Posted on 06/08/2004 3:02:43 PM PDT by RaceBannon
I thought this went on all the time and is not new. I also wondered why the media was not prosecuted.
ottomh - If the incident does not get reported in the mainstream media, it's because people communicated and nothing bad happened.
I don't see why terrorists would have set this up with malicious intent and be content with a result that no one was killed or hurt or abducted.
In face, some news type probably set it up themselves to try to "make news" where there is none.
It's another issue that they're not reporting situations that have good endings.
The reporter is a stringer for Reuters and Al Jazeera and the cameraman was purely Al Jazeera, IIRC from the post 3 days ago...
The CENTCOM report from 3 days ago, as posted here, said that the two were detained and questioned. We know who they are and who they work for, they had to be carrying credentials.
If the public doesn't know, then I suspect it's for a good reason.
There's nothing covert about interrogating material witnesses...which is exactly what happened according to the post here on FR three days ago.
bttt
Have you all seen this? Oh, my...
"WTF" ping
If your title is true, then it is worse than the ABU GABU prison scandal and deserves equal coverage.
It is disgusting and these particular "journalists" should be treated like the enemy infitrators they are.
It would do little good I'm afraid. To the media, it's sort of like the Prime Directive. They couldn't interfere, you see, in how events turn out. They consider that to be objectivity when in reality they influence events and outcomes through their avoidance.
Prairie
ok, I was wondering since this was from 6/3 if there'd been other threads... will go look for them. so HAS more info in fact been released yet?
good to have you right here!
Pasted below are sections from this LINK
**********************************
Washing Their Hands of Responsibility: "North Kosan"
"In the late 1980s, public television stations aired a talking head series called Ethics in America. For each show, more than a dozen prominent thinkers sat around a horseshoe-shaped table and tried to answer troubling ethical questions posed by a moderator.
This episode was sponsored by Montclair State College in the fall of 1987. Its title was "Under Orders, Under Fire," and most of the panelists were former soldiers talking about the ethical dilemmas of their work.......
Then Ogletree turned to the two most famous members of the evening's panel, better known than William Westmoreland himself. These were two star TV journalists: Peter Jennings of World News Tonight and ABC, and Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes and CBS.
Ogletree brought them into the same hypothetical war. He asked Jennings to imagine that he worked for a network that had been in contact with the enemy North Kosanese government. After much pleading, the North Kosanese had agreed to let Jennings and his news crew into their country, to film behind the lines and even travel with military units. Would Jennings be willing to go? Of course, Jennings replied. Any reporter would - and in real wars others from his network often had.
But while Jennings and his crew are traveling with a North Kosanese unit, to visit the site of an alleged atrocity by American and South Kosanese troops, they unexpectedly cross the trail of a small group of American and South Kosanese soldiers. With Jennings in their midst, the northern soldiers set up a perfect ambush, which will let them gun down the Americans and Southerners, every one.
What does Jennings do? Ogletree asks. Would he tell his cameramen to "Roll tape!" as the North Kosanese opened fire? What would go through his mind as he watched the North Kosanese prepare to ambush the Americans?
Jennings sat silent for about fifteen seconds after Ogletree asked this question. "Well, I guess I wouldn't," he finally said. "I am going to tell you now what I am feeling, rather than the hypothesis I drew for myself. If I were with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think that I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans."
Even if it means losing the story? Ogletree asked.
Even though it would almost certainly mean losing my life, Jennings replied. "But I do not think that I could bring myself to participate in that act. That's purely personal, and other reporters might have a different reaction."
Immediately Mike Wallace spoke up. "I think some other reporters would have a different reaction," he said, obviously referring to himself. "They would regard it simply as a story they were there to cover."
"I am astonished, really," at Jennings's answer, Wallace said a moment later. He turned toward Jennings and began to lecture him:
"You're a reporter. Granted you're an American"-at least for purposes of the fictional example; Jennings has actually retained Canadian citizenship. "I'm a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you're an American, you would not have covered that story."
Ogletree pushed Wallace. Didn't Jennings have some higher duty, either patriotic or human, to do something rather than just roll film as soldiers from his own country were being shot?
"No," Wallace said flatly and immediately. "You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!"
Jennings backtracked fast. Wallace was right, he said.
"I chickened out." Jennings said that he had gotten so wrapped up in the hypothetical questions that he had lost sight of his journalistic duty to remain detached.
As Jennings said he agreed with Wallace, everyone else in the room seemed to regard the two of them with horror. Retired Air Force general Brent Scowcroft, who had been Gerald Ford's national security advisor and would soon serve in the same job for George Bush, said it was simply wrong to stand and watch as your side was slaughtered. "What's it worth?" he asked Wallace bitterly. "It's worth thirty seconds on the evening news, as opposed to saving a platoon."
Ogletree turned to Wallace. What about that? Shouldn't the reporter have said something?
Wallace gave his most disarming grin, shrugged his shoulders and spread his palms wide in a "Don't ask me!" gesture, and said, "I don't know." He was mugging to the crowd in such a way that he got a big laugh - the first such moment of the discussion. Wallace paused to enjoy the crowd's reaction. Jennings, however, was all business, and was still concerned about the first answer he had given.
Word of mouth, but as I said earlier...we questioned them, so we (the Army) know who they are and who they're working for.
If the public doesn't know, there must be a good reason.
I think GW expressed it best. When asked about international law he said with a smirk "Whats that ? I'll have to ask my attorney. He never mentioned anything about it."
Hang them damned fools then shoot em then torch em and send the footage to the rest of the press corps. Should improve reporting immensley.
They Knew It Was Coming And Stood By And Watched -- http://www.FreeRepublic.com/focus/f-news/1150090/posts Again, the 6/3 Centcom release is all the info anyone seems to have.
See my #95. You can check CENTCOM press releases. but I have a feeling we're not going to hear anything more about this from them.
BUMP!!!
I got over my anger back on the 4th when I read the first report of this.
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.