A Small Victory

So let me get this straight... the media was warned of the location of an attack, and there still was an attack. So they were there for the scoop but didn't bother to tell anyone. Vermin.

No. "They had received a tip to be at that location." The quotation doesn't indicate what kind of tip it was or whether it was any more specific than "Hey, if I were you, I'd be at place X on day Y at time Z."

Most of the media types are nothing more than another arrow in the Islamists quiver.

Add a dash of "Allahu Akbar," a pinch of ululation, blur your eyes a bit and they look about the same. They hate America just as much.

What I want to know is how come the "media" did not tell the Army they got a tip to be there? Not only can you not trust the media to give unbias reporting, you can't even count on them for information that would possibly save lives.

What a bunch of whores.

While they may not have been told specifically that there'd be an attack, any intelligent being might've come to the conclusion that it was a possibility, given the situation and location. To sit there waiting, without alerting the appropriate authorities, is appalling.

What vultures.

I'm with y'all on this. Those reporters are on the other side.

Not surprised, plenty disgusted. Remember this, Michele?

A1989 installment of PBS' "Ethics in America," moderated by Harvard University professor Charles Ogletree, posed an ethical dilemma to veteran 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace and ABC News anchor Peter Jennings. If they were traveling with an enemy army and they learned the army was planning to ambush American forces, would they do anything to warn the American soldiers? Wallace replied that he hopes all journalists "would regard it simply as another story that they are there to cover." Jennings agreed.

The Germans in Nazi Germany were only following orders, and the journalists of this modern era are only doing their jobs, and of course anyone who sees a similarity in the two attitudes is obviously questioning the patriotism of the media and oh, no, we can't have that.

shoot, shovel, shut up.

Rope, Tree, Journalist*

*some assembly required.

ilyka - I watched that series, and have never forgotten that disgusting reply. I just couldn't believe it, and comforted myself that Wallace was just showing off.

I still have a hard time believing any American journalists would sit still and wait for our boys to be ambushed....

Al Jazeera did this, or the BBC, I would be outraged. If Americans did this, I hope they not only never work again, I hope they go to prison.

This wouldn't have happened if Rush Limbaugh was in charge.

Maybe it's time to give a few Al-Jazeerah correspondents some fake tips and put then in the middle of a crossfire or at the wrong end of mortar practice.

"Hey... Habib... Ibrahim... be at the casbah around 5:15... and wave your arms a lot so the spotters can range you..."

Just another story in the great unfolding drama of life – I wonder if they would have acted so very, very professionally if they had been invited to witness an attack on other journalists??

I hope the questioning was...aggressive.

Daniel Perl responded to a tip from known terrorists, and went from covering the news to being the news.

You lay down with dogs...

It would be a shame if people who showed up with a camera at something like this were assumed to be terrorists and got shot. Wouldn't it?

You can't be too careful these days.

Hopefully their names and affiliations will be forthcoming. Perhaps they reside somewhere close by. They could be picketed.

Carrie,why insult whores like that?At least with them,you know where you stand,or kneel as the case may be.

Glad to see you saw this story. I read it this morning and was pissed. I was hoping I was reading it wrong - but apparently not. Now I hope those soldiers put this in much clearer perspective for them!!

I thought I was a pretty objective journalist myself, but this is not objectivity--this is callousness.

There's an old J-school anecdote professors like to spring on unsuspecting students in class--there's this dude who calls the media and says he's going to set himself on fire to protest something-or-other. I want to say it was from the vietnam era. So a TV crew goes out where the guy said he was going to be, and there he is, gas can and all. The jackoffs acutally stand there and film him pouring gasoline all over himself and trying to light a match. If I remember correctly, one reporter finally gets cold feet and calls the cops once the match is lit up--but the camera guy is still filming when the police get there.

There's another one where an elected official somewhere in the midwest is giving a resignation speech and gets pretty emotional in the middle of it, pulls a gun from under the podium, and shoots himself. Some nut is standing to the left of the podium snapping still shots, while others are letting the cameras roll the entire time.

Just to say that this kind of footage at all costs mentality is not a new phenomenon. Despicable, certainly--a lowlife, don't-give-a-rat-s-ass kind of mentality--but not a new one.

mbruce,
Quite true...at least whores are upfront about what they do...
I do owe them an apology, don't I?

Perhaps in the case of THESE whores, we should come up with a qualifier that distinguishes them from the other (more honorable) profession..
media whores?
news whores?
Anybody?
bueller?

Doesn't that make the reporters an accessory or some such?

I hope the reporters are charged.

They received a tip to be at that location? I wonder what the details of the conversation was. Surely they had to know something. Nobody is just gonna go show up without any details, especially when reporters are beheaded in that country by terrorists.

22 years ago, someone in Hollywood tried to point this out:

http://www.seanconnery.com/filmography/details/index.cfm?25

A mediocre movie, but the whole idea of terrorists calling up the press and blowing themselves up in front of them was a crucial point in the movie.

The fundamental reasons of being that the press use for themselves are mutually incompatible. On the one hand they claim to be important pillars of society, agents of positive social change, and examples of social responsibility. On the other hand they claim to be disinterested, unbiased observers. It's obvious why they do this, they want praise but they don't want responsibility. They want to get the story but not have to feel bad about all the underhanded crap they did to get it. Of course they can't have it both ways, eventually they may even realize they can't.

Some of you may remember this story - I wonder which magazine the lady is working for? (original no longer available for non-subscribers)

You're referring to "Wrong is Right"; the very cynical take on McCarry's
the Better Angels,where the Pilgerisque
or Fiskable character, is portrayed by
Connery, as a hero (I saw it recently,
dubbed in Spanish, no less) whose
premise, McCarry admits now seemed outrageous is now very tame.

ALL members of the media are terrorists. (Except FoxNews - they are courageous patriots.) We should send them to Guantanamo Bay and let them rot. They are the cause of all of our problems. Them and activist judges.