Replies

Now THAT is reporting. No opinions, no editorializing, no blind generalizations.

He was there. He reported what he saw and went through. THAT is what I want out of a war correspsondant.

Fire all "news" anchors and replace them with embeds. Wouldn't you love to see Pierre Jennings replaced by this guy?

RD

Contrast this report with the episode I read here (on FR) recently where Mike Wallace was asked during the Vietnam war if he would warn American troops of an impending ambush if he were with enemy forces in position. Wallace said, no, he wouldn't because that would diminish his objectivity.

I can recall in the late 70's, Wallace did a piece for 60 minutes on some bank in the SW that put liens on loans for airconditioning. The upshot was that many minorities defaulted and lost their homes. Wallace aired the piece as a hit-job and trashed the band and it's officers. After the piece aired, the bank contacted CBS and demanded an apology and retraction of the segment. It seems that the banks security cameras were filming Wallace the CBS crew while they filmed the interview. In the unedited bank film, Wallace made racist remarks to the effect that it probably was hard to read the fine print on the loan agreement when it was covered with watermellon seeds or taco grease. Wallace apologize for an unfortunate choice of words and meanings he didn't wish to convey.

Fast forward to the '86 election when Jesse Jackson was seeking the Democratic nomination. Wallace delicately broached the rumors of the Reverend's affairs. Mrs. Jackson went off on him and ripped him a new one. Wallace rolled over like a mining camp whore, backed off and said no more.

When the journalists wear their bias openly, reporting and understanding the facts becomes much easier since a decoding process and political analysis isn't needed. When they spout the sacred trash about their 'objectivity' that's when you know the sh*t is really going to fly.