And he films what he wants and reports what he thinks.
It's interesting to note the reporter (mr Sites) has his war photos proudly displayed on an anti-war web site. This is further proof that pictures without context are nothing but a pretext for cataloguing a photographer's or editor's agenda.
Had this anti-American, pacifist scumbag 'reporter' chronicled in his video how the Marine in question had been shot in the face during combat the day before, had just seen his buddies get killed and wounded due to a booby trapped body of a dead insurgent shortly before this incident, had shown the heat and intensity of the whole battle as it unfolded, and had included a clip on infantry training that teaches a wounded enemy is at his most dangerous state, then suddenly the "cold blooded murder" that the media whores are referring to looks much more like a highly justifiable combat reaction or an act of self defense. These filthy terrorists who hide their faces beneath masks are infamous for blowing up Americans after they get wounded. If you're going to tell a story TELL THE WHOLE F...ING STORY.
I mostly agree. I think most media bias is most often done not by lying or untruths, but by ommissions.
However, I don't believe this reporter wrote a story on this incident did he?
I may be wrong, but I believe it is just his video footage that got out.
If thats the case, then those writing the stories are at fault, not the original reporter. And every story I've seen had the part about the marine getting shot in the face in it.
And I thought the part about hte buddies being killed by a booby trapped explosive was from a different unit? or? (of course this is still relevent)