The infallable US

Fred said:
Either way, lets be honest here. THe implications is that the United States are targetting Journalists b/c they are irate with their coverage, or feel that they are less relevant than civilians. Frankly thats absurd. Al Jaheera should be ashamed of making such ludicrous assertions.
I agree they could no do this kind of implication. But their chief editor did not wanted to comment about it (see above).

One possible explanation is that they lost their objectivity because they had been atacked.

About the international journalists in general and independent of anything, independent of the fine line between stupidity or bravery we should have high respect for them.
 
Vince said:
[Actually, if you were to watch Fox (around 12am CT), they actually had the footage taken by the Reuters reporters IIRC and they played it in slow motion with the bottom of the screen free of that 'news ticker' BS...

And you saw individual shell casings ejecting in tandem with the smoke from a light machine gun mounted directly infront and under the camera position that was presumably aimed at the M1A1 Abrams on the bridge around 300m ahead of it.

I saw some footage of a camera looking out over Baghdad. You saw some chips pop up from the ground, then again, then the camera fell over. Was this the same footage you're talking about?
 
Agree. I think they are brave, this close to the action without protection is really dangerous.

They aren't "being brave". They love the action, they love the story, but most of all, every journalist over there right now is hunting a Pulitzer. It's not bravery, it's the prospect of getting the story of a lifetime that they are after. Nothing wrong with that, IMO, and I wish them well in their persuit. However, getting in the line of fire, then whining about the consequences is just pathetic. You put yourself in that situation to hopefully put a gold star on your resume, then you suck it up and deal with the ramifications.
 
Back
Top