In response to the survey question about reporters with troops. I answered no. Not because I am against it; I am against todays reporting ethics. I don't think anything new is happening, I think reporters are being pressed by their home offices to report sensational news. The young soldier who shot the insurgent in the Mousque was in reaction mode, lets face it nothing in war is fair. If you are using a place of worship to shoot at people as was the case here then you can expect to be shot at. That particular Mosque was taken for the second time, and eariler in the day this young man saw one of his buddies die from a bobby trapped body. People who go to war are the last ones to want to be there but that is their job. There are some things best left unreported, they won't be forgotten by those who were there EVER, that is the cost they pay, and they pay the rest of their lives. There are more good things happening in Iraq but they don't get reported, why? They don't make headlines.
Reporters With Troops
- Thread starter Dogface
- Start date
Vince
......
I have to agree with you 100% I was trying to think of the particular incident with that soldier, but couldn't. You can't fight a war by the rules and the dayum press shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it. They report things from their own biased perspective. They made it look like that soldier murdered that guy instead of defending himself against possible attack. He was reacting to a wartime circumstance. During war it would be prudent to shoot first at the enemy before they do it to you.Dogface said:
Welcome! I would ask whose MPD you are, but why bother? 
I voted no too. Reporters should stay back behind the lines and take the information released to them versus their "demand" to be out front with the troops. All front line reporting does, in my mind, is feed the bleeding hearts that the media plays to in an effort to stir up the populace and to push the antiwar, anti-Bush agenda.
Steve
Enjoying life!
Ken King said:
Of course! But they pound and pound for the truth in every war. Nothing has changed since Viet Nam, and that first televised war. Reporters are altruistic, seeking the "real" cause, the "real" reason for war. But there is no "real". They, as artists, want peace, but they can't come to grips with the "why" of war. It drives them nuts!
Too bad that what they report is the reality of life; has been for 6000+ years. It's the spin that everyone needs to watch out for. Personally, I am saddened by the image of a dead or injured child, because they are the innocents. They never had a chance. And I feel that way with Israelis, Palestinians, Croats, Irish, or Somalians. Children should never have to face that kind of world.
But good things are happening in Iraq. It will take another five years, the reality will emerge, and the US will prove itself once again. We may not have a long history, but our country does have a legacy of success.
Meanwhile, until an extraterrestrial threat arrives, we will always fight each other. It's human nature. Conflict creates heroes and legends, and fuels the next generation to greater things.
And that is my soap-box speech for tonight...
Triggerfish
New Member
Remember what Geraldo Rivera did? He gave battle plans!!! I'm not sure whether reporters should be inbedded but if they do something like Geraldo does they should be prosecuted by the law.
Last edited:
willie
Well-Known Member
Sometimes I think it's just as reliable to get your news from Boondocks or Doonesbury. The Washington Post (publisher of the phony crack baby story) is taking a New York competitor to task for a libelous story. What a bunch of hypocrites. What is the answer? The public wants sensationalism.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62088-2004Dec13.html?sub=AR
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62088-2004Dec13.html?sub=AR
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I just saw another opinion piece in the paper this weekend, a reprint from the Denver mullet wrapper I think, that again decried the lies of the Pentagon in hyping up the Jessica Lynch story. Reporters still don't seem to recall every Pentagon spokesman saying "We Don't Know!" day in and day out. They also don't recall hearing from the Pentagon that everyone who does know what happened is dead, captured, or comatose. Another thing that the reporters seem to have forgotten is all the "un-named Pentagon sources", or "a Pentagon official who asked not be identified", or "our exclusive source at the Pentagon", AKA low-level DoD personnel who think they know more than they do... and maybe the cafeteria lunch lady. All of these unofficial sources, who didn't know squat, provided a bunch of reporters who couldn't see past their next "scoop" their bogus stories, not the Pentagon. But, once the excrement hit the fan, and egg had been splattered on faces, suddenly it was "The Pentagon" who lied about what happened.