Replies

Frankly, I've never understood this Holy Journalist concept. I mean, they're just people reporting on events, usually to make money for a company. While I think they should try to remain objective, and be somewhat protected participants during a war, why should they be exempted from the consequences of the great conflicts of our time?

Was any American journalist pulling for Hitler? Did they even report on his rantings as much as modern journalists do the Taliban propaganda? What of the obvious agitprop of the Commies and Muslim world? Should they really be protected? They are most often an arm of hostile, murderous enslaving forces, so why should we view them as anything but enemy combatants?

They are human beings first, and as such, should defend themselves if need be. Also, no member of civilization can be 'neutral' with the forces of barbarism. Stay alive, stay true to what's right, that should be their priority, not pseudo-neutrality.

Your so right!! I think the "journalist" of days gone by, got it right a lot more than the liberal media types today. Hitler was reported on for his qualities alright. All negative. The way the media reports on the Taliban, Saddam Hussien et all; is just sickening. They "further" the cause of our enemies by giving them a platform. Traitorous...

Traitorous and hiden behind the skirts of the first ammendment. I have no problem with Geraldo packing heat. More power to him. If other journalists think that something about "being a journalist" will protect them, I suggest they go ask the 8 dead journalists. (Oh wait!!! They can't because dead is dead!!!)

Well said Skywalk!!! I understand what you said perfectly!!

FRegards!!