US 'to blame' for journalist deaths
Discuss issues related to the politics of the UK, such as the actions of any MP, any current or potential law, or any other factor affecting the British political system.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| Please change your TSR password | 23-05-2013 | |
| Enter our travel-writing competition for the chance to win a Nikon 1 J3 camera | 20-05-2013 | |
-
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Overlord in Training
- Location: Area 51
US 'to blame' for journalist deathsIs the U.S. being blamed for everything?THE global managing editor of British news agency Reuters said today the US military was entirely to blame for the deaths of three of its employees in Iraq since the start of the war there in March 2003, an allegation disputed by the Pentagon.
The US military said a cameraman killed there while on assignment for Reuters died in a gunbattle between marines and insurgents, but the Iraqi man's colleagues and family have said they believe he was shot by a US sniper.....http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au...5E1702,00.html -
- Reputation:
- Junior Member
If i was the reporter that stabbed the guys in the back by showing that video to the world last week, i`d be getting out of iraq asap. But then again what would you expect when reporters are there trying to tear the soldiers down every step of the way. You get what you ask for in life, thats just the way it is.
-
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Overlord in Training
- Location: Area 51
What I found interesting, was the guy was supposedly killed by a sniper. Snipers carry sniper rifles with a 10 power scope. Seems like it would be pretty hard to confuse a cameraman with an insurgent.(Original post by Moncal)
Notice key words "entirely to blame". Who the hell had him there in the first place?
-
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: Washington DC
- Posts: 3,461
By 'stab the guys in the back' you mean do his job as a reporter? What, do you support some kind of governement cencorship where the reporter would fabricate the news?(Original post by UKantdothat)
If i was the reporter that stabbed the guys in the back by showing that video to the world last weekWhat on earth are you talking about? They are there to do what reporters do, REPORT.what would you expect when reporters are there trying to tear the soldiers down every step of the way. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
- Location: Benton, Arkansas
- Posts: 11,478
Obviously. If we hadn't invaded then there wouldn't have been a story.(Original post by technik)
yep...they are obviously to blame for reuters sending him in to a battlefield...
what a joke.
A simple forensic examination will tell all.What I found interesting, was the guy was supposedly killed by a sniper. Snipers carry sniper rifles with a 10 power scope. Seems like it would be pretty hard to confuse a cameraman with an insurgent. -
- Reputation:
- Junior Member
When you give the enemy any reason to stay inflamed and just cause more death hatred by publically provoking every muslim watching a tv, then you seriously have to be a retard to not see the downside of this. To say something like calling it govt censorship is not only idiotic and naive, but deadly. You should really try to use your brain once in a while.(Original post by Kondar)
By 'stab the guys in the back' you mean do his job as a reporter? What, do you support some kind of governement cencorship where the reporter would fabricate the news?What on earth are you talking about? They are there to do what reporters do, REPORT. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
- Location: London
Ah if only life were like an episode of CSI.(Original post by Moncal)
Obviously. If we hadn't invaded then there wouldn't have been a story.
A simple forensic examination will tell all.
The army did have more than acouple of gaffs during the war though when they fired on marked reporters (thought camera was a rocket launcher), fired tank shells at al-jazeera's hotel room (can't remember what they were thinking there, probably the same - saw camera glint and assumed it was a sniper scope), not to mention those that died who where embedded with the US army forces, and were targetted in an air strike...by a different part of said US army. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: Washington DC
- Posts: 3,461
Alright, would you apply this same ideal to the US? Should we eliminate viewings of the planes hitting the twin towers? Should our government have right over the media in what they can and cannot show? Maybe you need to come live in China with me. They still show the Olympics on TV here, but only events where China wins the gold medal.(Original post by UKantdothat)
When you give the enemy any reason to stay inflamed and just cause more death hatred by publically provoking every muslim watching a tv, then you seriously have to be a retard to not see the downside of this.What would you call it then? And by the way, you didn't answer ANY of my questions....To say something like calling it govt censorship is not only idiotic and naive, but deadly. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
- Location: London
THe media is an integral part of society today. People want to know everything that is going on. That's a fact. If they didn't then we'd all stop buying newspapers, and watching new channels. There was a huge interest in stories involving our forces, so of course the reporters are going to be there. In years past nearly all reporters were embedded within the military, as we often still see now. The NBC reporter for instance was embedded. Others of course are more freelance, which is admittedly higher risk. However, reuters tends to get a bit pissed off when its reporters are houses a US declared 'safe house' when some US troops (who for reasons unknown haven't been informed of the fact) spot moving humans (or maybe they were 'faking it') and start shooting.(Original post by UKantdothat)
When you give the enemy any reason to stay inflamed and just cause more death hatred by publically provoking every muslim watching a tv, then you seriously have to be a retard to not see the downside of this. To say something like calling it govt censorship is not only idiotic and naive, but deadly. You should really try to use your brain once in a while.
As for the censorship cack you spouted, Kondar was bang on. If they DIDN'T let the reporters in or tried (which i think these days is nigh impossible) to censor the feeds coming out of Iraq then that would have been outrage.
And lets face facts, if reporters weren't there, then rumours would simply be rife (unsubstantiated) of marines going house to house and slaughtering women and children. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: Washington DC
- Posts: 3,461
Yeah cencorship is HUGE in China. I cannot access several international websites, such as the BBC, religion is watered down and controlled by the government, and the news agencies are all government run (for those of you in the states, its similair to Fox News). The general feeling is that the government is protecting its citizens from outside lies and influence.(Original post by foolfarian)
Are they still that petty? Crikey i thought the place was improving. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Location: Pittsburgh
- Posts: 5,679
Government censorship is highly objectionable, but I wish journalists would use more caution before they present footage like this. That reporter could have awaited further investigation before lobbing that footage into the world, when the backstory isn't entirely known. Let's face it, today's journalists aren't interested in truth, they're interested in presenting something that gets noticed. The uproar created over this tape will most likely affect the investigation behind the incident. I would prefer an impartial decision over one which feels the need to placate all of the people screaming about the atrocity before knowing all of the facts.(Original post by Kondar)
Alright, would you apply this same ideal to the US? Should we eliminate viewings of the planes hitting the twin towers? Should our government have right over the media in what they can and cannot show? Maybe you need to come live in China with me. They still show the Olympics on TV here, but only events where China wins the gold medal. What would you call it then? And by the way, you didn't answer ANY of my questions.... -
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Location: Pittsburgh
- Posts: 5,679
I fail to see the comparison between an authoritarian state-run television network, and one that is independently owned, which creates programs targetting a specific audience for the benefit of ratings, and, thus, more ad revenue.(Original post by Kondar)
and the news agencies are all government run (for those of you in the states, its similair to Fox News). -
- Reputation:
- TSR Idol
- Location: .
- Posts: 9,188
Me either - perhaps the fact that Murdoch is rather authoritarian?(Original post by psychic_satori)
I fail to see the comparison between an authoritarian state-run television network, and one that is independently owned, which creates programs targetting a specific audience for the benefit of ratings, and, thus, more ad revenue. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Location: Pittsburgh
- Posts: 5,679
There is a difference between the slant of news for the financial benefit of a television network and slanting the news to "protect" people. I mean, if you don't want to watch Fox News, you can turn the channel and see a different perspective. In China, you just have a different news anchor repeating the same information.(Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
Me either - perhaps the fact that Murdoch is rather authoritarian? -
- Reputation:
- TSR Idol
- Location: .
- Posts: 9,188
That assumes that Mr Murdoch only has £$ to worry about - Im sure the power, and the ability to project his political opinion plays a role.(Original post by psychic_satori)
There is a difference between the slant of news for the financial benefit of a television network and slanting the news to "protect" people. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Location: Pittsburgh
- Posts: 5,679
Yeah, but if all conservatives were locked up, I'm sure he'd switch his agenda to a more profitable one. If he has no money, then his power would decrease.(Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
That assumes that Mr Murdoch only has £$ to worry about - Im sure the power, and the ability to project his political opinion plays a role.
