Media Responsibility

[Adam]

The people responsible for the interview should be arrested, and held without food, water, or anything until their reveal his wearabouts- they have no constitutional right until they do so.

[UConn James]

The people responsible for the interview should be arrested, and held without food, water, or anything until their reveal his wearabouts- they have no constitutional right until they do so.

394209[/snapback]

 

Nevermind the fact that they were blindfolded and driven around in circles in hell's halfacre, several hundred miles.... Nevermind the fact that the journalist who conducted the interview was Russian, not American; ABC just picked the story up.... you equate talking to someone as a jailing/torture-worthy offense? The point was to ask, Why the hell are you doing this, not, How can we help you.

 

We'd all love this guy to be under 6 feet of freshly turned dirt, but that's the military's job. You complain about Al Jazeera only showing the Arab side of the news, yet people cannot for the life of them see that our media, as you would have it, would be the same thing only for 'our side.' I'd rather find out something closer to the truth.

 

"Congress shall make NO law..."

[erynthered]

  I contend that Saddam wasn't a threat to any other country in the region. 

394116[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Really? How about to his own people? How about to Kuwait? How about, look it up?

[BigAL]

Really? How about to his own people? How about to Kuwait? How about, look it up?

394218[/snapback]

How about 2001, not 1991?

[BigAL]

This is where we at complete odds. I think the few steps were a decade of working through the UN. That seems more like a State Department point of view, and I'm sorry, but I don't have any faith in the State Department to defend us against terrorism. Diplomacy has had some success over the years, but it comes with the caveat that it would still allow terrorists to strike at us (and I say this not knowing if this war will end it, either). I still remember the results of our diplomatic efforts with Afghanistan's Taliban. The commitment of resources is weighed against that; you seem to be sure it weighed in favor of continued diplomacy; I remain unconvinced.

 

I don't know if going to war with Iraq right when we did it was the right thing to do or at the right time. I do know it was a incredibly ballsy move to take a chance on changing the dynamic throughout the entire middle east. Remains to be seen whether or not it is successful.

394206[/snapback]

As people are fond of saying around here... 9/11 changed everything. The few steps you refer to were before 9/11. Post 9/11 I think we had the leverage to make other countries take a hard look at what they were doing in terms of not cracking down on terrorism. You are right that Diplomacy doesn't defend us from terrorism, but it does help to break down some of the underlying causes. As far as the Taliban goes, diplomacy was not needed there. It was either give up Bin laden or die. They chose to die (or run and get away until we lose interest).

 

We agree on your last statement. I think the risk was too high though. Hope I'm wrong.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

What do you mean by persistently belligerent?  I contend that Saddam wasn't a threat to any other country in the region.  Yes he paid the families of suicide bombers, but that's a symptom or catalyst for the problem, not the cause.  Taking him out doesn't stop the suicide bombers. 

394116[/snapback]

 

You have GOT to be !@#$ing kidding me...

[erynthered]

You have GOT to be !@#$ing kidding me... 

394227[/snapback]

 

 

He's all yours..........

[finknottle]

This isn't a "Bush bad" post.  It's just amazing to me that now we're worried about all these Al-Qaeda inspired offshoot organizations.  That seemed kind of obvious to me before the Iraq war.  Just like it was obvious to me that we would help to create the next generation of terrorists.

393798[/snapback]

 

They are not AQ offshoots, and the distinction is telling. Their troubles started long ago and their rebellion against the Russians was more nationalistic than Islamic in character. But after a decade or so largely on their own all the moderates there are now dead, radicalized, or have thrown in their lot with the Russians. The Jihadists found this very fertile ground, and have turned it into their struggle.

 

The same thing almost happened in Bosnia. When the muslim (and croat) areas were being cleansed, foreign jihadists came to the country to join the muslim army (croats also had volunteers, from the west); help that the muslims desperately needed even if they had no interest in Wahabism. The difference was that in Bosnia the US brought peace and worked hard to ensure that the fighters that remained did not undermine or intimidate the nascent government.

 

The point is that these are not AQ offshoots. Rather, AQ seeks out areas of struggle and by joining hijacks the agenda.

[finknottle]

The people responsible for the interview should be arrested, and held without food, water, or anything until their reveal his wearabouts- they have no constitutional right until they do so.

394209[/snapback]

 

Are you mocking Russian constitutional rights or pointing out the obvious?

[finknottle]

We'd all love this guy to be under 6 feet of freshly turned dirt, but that's the military's job. You complain about Al Jazeera only showing the Arab side of the news, yet people cannot for the life of them see that our media, as you would have it, would be the same thing only for 'our side.' I'd rather find out something closer to the truth.

 

394215[/snapback]

 

I'm pro GWOT, but I find it very troubling that we don't want to even look at different struggles and decide for ourselves the merits...

 

The people responsible for the interview should be arrested, and held without food, water, or anything until their reveal his wearabouts- they have no constitutional right until they do so.

394209[/snapback]

 

Just curious - how many people here feel the same way about the IRA?

[BigAL]

You have GOT to be !@#$ing kidding me... 

394227[/snapback]

Do you have a point?

[Chilly]

Nightline

 

Not very long ago, there was spirited debate here and elsewhere over a Newsweek article describing Koran abuse. All over this board, various other discussion panels and wide media coverage.

 

Now, ABC Nightline, that bastion of balanced reporting, has aired an interview with the most wanted terrorist in the Russia-Chechnya conflict. This is the man who orchestrated the attack that left 300, mostly children, dead. Also responsible for the Moscow attack that killed many - and several more.

 

By ANY definition, this man is a killer, a terrorist and a criminal. He admits to such himself. Well, ABC made a consious decision to give him an international forum. He has a 10 million dollar reward for his capture, and is identified on many, including the UN's list of priority wanted terrorists.

 

My view, is that a responsible party who had knowledge of this person's whereabouts should have turned them over to some authority charged with rooting out terrorism. Media has a lot of resources. What else are they sitting on? As far as ABC Nightline goes, they didn't just bump into each other on the street. This took some doing, and it most likely started on his end.

 

I just find it very interesting that this is allowed to slip under the pundit radar. No big deal because this is Russia? I remember the general outcry when all those 3 and 4 year old blown up bodies were shown. Guess an interview with Bin Laden would be allowable as well, provided it came from an extreme left wing source with a basically anti-American agenda.

393613[/snapback]

 

Does the Media have a responsibility to turn this guy over to the government? Not that I'm aware of. The media has only one responsibility: to obey the current laws. As far as I can tell, the media is obeying the current laws. There isn't any law against not turning over a terrorist.

 

The real question is: do they have a moral obligation to turn over a terrorist to the government? I'm not so sure that thats the case.

[OGTEleven]

Does the Media have a responsibility to turn this guy over to the government?  Not that I'm aware of.  The media has only one responsibility:  to obey the current laws.  As far as I can tell, the media is obeying the current laws.  There isn't any law against not turning over a terrorist.

 

The real question is:  do they have a moral obligation to turn over a terrorist to the government?  I'm not so sure that thats the case.

394289[/snapback]

Where did you study Chechnyan law?

 

There is no moral obligation. Plus it's good for business. If they leave him out there he can kill 300 more kids and ratings will go to the moon. Maybe he'll even tip them off and they can get the cameras in position. Think pay per view. At least your high fallutin intellectual theory of the medias role will be intact. Too bad for the future exploded kids, but hey we have standards to uphold.

 

I'm sure if the Islamists win the battle in Chechnya and/or elsewhere, they will remember the media's neutrality and treat them very kindly. They'll probably write an amendment to their constitution just like our #1.

[Chilly]

Where did you study Chechnyan law? 

 

There is no moral obligation.  Plus it's good for business.  If they leave him out there he can kill 300 more kids and ratings will go to the moon.  Maybe he'll even tip them off and they can get the cameras in position.  Think pay per view.  At least your high fallutin intellectual theory of the medias role will be intact.  Too bad for the future exploded kids, but hey we have standards to uphold. 

 

I'm sure if the Islamists win the battle in Chechnya and/or elsewhere, they will remember the media's neutrality and treat them very kindly.  They'll probably write an amendment to their constitution just like our #1.

394296[/snapback]

 

I must have studied it the same place you studied capitalism.

 

Our media isn't part of the government. Its a direct result of capitalism. People want entertainment, and they want the news, so the two combined form our media.

 

The problem that people are having right now, is that the media is too much entertainment and not enough news. We are seeing the results of this in the decline of viewership of TV media, and increase in alternate news sources such as blogs. This cycle will continue until either the media conglomerates will even themselves out or American citizens will get their news from other sources, while the television media will continue to shift into a strictly entertainment stage.

 

You're part of the growing masses that are turning away from the media, causing this shift. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but its not the media's responsibility to do such a thing.

 

In fact - don't you think it would increase their faltering ratings BY turning over someone such as this and becomming a hero to the American people? They will, in time, as they continue to lose viewers and lose viewers.

 

Things like this take time, unfortunately America doesn't seem to have a lot of patients. Everyone harps about how the GWOT is gonna take patients, but no one seems to understand that everything is going to take patients to win.

 

Tom Friedman had a great article this past week about Lance Armstrong and what America should learn from it - most of America is all about now, now, now in the present times, including the media. The great part about this country is that we have the opportunity to change it from now, now, now into a patient battle with everything, including the media.

 

Instead, most people would like to harp on the media about not foreseeing the future, while it is most American's which are the ones who can't foresee the future enough to have patients.

[OGTEleven]

I must have studied it the same place you studied capitalism. 

 

Our media isn't part of the government.  Its a direct result of capitalism.  People want entertainment, and they want the news, so the two combined form our media.

 

The problem that people are having right now, is that the media is too much entertainment and not enough news.  We are seeing the results of this in the decline of viewership of TV media, and increase in alternate news sources such as blogs.  This cycle will continue until either the media conglomerates will even themselves out or American citizens will get their news from other sources, while the television media will continue to shift into a strictly entertainment stage.

 

You're part of the growing masses that are turning away from the media, causing this shift.  I'm sorry that you don't like it, but its not the media's responsibility to do such a thing.

 

In fact - don't you think it would increase their faltering ratings BY turning over someone such as this and becomming a hero to the American people?  They will, in time, as they continue to lose viewers and lose viewers.

 

Things like this take time, unfortunately America doesn't seem to have a lot of patients.  Everyone harps about how the GWOT is gonna take patients, but no one seems to understand that everything is going to take patients to win.

 

Tom Friedman had a great article this past week about Lance Armstrong and what America should learn from it - most of America is all about now, now, now in the present times, including the media.  The great part about this country is that we have the opportunity to change it from now, now, now into a patient battle with everything, including the media.

 

Instead, most people would like to harp on the media about not foreseeing the future, while it is most American's which are the ones who can't foresee the future enough to have patients.

394304[/snapback]

The "problem" is not bad ratings. The "problem" is giving a forum to a guy that killed 300 kids and would gladly kill 300 more. That problem is rooted in the media seeing itself as "outside observers" of the news. There is merit to being an unbiased reporter of the news. Giving a forum to an individual such as this so that he may air his grievances might be considered news BEFORE HE FRIGGIN BLEW UP A BUNCH OF KIDS.

[Ghost of BiB]

This wasn't meant to become a treatise on the merits of GWOT. Few actually understand what that is about, anyway. Especially here. Not anyone's fault, just a lot of the pertinent information to have an informed opinion is very hard to come by.

 

Thinking it over some more, and reading some of the responses, I'll modify to say that it probably isn't in the best interest of the press - in general - to turn someone like that in. That could have definite repercussions down the road in terms of legitimate sources and legitimate news.

 

What I'm STILL certain of, though. Is that ABC should have taken the bye on this one. Not every story out there needs to be aired simply because it's available. I still view this as ratings over "journalism", and while perhaps not unethical journalistically, it's ill advised and harmful. Organized terrorists view the media, any media as their own private PR machine. It is part of their doctrine to use it any way, shape or form - whether it be granting interviews, or timing and locating attacks to gain the best coverage. Each situation serves a purpose. What was the gain, here? Questions and further comment:

 

How many Americans actually care? How many would even know this guys name if not for TV?

 

Answer to the above being pretty obvious, what positive purpose has been served by ABC vs:

 

1. Giving an internationally wanted terrorist with radical fundamentalist Islamic ties a recognized "legitimate" American forum to get his 15 minutes. (Let them buy airtime, like everyone else if they want to air a commercial).

 

2. Slapping the face of a supposed ally in not only the GWOT, but a major player in counter/non-proliferation issues (If I were sharing intelligence, this would definitely stick in my craw were I a Russian analyst).

 

Media irresponsibility and lack of vision is not doing a single thing to make this situation better. Anyone with an understanding of how this game is played understands that. The news networks certainly do, but they choose to do things detrimental to the effort anyway. "Sensationalize" every little scrap that can be gathered on prisoner "abuse". If you don't think that affects other countries (in a word, their politicians) you're wrong. Give terrorists a forum. Publish story after story touting how the situation is out of control, and we're not handling it, when the actual facts - strategically - are that we are doing very well.

 

Well, it's no secret here that I'm generally unhappy with the media.

[EC-Bills]

Anyway, I still have issue with the fact ABC has been given a bye. It's no secret that Nightline has an agenda. Maybe in their view not anti-American, but definitely anti administration. Things are much more layered, nebulous and complicated than a 30 minute TV spot. When the media goes out and offers a forum such as this, without balance to an allied nations's number one bad guy, it has theater security cooperation agreement and policy ramifications. ABC well knows that, even if the average viewer doesn't.

394042[/snapback]

 

 

Apparently Russia's Military is no longer giving ABC a bye.

 

Linky

[Reuben Gant]

Apparently Russia's Military is no longer giving ABC a bye.

 

Linky

394550[/snapback]

Thanks for link.

[Ghost of BiB]

Apparently Russia's Military is no longer giving ABC a bye.

 

Linky

394550[/snapback]

 

Good for them.

 

However, NOW you'll get the left-wing indignation, and the "throttling of the media" response.

 

Will be interesting to see ABC's take.

[Reuben Gant]

Good for them.

 

However, NOW you'll get the left-wing indignation, and the "throttling of the media" response.

 

Will be interesting to see ABC's take.

394556[/snapback]

Just speculation, but I bet ABC will turn it into a Nightline,

"When does the Media go too far" referencing this and

Mike Wallace interviews with Hamas.

[Ghost of BiB]

So far, looks like ABC is going to ride the horse.

 

ABC News

[UConn James]

Why no complaining when Matt Lauer interviews George Bush or Musharraf? They're words that give a historical account of what both sides are saying; that is what a journalist's job is --- supplying information, thoughts and opinions of people who make things happen, be they good or bad. Seems the problem you guys have is that it might make the other side appear human, when it's desirable to think of them as faceless monsters. Personally, that guy seemed pretty damn pathetic to me, cooking Ramen noodles with his prostetic leg over his shoulder. Kind of like showing Hitler in the bunker with the gun to his head. It's only a matter of time before this guy's head is on a stick. His quotes just showed him to be the terrorist he is. Did you have similar misgivings about the McVeigh interview?

 

ABC knew what Russia was going to do. They read the statement at the end of the broadcast, as the Russians declined any other comment, which is their right of course, but it leaves just one side speaking. Now, it may force ABC into better newsgathering; running to talk to gov't officials who sit behind desks is one of the bigger wastes of time, and often hinders getting at the real truth.

[Ghost of BiB]

ABC knew what Russia was going to do.

 

Of course they did. You think they are stupid? No.

 

That is part of my point, but from a different angle than yours.

 

Let's not even talk about the nuances, the subtleties of it all. It's not even close to subtle, but whatever. I know well that in the grand scheme, this will blow over. It really isn't a big deal. It could be, but only if the rest of the press makes it so. Anyone found Natalee yet?

 

Stories on TV in America, and elsewhere shape opinion, and no one is interested in facts. Were they. They'd check. Whatever I could pull up off the current Chechnya situation for the obligatory soundbite would probably not be accurate at all.

 

Let's just say this guy is somewhat of a rogue, they could have had peace earlier, but he's off the program...and his particular "rebel Army" is a large reason Russia and Chechnya didn't work anything out. This boy also had a lot to do with his own elected president getting killed. Google it. If you are going to comment, study. The "current" situation in Chechnya started about 1992-1997 (OK, sharpshoot me, I'm going from memory). When there were opportunities to work things out, this ramen eater (y'all buy that, right? Love the wooden leg part) back stabbed the same people he worked with to make things normalized. I'm not going to do the whole story here, if you want, look it up. Everyone besides NJ Sue can find it.

 

Of course, we don't care. It's not here (In America). Ever wonder why it's not here? Maybe we got friends.

[Adam]

Nevermind the fact that they were blindfolded and driven around in circles in hell's halfacre, several hundred miles.... Nevermind the fact that the journalist who conducted the interview was Russian, not American; ABC just picked the story up.... you equate talking to someone as a jailing/torture-worthy offense? The point was to ask, Why the hell are you doing this, not, How can we help you.

 

We'd all love this guy to be under 6 feet of freshly turned dirt, but that's the military's job. You complain about Al Jazeera only showing the Arab side of the news, yet people cannot for the life of them see that our media, as you would have it, would be the same thing only for 'our side.' I'd rather find out something closer to the truth.

 

"Congress shall make NO law..."

394215[/snapback]

 

Sorry, but I don't want to know why the terrorists do what they do....I just want to know that they aren't alive, and can't do it anymore. Not saying that you are wrong, and that I'm right, but I was just stating my opinion.....I know there are plenty on both sides of the fence........nice to be in a free country

[UConn James]

I'm not disputing the facts. What's at issue here is that you don't think ABC was "responsible" by airing this interview. This is just another addition to all of the filed clips. In the history books, this guy will be noted for the scumbag he is, that he's actually said these things that killing kids is fine b/c 'they' killed people on his side. And in the unfortunate event that he is captured rather than killed, it takes away any plausible denialbility that he ordered these terrorist attacks. You didn't say anything against the networks for showing the edited tapes when OBL gloated about the 9/11 attacks.

 

Nightline, let's face it, is just slightly more in-depth than a nightly news segment, usually about some more obscure event than America is really interested in, which is why so few people watch it. But you seem to be pissed just by the fact that they're briefly updating the story, which might prompt some people to actually give a sh-- and try to read more. It's just a transcript of questions and answers and in the grand scheme, it's about as innocuous as the "Day 346: Natalee's Still Missing And Her Mother's Still An Airhead." Lord knows ABC has talked with Russian officials who've said they want to find this guy and smoke him. I just don't get an inability to reconcile that there are two sides to the conflict and for a matter of record, ABC decided to air the one that bothered to talk.

 

The reason why it's not here and we don't have to worry about it is b/c of brave soldiers who fight for our ability to go about our lives and talk about our sorry-ass little First World problems.

[Adam]

Nightline, let's face it, is just slightly more in-depth than a nightly news segment, usually about some more obscure event than America is really interested in, which is why so few people watch it. But you seem to be pissed just by the fact that they're briefly updating the story, which might prompt some people to actually give a sh-- and try to read more. It's just a transcript of questions and answers and in the grand scheme, it's about as innocuous as the "Day 346: Natalee's Still Missing And Her Mother's Still An Airhead."  Lord knows ABC has talked with Russian officials who've said they want to find this guy and smoke him. I just don't get an inability to reconcile that there are two sides to the conflict and for a matter of record, ABC decided to air the one that bothered to talk.

 

394727[/snapback]

 

I think you're misreading me- I'm against giving that scumbag any type of forum- the only time he SHOULD be on american TV is while he is being executed.

[UConn James]

Sorry, but I don't want to know why the terrorists do what they do....I just want to know that they aren't alive, and can't do it anymore. Not saying that you are wrong, and that I'm right, but I was just stating my opinion.....I know there are plenty on both sides of the fence........nice to be in a free country

394724[/snapback]

 

So, just b/c you don't want to know, then ABC must self-censor for your convenience. Never mind that you're not strapped to your armchair and your remote control isn't Super-Glued to Channel 4.

 

Oh well, good luck to those historians in 2078 who'll have nothing to go on except the official, gov't-approved documents. Those really helped David McCollugh when he was writing "1776."

[Adam]

So, just b/c you don't want to know, then ABC must self-censor for your convenience. Never mind that you're not strapped to your armchair and your remote control isn't Super-Glued to Channel 4.

 

Oh well, good luck to those historians in 2078 who'll have nothing to go on except the official, gov't-approved documents. Those really helped David McCollugh when he was writing "1776."

394734[/snapback]

 

You are correct- I just won't watch it- but I am annoyed that the REAL reason that it was aired- not to inform, but for the almighty dollar. Our media is about entertainment and ratings, not about educating and telling the facts.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

So, just b/c you don't want to know, then ABC must self-censor for your convenience. Never mind that you're not strapped to your armchair and your remote control isn't Super-Glued to Channel 4.

 

Oh well, good luck to those historians in 2078 who'll have nothing to go on except the official, gov't-approved documents. Those really helped David McCollugh when he was writing "1776."

394734[/snapback]

 

What you're saying is that all terrorists, murderers, and others should be given free time on national tv to air their grievances and inform us all of their demented view of the world. I'm totally against censorship, but giving killers a free forum is not what I consider free speech.

[UConn James]

for the almighty dollar.

394737[/snapback]

 

Nightline? You've gotta be kidding. Why do you think they've been trying to get rid of it for the past five years?

 

Alfred E. Neuman presents those topics he wants to present. Be what they may; I'll defend his or anyone's right to until the day I die. Here's an idea. You try to write, produce and edit a 23-minute news program each weeknight that everyone agrees with.

[Adam]

What you're saying is that all terrorists, murderers, and others should be given free time on national tv to air their grievances and inform us all of their demented view of the world.  I'm totally against censorship, but giving killers a free forum is not what I consider free speech.

394742[/snapback]

 

I think we're on the same page

[UConn James]

What you're saying is that all terrorists, murderers, and others should be given free time on national tv to air their grievances and inform us all of their demented view of the world.  I'm totally against censorship, but giving killers a free forum is not what I consider free speech.

394742[/snapback]

 

Yet when they interview Michael Jackson, Gary Condit, Mel Gibson or Jane Fonda, that's all right.

 

I consider it free speech, b/c even tho it might not be popular and I might not agree with it, it's allowed to air.

[UConn James]

Cute. You are a smart guy. Thank you for setting me straight.

394738[/snapback]

 

It's a difference of opinion over the length and breadth of the First Amendement. Let's leave it at that. 'Night.

[finknottle]

What you're saying is that all terrorists, murderers, and others should be given free time on national tv to air their grievances and inform us all of their demented view of the world.  I'm totally against censorship, but giving killers a free forum is not what I consider free speech.

394742[/snapback]

 

I don't understand how you are supposed to determine who are the bad guys if you don't let them talk to the media. Should we take Putin's word for everything?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I don't understand how you are supposed to determine who are the bad guys if you don't let them talk to the media.

394777[/snapback]

 

You mean killing 350 school children wasn't enough of a hint? Did you questin Charles Manson's guilt before Geraldo interviewed him as well?

[Alaska Darin]

You mean killing 350 school children wasn't enough of a hint?    Did you questin Charles Manson's guilt before Geraldo interviewed him as well?

394823[/snapback]

C'mon, good guys often wear masks, carry automatic weapons, and take over schools.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

C'mon, good guys often wear masks, carry automatic weapons, and take over schools. 

395086[/snapback]

 

Scott Peterson never talked to the media. I guess he's not a bad guy...

[Ghost of BiB]

Alfred E. Neuman presents those topics he wants to present

 

BTW, that's funny. I certainly see the resemblance.

[Reuben Gant]

Scott Peterson never talked to the media.  I guess he's not a bad guy... 

395127[/snapback]

murdering your wife and unborn child does not make you all bad.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

murdering your wife and unborn child does not make you all bad. 

395237[/snapback]

 

But if they've already been born, and they're not yours, and it's 350 of them...well, let's withhold judgement until interviews him...

 

Yeah, I know YOU were being sarcastic...but there's more outright stupidity in this single thread than I remember seeing in any past three PPP threads.