Anderson Cooper 360 .

no i haven't, obviously. but i would be very interested to know.

 

[ledhed]

bush made equally stupid statements like "who is not with us is with the terrorists" and thus accusing half of europe of supporting terrorism.

amadinedjad is an elected leader, of course one can interview him.


no i haven't, obviously. but i would be very interested to know.

Wow ...while looked for the video I found this at u tube...

A must see

Viper zero fixed it.

 

[ledhed]

I broke something ?

 

[ledhed]

Balance ?

Makes me want go shoot some insurgents. if it has the same effect on other Americans it would seem the intended result backfired.


It wont let me put all three in one post ...and cripes how else can you put it in perspective ?

I hope no one minds .

 

[vladimir]

sorry led, but those won't show up here, i just see white boxes.

i've found this on youtube, though, which seems to be the full sniper report from CNN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujMVxZol0fk

thats not propaganda, even if it is a bit dramatic. the videos are used in a report that deals with the dangers that snipers pose to US troops in iraq and the insurgent's video is marked as such and commented upon.

 

[Solid Fro]

Hannity & Colmes:



Original terrorist tape airing on CNN:



CNN is stunned that Marines shoot things:

 

[ledhed]

Hannity & Colmes:



Original terrorist tape airing on CNN:



CNN is stunned that Marines shoot things:

Tell me what I did wrong Viper ?

 

[a6m5]

I agree with Vladi as well.

1) As far as I can tell, they are reporting the truth. Soldiers are dying in Iraq, I don't think they are making it sound/seem better or worse. I think most Americans already have an idea of how bad it is over there. This report didn't seem one-sided at all to me.

2) If this is an Anti-Bush, Pro-Insurgents/Terrorist propaganda, it is a extremely weak one. Only people this supposed propaganda helps is the Anti-Iraq War people, like they needed any help.

3) CNN is not CIA, NSA, or any kind of Federal Agency. It is not their job to lead the Americans to bust their enemies. Because I want the news agencies to remain neutral in their stance, I don't want them taking part in fighting for America. American reporters getting interviews or videos from the enemy does not bother me. It's their job to try to obtain all the available info out there. IMO, what CNN did here, they did not cross the line.

For the millionth time, I'm all for the U.S. staying in Iraq to help with the rebuilding. They should have never gone in there, but since they've already done it, I think it's their responsibility to help them out stabilize. Also, the U.S. presence in Iraq is drawing fire away from the U.S. This IMO helps reducing the terrorist attack inside America, as selfish as it sounds.

I think it's very possible that CNN is biased(I don't have cable, so I honestly don't know). But regarding this paticular report, no, I don't think it's a propaganda.

 

[Mike Rotch]

Sorry Mike, that's just too conspiracy-theory for me to swallow. Let me guess, you hate America, you hate George Bush, you hate Capitalism, you hate the rich, and you hate big business.

Did I sum it up pretty well?

Not particularly, but that doesnt stop you from assuming you are correct (as usual).

 

[Touring Mars]

Watching 'Newsnight' on the BBC last night, I couldn't help thinking that CNN may be being a little hard done by here. So what, they showed footage of someone taking a potshot at a US soldier... it's hardly encouraging people to become Iraqi insurgents... and it's hardly going to encourage any Iraqi insurgents any more than they are already 'encouraged'...

The BBC's David Loyn was with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and he even spoke to a regional commander who would not be identified on screen (for obvious reasons) because he is a wanted man... does that make the BBC complicit with the Taliban or 'anti-UK'??? Absolutely not... it is reportage, pure and simple. If it's happening, then it should be our right as free people to see what is really going on... not just what the military or anyone else 'wants' us to see...

Perhaps by attempting to understand 'the enemy' a bit more - by understanding the actual facts about what is happening on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, then people can make more informed decisions about who they should be supporting politically back home... sticking your head in the sand and pretending that this crap is not happening is only going to make matters worse. I applaud the BBC for getting to the brass tacks and showing us what is really going on, and by the same token, I don't think that CNN are 'spreading propaganda' simply by showing footage of actual events...

 

[FoolKiller]

i thought the CIA was aware of the fact that saddam at least occasionally was to be found in his palace. so in what way could mr. rather have helped them?

Saddam had multiple palaces and hidden ways to move from one to another undetected. I am sure that the CIA could have found a covert way to track Dan Rather to Saddam and thus be able to pinpoint his location, making any kind of removal quick and easy.

But this is all speculation on my part, as I don't know the full CIA or Iraqi intelligence capabilities. So I think I will drop this semi-off topic issue. You can even have the last word if you want.

i did not object that. i just stated that embedded reporters do the propaganda job for them because in all their embeddedness they are unable to do anything else.

I have seen plenty of "while sitting with American soldiers we saw these civilians get killed," or the "this soldier was shot while we were with him and he could have been at home with his wife and newborn daughter--here is their picture," kind of stories.

they did not show the complete video. and even if they did, as long as they would mark it as being a propaganda video and would discuss it later, they could show the whole video as a document.

My biggest complaint so far is that they are taking footage from an enemy they have contact with and showing it. I also had an issue when I heard Sean Hannity play the beheading audio on his radio show to "show us how evil these people are." Showing me how they died is not necessary to report that they died in a sniper shot or a beheading. Both of these had opposite agendas but I reacted negatively to both. The difference with thsi case is that instead of pulling teh footage off of the Internet or Al Jazeera CNN is actually contacting teh insurgents.

he was no a terrorist, he was a member of the iraqi government. i don't see why any reason the media shouldn't cover an iraqi press conference. rumsfeld himself even shook saddams hand...

I don't think I made myself clear. You mentioned us showing US press conferences and I was contrasting that we do show enemy press conferences, even during war with a battle raging in the background. Terrorists and insurgents, however do not belong to any organized system that has official press agents and so communicating with them means communicating directly with people who are planning the deaths of our soldiers.

i didn't say that. i said that for his very nature, an embedded reporter is limited in such a way that he can only put forward a biased view (which is a kind of propaganda.) for the same reason, a video produced by some insurgents themselves is propaganda (same limitation.)
both become news, however, when the media takes those limited views and put them and other information together to present us with the bigger picture.

I think we've begun arguing thsi twice per post now. My response to this is the same as up above.

so apparently it was dealt with. i don't see how those two connect.

They lied about it for ten years, reporting on Americans bombing civilians (which didn't happen) and other attrocities created by Americans.

i just wanted to say that i preferred scaremongering over lies, if i had to choose...

Well, I would think that Fox News' "this war stops planes from flying into buildings here at home" approach is more scaremongering than anything CNN has done. Fox actually does a decent job of separating their commentary from their news reports. During eth day with news reports you get flaming truck in a high speed chase stories and even reports on attacks in Iraq and accusations against teh president. Then in prime time is when teh commentary comes in, which is cleary listed as commentary, and you have Bill O'Reilly proclaiming that if we don't kill them they will kill all of us. CNN's Anderson Cooper is not a commentary show and running news that makes it look as if Iraq is hopeless without ever showing the girls going to school and the multiple running businesses or the civilians who want teh US to stay is a bit one-sided during a news show. The same goes for Wolf "so poor and so black" Blitzer. Now, when Lou Dobbs goes off on his rants against capitalism I know he is a commentator and that is what he is on about.

anyway, i'm actually interested in this issue. are there any news channels that do proper reporting?

Here is a UCLA study on the subject and some of the relatively surprising results. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

Isn't 60 minutes going down this road too with that interview with the president of Iran. He seem like a good old boy then. But then he gets back to Iran and makes statements about all the infidels must die!

You mean the show that had the Bush's National Guard Papers Scandal and lets Andy Rooney ramble on for 5 minutes about whatever ticked him off that week?

1) As far as I can tell, they are reporting the truth. Soldiers are dying in Iraq, I don't think they are making it sound/seem better or worse. I think most Americans already have an idea of how bad it is over there. This report didn't seem one-sided at all to me.

I addressed this above: I don't need to see it to have it reported and contacting peopel who are attempting to kill our soldiers in order to get your footage bothers me.

2) If this is an Anti-Bush, Pro-Insurgents/Terrorist propaganda, it is a extremely weak one. Only people this supposed propaganda helps is the Anti-Iraq War people, like they needed any help.

And conveniently less than a month before Election Day.

3) CNN is not CIA, NSA, or any kind of Federal Agency. It is not their job to lead the Americans to bust their enemies. Because I want the news agencies to remain neutral in their stance, I don't want them taking part in fighting for America. American reporters getting interviews or videos from the enemy does not bother me. It's their job to try to obtain all the available info out there. IMO, what CNN did here, they did not cross the line.

What about interviewing criminals on the run and hiding their identity and other similar situations? Should they protect the serial killer for the sake of being able to tell his side of it? "A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti." Then we would all understand because it was a census taker.

The BBC's David Loyn was with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and he even spoke to a regional commander who would not be identified on screen (for obvious reasons) because he is a wanted man... does that make the BBC complicit with the Taliban or 'anti-UK'??? Absolutely not... it is reportage, pure and simple. If it's happening, then it should be our right as free people to see what is really going on... not just what the military or anyone else 'wants' us to see...

This is probably why it is a good thing that I switched from communications to telecommunicatiosn when I was in college. I wouldn't be able to do this because the moment I found out information that could save the lives of US soldiers I would want to get it out as quickly as possible. I can read a teleprompter without showing bias, but I could never see sensitive information that would be useful to my own country without doing what I could to get it out.

I would be a horrible reporter.

 

[Swift]

Hmmm...

I'm hearing a lot of "They're just reporting what's happening" and "CNN is not the CIA" Ok...

Can anyone name a war when soldiers on both sides didn't die? I certainly can't. So how is it news? If it's it true and unbiased, there's no way you can tell me they don't have video of American forces killing insurgents. Why don't they air that?

And if CNN has privy to enemy contacts and keeps those "confidential" that's just pitiful and at least conspiracy with the enemy, if not treason.

The insurgent leaders KNOW that it's election time over here. Why do you think it was sent when it was? They are very much trying to effect the elections with this type of "media" and of course the heightened violence in Iraq. I understand that it's a special time for the Muslims right now, but it serves their purposes to do whatever they can to anger, dishearten and discourage American voters to get people in office that will yank the soldiers out of there. It's a very smart plan and of course, big media is just jumping to help them.

 

[a6m5]

Regarding the election, I refer you guys to this part of my previous post:

I2) If this is an Anti-Bush, Pro-Insurgents/Terrorist propaganda, it is a extremely weak one. Only people this supposed propaganda helps is the Anti-Iraq War people, like they needed any help.

IMO, it was already as bad as it could have possibly gotten.

Also, again, reporters shouldn't be expected to go after terrorists, or serial killers. Not their job.

 

[Swift]

Also, again, reporters shouldn't be expected to go after terrorists, or serial killers. Not their job.

Very correct. But they can certainly tell the proper authorities where they are or at least point them in the right direction.

 

[FoolKiller]

Also, again, reporters shouldn't be expected to go after terrorists, or serial killers. Not their job.

I'm not saying they should be making citizens arrests or doing the shooting themselves, but if they are going to get an exclusive interview and they know the person is going to kill again I would believe that their moral obligation to prevent that, by alerting the authorities, would be greater than their professional obligation to protect their source. By doing this the reporter shows that they value their job over the lives of others. How can you defend that?

 

[vladimir]

Saddam had multiple palaces and hidden ways to move from one to another undetected. I am sure that the CIA could have found a covert way to track Dan Rather to Saddam and thus be able to pinpoint his location, making any kind of removal quick and easy.

But this is all speculation on my part, as I don't know the full CIA or Iraqi intelligence capabilities. So I think I will drop this semi-off topic issue. You can even have the last word if you want.

i'd go further and say by your own argumentatio, the raid would have to go down while dan rather was there (because saddam could or most definately would change places after the interview and thus the information wouldn't be of any use afterwards.)
this would put the lifes of the journalist and his team in great danger and there is now way that you can expect CNN to take that risk.
it would also mean that special forces would have to be present in baghdad and be able to storm or sneak into a heavily guarded palace without much planning. that looks very much like a suicide mission to me...

I have seen plenty of "while sitting with American soldiers we saw these civilians get killed," or the "this soldier was shot while we were with him and he could have been at home with his wife and newborn daughter--here is their picture," kind of stories.

fair point. lets say that while embedded reporters are limited in their movement, the military at least has the decency not to censor what they report.

My biggest complaint so far is that they are taking footage from an enemy they have contact with and showing it. I also had an issue when I heard Sean Hannity play the beheading audio on his radio show to "show us how evil these people are." Showing me how they died is not necessary to report that they died in a sniper shot or a beheading. Both of these had opposite agendas but I reacted negatively to both. The difference with thsi case is that instead of pulling teh footage off of the Internet or Al Jazeera CNN is actually contacting teh insurgents.

why should they not contact insurgents or any terrorists for that matter?

regarding:

What about interviewing criminals on the run and hiding their identity and other similar situations? Should they protect the serial killer for the sake of being able to tell his side of it? "A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti." Then we would all understand because it was a census taker.

i think its a little different if they came across a wanted serial killer on US soil or if they dealt with an enemy during war. a serial killer doesn't really have much of an own side to the story. now terrorist aren't exactly statesmen either, but they're somewhere inbetween. i'll have to think about this more, later, since i don't have much more time right now.

I don't think I made myself clear. You mentioned us showing US press conferences and I was contrasting that we do show enemy press conferences, even during war with a battle raging in the background. Terrorists and insurgents, however do not belong to any organized system that has official press agents and so communicating with them means communicating directly with people who are planning the deaths of our soldiers.

according to CNN there was an informant involved.

They lied about it for ten years, reporting on Americans bombing civilians (which didn't happen) and other attrocities created by Americans.

i don't know anything about that so i can't really find a conclusion here. did they do this intentionally?

Well, I would think that Fox News' "this war stops planes from flying into buildings here at home" approach is more scaremongering than anything CNN has done. Fox actually does a decent job of separating their commentary from their news reports. During eth day with news reports you get flaming truck in a high speed chase stories and even reports on attacks in Iraq and accusations against teh president. Then in prime time is when teh commentary comes in, which is cleary listed as commentary, and you have Bill O'Reilly proclaiming that if we don't kill them they will kill all of us. CNN's Anderson Cooper is not a commentary show and running news that makes it look as if Iraq is hopeless without ever showing the girls going to school and the multiple running businesses or the civilians who want teh US to stay is a bit one-sided during a news show. The same goes for Wolf "so poor and so black" Blitzer. Now, when Lou Dobbs goes off on his rants against capitalism I know he is a commentator and that is what he is on about.

seems like the US media is very different from the german. opinionated comments are very rare over here.

i didn't see much commentary in that report on the snipers however.

Here is a UCLA study on the subject and some of the relatively surprising results. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

thats interesting, thanks for the link.
compared to (western-)europe, however, one should keep in mind that the american political left, the democrats, are usually regarded to be more like the european (moderate) right. i say moderate right here because in germany, if we talk about the right, we usually adress the extreme right...

I would be a horrible reporter.

 

[a6m5]

Very correct. But they can certainly tell the proper authorities where they are or at least point them in the right direction.

I'm not saying they should be making citizens arrests or doing the shooting themselves, but if they are going to get an exclusive interview and they know the person is going to kill again I would believe that their moral obligation to prevent that, by alerting the authorities, would be greater than their professional obligation to protect their source. By doing this the reporter shows that they value their job over the lives of others. How can you defend that?

I think that's a personal choice to make, and IMO, will make you a poor reporter. What you guys are asking of reporters will automatically makes them snitches, informants, maybe even undercover agents.

Personally, if I was put in a situation where I could help bust a serial murderer, I would. Then again, I'd never be a reporter.... or defense lawyer or politician or used car salesman.

 

[niky]

I'm not in here much anymore, but speaking from the point of view of someone who lives in a country where politics isn't shifted so far to the right (politico-topological right, not moral right), I'd always thought CNN was conservative propaganda... especially during the invasions, with all the "War for Freedom" , "War on Terror" and such...

I'm like a6m5... I support the retention of troops in Iraq, if only to crush the insurgency and ensure the stability needed to make Iraqi democracy prosper (especially since the Iraqi army and police seem entirely inept at stopping the insurgents). But I believe that to hide the truth of war is a disservice to the people.

We had an incident a while back, where an Army colonel defected. Rumors of troop movement and mass defection were rife. The Government threatened to put a gag order on media, because, to quote: "The were causing panic and chaos".

What was the media showing?

They were showing soldiers milling about, seemingly lost. Not threatening to kill anybody, just seeming perturbed. And the masses of people and supporters rumored to be amassing around the soldiers? The media showed a straggle of people standing at the gates... and merely a few hundred marching in the streets.

Hardly a revolution or coup d'etat.

Yet, if the government had gagged media, it would have seemed so much worse.

To hide the truth of Iraq will only add fuel to the fire... sending a message to the American public that maybe the truth is too horrible to report. More people will ask questions, more people will become dissatisfied with what's happening.

It's better that people know. Period. Most people are too dumb to think it through, but that's always the danger in a system like ours, and that's the trade-off we accept for the right of free speech and self-governance.

 

[Swift]

I think that's a personal choice to make, and IMO, will make you a poor reporter. What you guys are asking of reporters will automatically makes them snitches, informants, maybe even undercover agents.

Personally, if I was put in a situation where I could help bust a serial murderer, I would. Then again, I'd never be a reporter.... or defense lawyer or politician or used car salesman.

Let's see..get the "story" or let American soldiers get killed. Yep, I'm going to just get the story. So what if the men getting killed are the very ones protecting my freedom of the press. Yeah, that doesn't matter at all.

That was totally sarcastic, but that's what I feel about people that would have important information like that and just hold on to it.

 

[Danoff]

Not particularly, but that doesnt stop you from assuming you are correct (as usual).

Ah, the old fall-back-on-logical-fallacy approach. I'm surprised you had the time to resort to insult, what with your hard work on conspiracy theories and all.

 

[FoolKiller]

i'd go further and say by your own argumentatio, the raid would have to go down while dan rather was there (because saddam could or most definately would change places after the interview and thus the information wouldn't be of any use afterwards.)
this would put the lifes of the journalist and his team in great danger and there is now way that you can expect CNN to take that risk.

I'll give you that Rather's life would have to be at risk.

it would also mean that special forces would have to be present in baghdad and be able to storm or sneak into a heavily guarded palace without much planning. that looks very much like a suicide mission to me...

Troops were massing at the border and you think there weren't any covert special forces already in the country?

why should they not contact insurgents or any terrorists for that matter?

I feel there is a moral boundary between getting an exclusive and not calling the authorities to prevent more death.

according to CNN there was an informant involved.

I bet he could have become a US informant as well, even if he didn't know he was.

i don't know anything about that so i can't really find a conclusion here. did they do this intentionally?

The actual story from the reporter, that he told to the NYTimes or Washington Post (I can't remember exactly) was that he was being taken by Iraqi minders to a civilian farm that had been bombed by the Americans. The reporter saw evidence of heavy armor and farm equipment that appeared burned, but not bombed. At one point he caught sight of artillery just on teh horizon. When he reported to his chief what he had seen and that he wanted to report on that, not what the Iraqi government was feeding him, he was excused from the story and released at the end of his contract.

seems like the US media is very different from the german. opinionated comments are very rare over here.

There is jourmnalism and commentary, but many times stories are presented without properly allowing the opposing side to be told. You can tell it is happening when one station has a bunch of Iraqis saying they hate America and another station has a bunch saying they love America. No journalist gives their opinion but they neglect to show all the footage. Honest reporting has both sides represented.

i didn't see much commentary in that report on the snipers however.

It presents an image of American soldiers being helplessly slaughtered and shows many troop ssuffering from low morale. You can go online and find footage of American troops taking out helpless insurgents, but we never see that "look how good America is doing" footage. Why not? Why is it always the footage of Americans or civilians being wiped out, making the war look hopeless?

I think that's a personal choice to make, and IMO, will make you a poor reporter. What you guys are asking of reporters will automatically makes them snitches, informants, maybe even undercover agents.

Here is the trick: You can report on people being killed without asking the killer for a videotape and then preventing those who are trying to stop him from finding him. If you hide the killer(s) so that you can continue your correspondence with them you are no longer trying to do your job, you are trying to get an exclusive and beat your competitors at the cost of human decency.

I'd always thought CNN was conservative propaganda... especially during the invasions, with all the "War for Freedom" , "War on Terror" and such...

Well, War on Terror is an official term and then big titles with pretty colors is just a common media thing nowadays.

I'm like a6m5... I support the retention of troops in Iraq, if only to crush the insurgency and ensure the stability needed to make Iraqi democracy prosper (especially since the Iraqi army and police seem entirely inept at stopping the insurgents). But I believe that to hide the truth of war is a disservice to the people.

How would reporting on American soldiers facing sniper attacks without corresponding with the enemy and showing their video have hidden any truth of war?

Yet, if the government had gagged media, it would have seemed so much worse.

To hide the truth of Iraq will only add fuel to the fire... sending a message to the American public that maybe the truth is too horrible to report. More people will ask questions, more people will become dissatisfied with what's happening.

It's better that people know. Period. Most people are too dumb to think it through, but that's always the danger in a system like ours, and that's the trade-off we accept for the right of free speech and self-governance.

I am not asking for censorship by the government. I'd be the first person to fight against that. I am asking for a bit decency from the media. I don't have to live with Charles Manson to tell you what he did and I don't have to send him in with a camera to explain how horrifying it was.

 

[KSaiyu]

Heh, so CNN is like the BBC eh?

 

[vladimir]

I'll give you that Rather's life would have to be at risk.

should be reason ernough.

Troops were massing at the border and you think there weren't any covert special forces already in the country?

in the country maybe. but storming one of saddams palace without planning would be another thing...

I feel there is a moral boundary between getting an exclusive and not calling the authorities to prevent more death.

guess i can't say anything against that.
as i said, i find that issue complicated myself...

I bet he could have become a US informant as well, even if he didn't know he was.

i, as a journalist in that situation, would have been afraid of my informant being imprisoned (and tortured) in some secret prison to be totally honest...

The actual story from the reporter, that he told to the NYTimes or Washington Post (I can't remember exactly) was that he was being taken by Iraqi minders to a civilian farm that had been bombed by the Americans. The reporter saw evidence of heavy armor and farm equipment that appeared burned, but not bombed. At one point he caught sight of artillery just on teh horizon. When he reported to his chief what he had seen and that he wanted to report on that, not what the Iraqi government was feeding him, he was excused from the story and released at the end of his contract.

thats certainly not what i understand under journalism...
have there been more incidents like this at CNN?

There is jourmnalism and commentary, but many times stories are presented without properly allowing the opposing side to be told. You can tell it is happening when one station has a bunch of Iraqis saying they hate America and another station has a bunch saying they love America. No journalist gives their opinion but they neglect to show all the footage. Honest reporting has both sides represented.

agreed...

It presents an image of American soldiers being helplessly slaughtered and shows many troop ssuffering from low morale. You can go online and find footage of American troops taking out helpless insurgents, but we never see that "look how good America is doing" footage. Why not? Why is it always the footage of Americans or civilians being wiped out, making the war look hopeless?

if its american troops taking out helpless insurgents, then maybe its better if it is not shown because that might backfire.
anyway, is there much positive news to report from iraq right now?
i remember from the war itself that there were mostly good news. everybody was surprised about the quick progress and how "unviolent" it was. but since then, the situation seems to have grown worse over time with the average number of US soldiers killed each month slowly rising.
(btw: i absolutely hate talking about human beings as average numbers. thats why i actually welcome those pictures to be shown because i think they deserve to be treated like beings, not numbers. although i can clearly imagine how someone might feel otherwise due to the nature and context of the programme.)

 

[a6m5]

Let's see..get the "story" or let American soldiers get killed. Yep, I'm going to just get the story. So what if the men getting killed are the very ones protecting my freedom of the press. Yeah, that doesn't matter at all.

That was totally sarcastic, but that's what I feel about people that would have important information like that and just hold on to it.

I understand the sarcasm, but I think you just answered your own question there.

Here is the trick: You can report on people being killed without asking the killer for a videotape and then preventing those who are trying to stop him from finding him. If you hide the killer(s) so that you can continue your correspondence with them you are no longer trying to do your job, you are trying to get an exclusive and beat your competitors at the cost of human decency.

It's not like the reporters are taking part in a cover up. As for showing the controversial footage, that was the call CNN made. Many of you dislike CNN. From my neutral stance, again, I don't see anything wrong with their report. Shocking, yes, but I can almost agree with CNN that they needed to show it to the American public. If FoolKiller News Network decided not to show the footage, I can respect that, too.

-------------------------------------------------

Swift and FK: You guys can stop telling me how wrong all this is. Waste of time. I have already stated that if I were put in the reporter's shoes, I would give up the identity of my contact.

 

[niky]

I am not asking for censorship by the government. I'd be the first person to fight against that. I am asking for a bit decency from the media. I don't have to live with Charles Manson to tell you what he did and I don't have to send him in with a camera to explain how horrifying it was.

👍 that's a given, but then, asking for decency from the media is like asking for logic from voters, or fairness from government... you live in a system, you pay the price, one way or another... sadly.