user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
From a PBS ethics panel:
"In a future war involving U.S. soldiers what would a TV reporter do if he learned the enemy troops with which he was traveling were about to launch a surprise attack on an American unit? That's just the question Harvard University professor Charles Ogletree Jr, as moderator of PBS' Ethics in America series, posed to ABC anchor Peter Jennings and 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace. Both agreed getting ambush footage for the evening news would come before warning the U.S. troops.
For the March 7 installment on battlefield ethics Ogletree set up a theoretical war between the North Kosanese and the U.S.-supported South Kosanese. At first Jennings responded: "If I was with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans."
Wallace countered that other reporters, including himself, "would regard it simply as another story that they are there to cover." Jennings' position bewildered Wallace: "I'm a little bit of a loss to understand why, because you are an American, you would not have covered that story."
"Don't you have a higher duty as an American citizen to do all you can to save the lives of soldiers rather than this journalistic ethic of reporting fact?" Ogletree asked. Without hesitating Wallace responded: "No, you don't have higher duty...you're a reporter." This convinces Jennings, who concedes, "I think he's right too, I chickened out."
Ogletree turns to Brent Scrowcroft, now the National Security Adviser, who argues "you're Americans first, and you're journalists second." Wallace is mystified by the concept, wondering "what in the world is wrong with photographing this attack by North Kosanese on American soldiers?" Retired General William Westmoreland then points out that "it would be repugnant to the American listening public to see on film an ambush of an American platoon by our national enemy."
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
That, unfortunately is how the mainstream media thinks.
Now, as a side question, do you think foxnews reporters (boo hiss, they're so biased unlike everyone else who has been caught in a forgery this week) would be more or less willing to let americans die if they could prevent it?
Can you cite an example from history where a reporter was with the enemy when they were planning an attack on said reporter's fellow countrymen? I would actually like to know this.
Voted : He should do what he can to warn them
IMO anything less would be treason...
by MO_ on Sat Sep 02, 06 10:06am
[+]
"That, unfortunately is how the mainstream media thinks."
Untrue.
This is how a couple of people on a discussion panel think.
"unlike everyone else who has been caught in a forgery this week."
Untrue.
No one has been caught in a forgery this week.
And the odds of an American journalist being embedded with Al Qaeda is about the same as the odds of a neocon joining the military and volunteering to fight in Iraq.
(herzie ballot category: "Media Bashing")
FYI. This PBS panel that foxzog is referring to took place in 1989. Is it possible that people's attitudes have changed, just slightly since then?
The next hypothetical question that should have been presented to Wallace and Jennings should have been...
"If you personally knew someone (friend, family or were acquanted from crossing paths while on assignment) within this platoon, that was going to be Jacked, would that make a difference in your view?"
by MO_ on Sat Sep 02, 06 10:16am
[+]
And despite what end of the political spectrum you are on, Brent Scrowcroft can be recognized as an extremely capable, intelligent person.
Let's see what he has said on other issues:
"Any approach to stemming nuclear proliferation that singles out specific countries--such as the Bush Administration is doing with Iran--is not likely to succeed.” 08/02/2006
"Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush, was highly critical of the current president's handling of foreign policy in an interview published this week, saying that the current President Bush is "mesmerized" by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, that Iraq is a "failing venture" and that the administration's unilateralist approach has harmed relations between Europe and the United States."(Washington Post, 10/16/2004)
"The Iraqi elections, rather than turning out to be a promising turning point, have the great potential for deepening the conflict," Scowcroft said. He said he expects increased divisions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims after the Jan. 30 elections, when experts believe the government will be dominated by the majority Shiites.
Scowcroft predicted "an incipient civil war" would grip Iraq and said the best hope for pulling the country from chaos would be to turn the U.S. operation over to NATO or the United Nations -- which, he said, would not be so hostilely viewed by Iraqis. (Washington Post, 01/07/2005).
Yes, a very wise man.
Voted : He should do what he can to warn them
This isn't a hypothetical unfortunately. There are numerous cases of this happening. Most it seems would rather get the story than save lives.
^Got any specific examples?
Or is this just more anti-freedom of the press, wishful thinking from the neocons?
|
|
