- This topic has 4 voices and 8 replies.
-
Posts
-
I ran across this article today about how NATO troops rescued a NYT reporter who had been captured in Afghanistan by the Taliban. There is nothing spectacular in the story itself except for perhaps the irony of any nations military rescuing the Press who go out of their way to make the military's job even harder and the NYT is on the top of the list of terrorist enablers and intelligence collectors in my book. What struck me was two short paragraphs at the end of the story, I will quote it in full here:
Farrell was the second New York Times journalist kidnapped in Afghanistan in less than a year. David Rohde was held in Afghanistan and Pakistan for seven months until June, when the newspaper says he escaped from captivity in Pakistan.As in Rohde's case, Reuters and other Western news organizations refrained from reporting the capture of Farrell and Munadi at the request of the newspaper, which believed that would improve the safety of the reporters.
I find it kind of depressing that the media will suppress stories about journalists that get kidnapped but trumpet the stories of soldiers that are captured. I guess this makes it plain that they care more for the safety of their fellow reporters than they do for the soldiers from their own nation who are fighting; anything for a story right? That is as long as it doesnt put professional colleagues at risk, dumb Joes are another matter entirely. The frank admission of news suppression implied in the above quote sets off all kinds of alarm bells in my head and makes me think that I am 100% correct in not trusting the media as far as I can throw them. What other news is being suppressed by the media because it might endanger something? I don't want to sound paranoid here but I losing all faith in the integrity of the media the more I read stories like this. The full article is here: NATO troops free kidnapped British reporter
IIRC, the NYT has published sensitive national security information in the past against presidential wishes. I wonder why a decision like that would have been made, but not a decision to publish information about a fellow journalist being captured. Regarding the information you posted here, I wonder – had some other newspaper gotten a hold of the story, would it have printed it in the name of “the public needs to know”?Don't get me wrong - I'm all for helping out the captured journalist, including through the use of media restraint as they did. It just seems inconsistent with their larger "tell all" policy.
Thanks for posting that Scout. The absurdity of it all!Obama loves to feed the fire for labor unions about the long suffering teachers, paramedics, doctors and nurses. Along the way he ignores the horrible conditions for our soldiers in Afghanistan and forgets that the military men and women are the ones who really lay it all on the line. George Will has said that the war should be fought off shore using drones, because its about to become another war run by democrats in Washington. McCrystal? Is he the NATO commander in charge? I wouldn't know I never hear from him. I heard from Gen. Patreus just about every week when he was in charge.
It just struck me as highlighting the hypocrisy of the media that they will suppress the news of a captured journalist to lower his propaganda value but will not do the same for a military person. It actually makes me mad enough to spit steel but I don?t see that we can do anything about it. They would probably shrug off complaints and have some supercilious thing to say justifying such a policy.
One of the Brit paras was killed, that is sad. Didn't the NYT jump on the Drudge bandwagon in outing Prince Harry's command in Afghanistan? Its striking, shocking and blatant disregard. Thank God I can type because I'm speechless.
The reporter blogged about his experience here. He does not sound very apologetic about causing the death of a British soldier who was trying to rescue him from his own stupidity. He sounds much sadder about the death of his interpreter. The recriminations are also starting in Britain and ole Gordy is trying to distance himself from the decision to launch a rescue mission. Why did you kill my son? Backlash against Afghan rescue operation grows I find it amusing that people spend so much time second guessing the military. We (the military) should just stand back and let the terrorist thugs have their way for a year and then listen to all the bleeding hearts beg us to protect them. The pacifists and naysayers make want to vomit. They never stop to think that the only reason they can spout their garbage is the people willing to risk their live defending the very freedom they abuse. Orwell has it right “Thousands of people sleep safe in their beds every night because of rough men willing to do violence on their behalf”. I have nothing but contempt for those that want to show compassion for terrorists or idiot reporters that put themselves in danger in search of a story and then complain because something bad happens to them. It is though they think the bullets should go around them because they are reporters.
This article was on Drudge:Without Bush, media lose interest in war casketsThe headline gives you the basic idea of the story, and I thought it was interesting - why did the media lose interest? I think that the fundamental answer is because soldiers dying under Obama doesn't fit the narrative - the story that the media has told and continues to tell.
This article was on Drudge:Without Bush, media lose interest in war casketsThe headline gives you the basic idea of the story, and I thought it was interesting - why did the media lose interest? I think that the fundamental answer is because soldiers dying under Obama doesn't fit the narrative - the story that the media has told and continues to tell.
I agree with you 100% here. The media is shaping and has shaped the publics perception of these wars since day one. It no longer fits their agenda to have the war top the headlines, because it would detatct from the media focus on enactment of the liberal agenda on health-care and cap-and-trade. They will make the wars go away because they no longer need them to beat up a president with.
Press cannot be impartial anymore since they must sell news rather than report. All based on what extra dirt can be provided. Not about the facts but where a slanted interp of same may take us. So too why aren't some of the facts being reported? Witness the business about the various Czars Obama is setting up? (Yes Bush had them too but not so many and not so controversial).
Press cannot be impartial anymore since they must sell news rather than report. All based on what extra dirt can be provided. Not about the facts but where a slanted interp of same may take us. So too why aren't some of the facts being reported? Witness the business about the various Czars Obama is setting up? (Yes Bush had them too but not so many and not so controversial).
+1It is not about news or informing people anymore. It is about evangelizing and converting people to a specific point of view.
