stinkyclimber Posted November 26, 2003 Posted November 26, 2003 Cpt.Caveman said: There are many reasons for joining the military in the US. Many serve their own personal interest upon joining whether it be to escape poverty and help family, gain college tuition assistance, adventure, travel, and many other things along those lines. Of couse anyone enlisting is subject to combat and death as in any army. Let's not generalize too much since some of your argument is nearly implying suggesting or doing so without more detail. If there were not so many volunteers then there would be a conscript service. I feel a lot less sympathy for willing reporters than I do for in harms way soldiers for various reasons. The heros are not the reporters. The heros are the privates and sergeants doing what they must in dire situatoins trying to survive and come home to their families whether or not the war is just in anyone's opinion. Yes a solder get's paid but often his life hangs with the odds of luck and personal fortitude. Survival. I don't really care if we bailed out of Iraq tomorrow but I know and respect the honor and professionalism of most troops there. There will always be exceptions and war crimes. THere always has. Some are identified while others are not. Some accidents are identified as crimes and some are not... I agree here too. I was applying the same argument with Scott: that reporters, like soliders, have a wide variety of motivations for why they enlisted or choose to report from Iraq. That being said then, I see the heros as the ones working, and sometimes dying, in the public interest, whether as a solider, or reporter. However, my sympathy is also with the noncombatants, who will get no medals, or bylines or even a paycheck...just misery, homelessness, joblessness, death. Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted November 26, 2003 Posted November 26, 2003 only that they were tipped on where to show up to get footage of resistance/guerrila action. Their choice to get into the mix of shit. Easy solution. Stay out of the battle or possibly be killed. Idealistic, undoubtedly...but the US was and still is a signatory. Yes a leader we are to some and never to all. There will never be a time when all agree in war within the UN as far as I can see. Especially when the countries ready for war are both in the UN. Then come political and financial interests as well. It's easy to say from the sidelines... Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted November 26, 2003 Posted November 26, 2003 That being said then, I see the heros as the ones working, and sometimes dying, in the public interest, whether as a solider, or reporter. However, my sympathy is also with the noncombatants, who will get no medals, or bylines or even a paycheck...just misery, homelessness, joblessness, death. Journalists\reporters have a lot more freedoms than soldiers. It's simple... War is not black and white like you are trying to paint it. Quote
stinkyclimber Posted November 26, 2003 Posted November 26, 2003 catbirdseat said: Dru said: So back to the original point, is it any worse for Al-jazeera to do a ride along with some Iraqi insurgents, or Hamas in Palestine, or whatever, than it is for CNN to ride in a tank on the way into Baghdad? If you think it is please try and justify it. No Catturd type "Well CNN is OUR GUYS so it's ok" please. Any worse? It's the same thing. The point is THEY ARE THE ENEMY! What side are you on Dru? During the active combat ortion of the war Saddam's army would have taken out our embedded CNN reporters the first chance they got (not that they did, but they would have). If Al Jazeer is in league with the enemy, we should take them out. Period. Ah yes, lets use the justification of Saddam's regime to apply to this situation. Fuck, I thought the latest rationale for this war was to "act as a seed of democracy in the region" or some such thing. If all the US forces are going to do is emulate Saddam by killing the media, then why did the US bother...they could have just let Saddam do it? Nope, either you live by your own rules (reporters are NOT fair targets, and you let them report as long as they don't aid combatants, no matter what "side" you think they are on), or don't live by them but also don't get to say you are spreading democracy or anything. Is the world really so black and white to you, with just two sides - the good and the bad? Al-Jazerra is not based in, nor were they ever under the control of Iraq. They regularly air stories critical of Islamic governments throughout the world. Who's side are they on? Well, enough of this - I gotta get back to work (I was bored there for a few minutes..but this has pepped me back up). Quote
scott_harpell Posted November 26, 2003 Posted November 26, 2003 then doesn't it at least allow a smidgen of room for reporters to report the war in Iraq FROM BOTH SIDES? yeah... sure... but if they get shot, who cares? journalism is a flawed genre. people who have little historical background or military training are supposed to understand and write about what is going on? c'mon. people study minute pieces of history for their entire lives and you are gonna tell me some goofball can understand the whole scenario, sum it up in 800 words and not lose anything in translation? there is no way they can understand what is going on without the background or the technical expertise. also, you think that has only happened once, and in antiquity? try jason blair. same paper, same deal, except blair's news didn't cover up the killing of 5-10 million ukranians. history is littered with blatent examples and every paper you pick up is laden with more subtle ones. i dont trust them and i am not gonna blame my soldiers when they get shot in the ass runnign after glory. Quote
stinkyclimber Posted November 26, 2003 Posted November 26, 2003 Cpt.Caveman said: That being said then, I see the heros as the ones working, and sometimes dying, in the public interest, whether as a solider, or reporter. However, my sympathy is also with the noncombatants, who will get no medals, or bylines or even a paycheck...just misery, homelessness, joblessness, death. Journalists\reporters have a lot more freedoms than soldiers. It's simple... War is not black and white like you are trying to paint it. No, it isn't black and white - I wasn't portraying it as such...and that is why I repeatedly brought up that unmentioned, but largest, group involved in war...civilians. Shit, it is way complicated. Soliders on both sides and at all levels of command. Politicians. Now reporters, as this thread brings up. And as always, civilian bystanders. Fucking messy - being the unfortunate ones stuck in the middle sucks, and the less choice you have about being there, the shittier it must be. Quote
scott_harpell Posted November 26, 2003 Posted November 26, 2003 the less choice you have about being there, the shittier it must be. exactly. Quote
stinkyclimber Posted November 26, 2003 Posted November 26, 2003 scott_harpell said: then doesn't it at least allow a smidgen of room for reporters to report the war in Iraq FROM BOTH SIDES? yeah... sure... but if they get shot, who cares? Ooops, sorry, I wasn't arguing this point. I am with you there - if they get shot in the field of battle, well, that is the risks of doing that job. I was speaking to Dru's question about whether Al-Jazerra is any different from CNN embedded reporters...that they are both doing legitimate jobs. Of course, I can't say I agree with the rest of your analysis, but I don't think we will ever agree on the role and contributions of media! Off to a meeting... Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted November 26, 2003 Posted November 26, 2003 (edited) stinkyclimber, There is no fair comparison to heroism in regards to innocent civilian, criminal soldier, valorous soldier, polititian, reporter and many others. There are many other generalizations that are being possibly implied by your comment. A victim is not usually a hero. A scumsucking criminal soldier obviously not. A reporter looking for a buck a name, fame or trying to do his job is in reality just making a buck. There are times when they can be smart and save their own lives. Rarely and almost never have I heard a situation where I considered a reporter a hero. A legitimate job does not make one or never will make one out of harms way. Al Jazeera reporters were there as we all know but that doenst mean they will not meet Dr Death if they do their supposed job. Politician is a whole other bag of beans. Politicians are even more rarely a hero in my book than a reporter. Maybe Able Lincoln could be a good example for some... The heros are in the trenches now and yesterday. But to identify them all will never happen as time has always told. A dead soldier has a medal but cannot do anything with it. It may only signify glory but may not as well. An injured or permanently maimed soldier will have the same possibly but it cannot replace what was lost. A civilian is even worse in some or many situations depending on the situation. A reporter is just killed on the job some times. Many other times because they do not heed warning. Little comparison for most situations. Edited November 27, 2003 by Cpt.Caveman Quote
scott_harpell Posted November 26, 2003 Posted November 26, 2003 stinkyclimber said: scott_harpell said: then doesn't it at least allow a smidgen of room for reporters to report the war in Iraq FROM BOTH SIDES? yeah... sure... but if they get shot, who cares? Ooops, sorry, I wasn't arguing this point. I am with you there - if they get shot in the field of battle, well, that is the risks of doing that job. Of course, I can't say I agree with the rest of your analysis, but I don't think we will ever agree on the role and contributions of media! Off to a meeting... isn't that what everyone here is arguing?!?! Quote
j_b Posted November 27, 2003 Posted November 27, 2003 fancy that! no more grand discourse about objectivity and the role of the press in a democracy. i wonder what next ... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.