Posted on 03/26/2003 7:22:29 AM PST by CitizenSailorChief
This is from the old PBS "ETHICS IN AMERICA" show, but I think it is demonstrative of the attitudes of all too many reporters. Jennings needs to take his journalistic ethic with him when he goes back to Canada.
Moderator: You are safely traveling with an enemy unit as a foreign war correspondent. As fate would have it the enemy unit you are traveling with is about to ambush an American unit.
Jennings: As a reporter you have to make the decision going in that there is a possibility that you may come upon an American unit. My feeling is that, as a reporter, you have to make that decision before you went. And that if you are in, you are in. I would live in fear of coming across an American unit.
Moderator: So if you made that decision you would then film the enemy unit shooting the American unit?
Jennings: (Long pause…thinking) No…I guess I wouldn’t. I’ll tell you now what I’m feeling rather than the hypothesis I drew for myself. If I were with the enemy I would do what I could to warn the Americans.
Moderator: Even if it means not getting the live coverage?
Jennings: I don’t have much doubt it would mean my life. I’m glad this is hypothetical. I don’t think I could bring myself to participate in that fashion, by not warning the Americans. Some other reporters may feel otherwise.
Wallace: Some other reporters would feel otherwise. I would regard it simply as another story I was there to tell.
Moderator: Enemy soldiers shooting and killing American soldiers? Could you imagine how you would report that to the American people?
Wallace: Yes, I can. (Talking down to Jennings) Frankly, I’m astonished to hear Peter say that. You are a reporter. Granted you are an American. But you are a reporter covering combat. And I’m at a loss to understand why, because you are an American; you would not cover that story.
Moderator: Don’t you have a higher duty as an American citizen to do all you can to save the lives of American soldiers rather than this journalistic ethic of reporting the fact?
Wallace: No. You don’t have the higher duty. You are a reporter. Your job is to cover what is going on in that war. I would be calling Peter to say, “What do you mean you’re not going to cover the story.”
Jennings: I think he’s right. I chickened out. I agree with Mike intellectually. I really do. And I wish at the time, I’d made another decision. I would like to have made his decision.
Jennings: "I guess
I wouldn’t.
I’ll tell you now what
I’m feeling rather than the hypothesis
I drew for myself. If
I were with the enemy
I would do what
I could to warn the Americans.
I don’t have much doubt it would mean
my life.
I’m glad this is hypothetical.
I don’t think
I could bring myself to participate in that fashion, by not warning the Americans. Some other reporters may feel otherwise.
I think he’s right.
I chickened out.
I agree with Mike intellectually.
I really do. And
I wish at the time,
I’d made another decision.
I would like to have made his decision."
Its all about Him
ABC, Koppel and especially Peter Jennings, are always eager to defend Islamic terrorists,
give away factoids of US weapons' limitations even during battle
and always the critical position of US forces to their enemies anytime.
HEY, PETER JENNINGS, WHAT THE HE&& DID YOU SAY
HOW MANY COALITION PATRIOTS HAVE YOU HAD KIA TODAY?
THREE CHEERS FOR PRESIDENT BUSH AND THE COALITION PATRIOTS.
Ol' Petey will certainly be traveling light then, won't he?
Ol' Petey will certainly be traveling light then, won't he?
"During the next few minutes of discussion Wallace attempts to strengthen his position by likening the battlefield situation to that of a murder in a major city.
Through ethical analysis he concludes that if he had prior knowledge a murder was about to occur he would report it to the authorities to prevent the action.
He then tries to transfer this analysis to the ambush situation on the battlefield and further confuses himself in terms of his initial response.
Wallace: Now I’m going back and forth as I sit here. It’s a hell of a dilemma to be in. Now I don’t know what I think.
Not to be a grammar police or anything. ;o)
Why is everyone coming down harder on Jennings then on Wallace? At least Jennings had some doubt. Wallace was shocked that the consideration of warning the Americans was even entertained.
I see this in terms of the power relationship between the two men. Jennings is a network anchor, and is nominally the Top Dog. Of course Jennings is a complete light-weight, a haircut and a suit, and this is know to all, including Jennings. Wallace, on the other hand, fancies himself to be the Grand Old Man, the veteran, the keeper of the flame. Surely he has nothing but contempt and pity for the Lilleputian intellect of Lettuce Roll.
So Jennings fields the question. He hems and haws for a bit, but eventually comes up with the right answer. Then Wallace jumps all over him just for the sheer joy of jumping all over him. Lettuce Roll then immediately rolls over on his back and asks Wallace to rub his belly, completely submissive. Later Wallace, no dummy he, realizes that he is completely in the wrong, and corrects himself.
To me, the scary thing is that the people reporting the news are either so easily bullied or are so prey to their own egos, that they will do or say almost anything to make themselves look good. A skilled manipulator could get Jennings dancing naked on his desk singing Malaganya given half an hour and a little privacy. It's pathetic, really.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.