|Reporting or Editorializing? And what is it worth?||Live Steam|
Apr 12, 2003 9:19 AM
|This was deemed to be a worthy article by our friend Downhill. I watched, as I am sure many of you did, the scene this alleged reporter described in this article. Below is my response. I think this is on topic of - what is reporting and what is editorializing and what responsibility to the reader, does the person doing either, have? I think it is clear that this idiot has a biased view of these events, and his work is influenced by this bias, and has a problem separating them. If I were his boss, I would relegate his duties to reporting the weather. At least in doing this he would not be able to put a slant on what everyone else can clearly see is a rainy day.
You editorialize and do not report. I watched the same scene you described, live on TV, and came away with a much different impression as to what happened. I am sure that much of the rest of the World that was watching, did as well. It was reported by other journalists that were present, that the tank commander did not want to get involved and did so only at the request of some Iraqi citizens that were attempting to pull down the statue. No Iraqi were "elbowed out of the way", and what evidence do you have that "The Americans were getting impatient"? I would also like to know how you were able to determine that the Iraqi flag that was positioned on the statue for a few minutes was done by "A soldier ...., rather grudgingly"? You bias appears to have no bounds.
I am sure that your slanted report of this incident is not your only coloring of the truth about the events in Iraq. I am curious as to how you reported similar instances that were broadcast of British armored vehicles toppling statues of Saddam. I guess if you were that much of a fan of his, you probably would have enlisted in his Ministry of Misinformation. Your reporting is as accurate as Baghdad Bob's, however he was more entertaining.
Apr 12, 2003 2:02 PM
|You know, I really tried to see that reporter's point of view, but I just can't see anyting but a (hopefully) career ending bias. I saw the American soldiers as HELPING the Iraqis pull down the statue- hmm, Americans helping Iraqis, what a concept. And what kind of weak ass lame excuse was that, "waiting wouldn't make the prime time news" crap? When did this war start? At like 1 O'Clock Thursday morning EST. Prime time my ass.
And as for the Pentagon referring to Syrians and other foreign fighters as jihadists, under "Reason for visit" on their passports was stamped, "Jihadi". Some people just can't bear it when the facts don't fit their hatreds. That reporter should be exposed as the fraud he is.
After British troops gave him water, the Syrian began to talk. The commander said: "He told us he was in Basra to get medical treatment for diabetes. Then he said he was a student at this university. We found his passport and he was one who had jihadi' stamped on his Iraqi visa. He entered Iraq on March 8 from Jordan."
|re: Reporting or Editorializing? And what is it worth?||Alpedhuez55|
Apr 12, 2003 6:55 PM
|There is a lot of editorializing there. That was heard on a lot of the other outlets as well though. If you heard Peter Jennings, you would have thought the toppling of the statue was a sad event. Sometimes it is unintentional and just based on someones views. This Guardian reporter went out of the way to give skewed reporting of the events. He inserted what he thought people were feeling and said the Marines controlled the scene. What happenned was they helped the Iraqis who wanted to take the statue down.
Some of the people at the Anti-War Protests were saying all the Iraqis at the Statue toppling were on the CIA Payroll. I guess this reporter wished he thought of that line first.