Subj : Re: Happy Birthday John To : alt.tv.farscape From : John Iwaniszek Date : Mon Sep 05 2005 18:47:14 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape Jim Larson wrote in news:Xns96C866C3313CB3v234oiwofui3284af93@130.133.1.18: > John Iwaniszek wrote: > >> "Finnigann" wrote in >> news:431C550B.876.farscape@bnb.synchro.net: >> >>> To: Nick >>> -=> Nick wrote to alt.tv.farscape <=- >>> >>> Ni> From Newsgroup: >>> alt.tv.farscape >>> >>> Ni> John Iwaniszek wrote: >>> > Nick wrote: >>> > >>> >> This link is for you: http://bushlobster.ytmnd.com/ >>> >> >>> > >>> > I wonder if that little baby was dying from dehydration around >>> > that time. >>> >>> Ni> The baby looks pretty good to me. If she was in danger >>> somebody ought Ni> to punch the reporter. BTW, I was really >>> expecting to see some Ni> reporter get his head bashed in as they >>> were standing around the Ni> superdome asking people coming up out >>> of the water stupid questions Ni> like, "How do you feel about >>> this?" They could have at least handed Ni> someone a bottle of >>> water before asking questions. >>> >>> Wouldn't that amount to paying for a story? Turn it around. Had that >>> happen, some people would have been all over that saying that the >>> reporter got the story they wanted by provding [water]. >>> >>> When should a reporter lay down his microphone and start helping? >>> Now thats a tough question. >>> >>> ... You eat one person, and suddenly you're branded for life. >>> --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.46 >>> >> >> I think that the reporters WERE helping. How else would we have >> known what was going on and how else would Michael "Skeletor" >> Chertoff have known that there were still people trapped in the city. >> The more exposure this gets the better for the people affected and >> for the future of US emergency management. > > Yes. > > On a side note, I remember some show on PBS from a number of years ago > in which they would gather together a bunch of people in some field or > other along with a bunch of legal experts[1] and pose some > moral/ethical/legal dilemma for them to hash out. One episode was > about objectivity in journalism. Among the various things thrown out > was the following scenario: journalist is tagging along with Viet Cong > in the jungles of S.E. Asia. The VC unit comes upon an unsuspecting > American unit. What is the journalist's reponsibility at that point? > Does he remain an objective observer while the Americans get ambushed > or does he try to call out a warning? > > The journalists present seemed pretty torn. The reaction of the > military folks (ranging from a former Lieutenant who commanded a > platoon and lost his arm in Vietnam to William Westmoreland[2], who > was there) was uniform disgust at the journalists. > > This isn't particularly relevant to anything. I just thought it was > interesting at the time and the above discussion reminded me of it. > > ATF: The receptacle for my stream of consciousness. > The journalists in NO were advocating for he victims. Even Geraldo Rivera and his Fox fuck-buddy earned kudos from the progressive blogosphere for the way they countered the Faux fellators during the mid week broadcasts. Personnally, I can't see an American journo letting soldiers die in a real situation that the artificial one was intended to model. I can picture them standing between police and some innocent protestors, but that is their job: to expose the truth and serve as the medium of information about the behavior of crime, government, the military, and business. What we have now in the Judy Miller/Koki Roberts/David Broder scheme of things are a cadre of social drinkers who worry more about their place in the Washington cocktail circuit than in "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable". .