Tweet
Rationalizations of a jewsmedia whoreosaur
jewsmedia whores jewstify lying to whigger feebs
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...?p=974#post974
AP didn’t have to run dying Marine’s photo
Friday, September 11, 2009
http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/2009/0...g-marines.html
While I defend the right of the Associated Press to distribute the controversial picture of a mortally wounded Marine in Afghanistan, I can’t support its decision to do so.
The controversy came to light over the Labor Day weekend when Defense Secretary William Gates begged the AP to honor the request of the family of Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard not to run a photo of the young man taken in the moments after he was shot in combat on Aug. 14.
But the AP ran the photo, anyway. While it was well within its rights to do so, was the need to publish the picture so compelling as to knowingly compound a family’s grief?
I don’t think it was, as I will discuss in a moment. First, the background:
The AP reports that it waited until after Bernard was buried on Aug 24 to show the picture to the Marine’s grieving family members, saying the agency planned to put the photo on the wire along with a story about the ambush in which he died. The family immediately objected to the publication of the picture and asked Gates to urge the AP not to do so.
After some internal soul-searching, the AP decided to publish the photo on Sept. 4 because “we believe this image is part of the history of this war,” said AP senior managing editor John Daniszewski. “The story and photos are in themselves a respectful treatment and recognition of sacrifice."
A respectful treatment? Arguably. A recognition of sacrifice? Perhaps. But historic? No. And that’s why I question the decision to run the photo.
Had the picture not generated this bit of controversy, it would have been little noted and soon forgotten, because its news value was modest. Distressing as the subject is, it unfortunately is just another of thousands of pictures of death and destruction in the long, depressing blur of images produced over eight, long years of war in the Middle East.
With solemn respect to the tragic sacrifice of this young American, this wasn’t a dramatic news photo like Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald, a game-changing image like the pictures from Abu Gharib prison or an instant icon on the order of the naked girl running down a road after a napalm attack in Vietnam.
The Bernard photo was another picture of another senseless death in a string of thousands of senseless deaths. It was not particularly newsworthy, because it neither altered the well-established narrative of the conflict nor added anything appreciably new to its bloody history.
While it would it would be fully appropriate to publish the picture as breaking news or in the absence of an objection from the family, there is not sufficient journalistic value in this image to justify the pain its publication evidently has caused.
Knowing well in advance of publication of the family’s objections to the picture, the AP would have been within the bounds of responsible and, yes, compassionate journalism to not publish it.
The AP acted sensibly and sensitively when it informed the family about the picture and the story well before they were scheduled to be published. The otherwise commendable process broke down when the AP disregarded the family’s objections. It didn’t have to end that way.
Plenty of stories, pictures, sound bites and video don’t make the news every day, because editors find them to be disruptive, distasteful or otherwise offensive to common decency. Unnecessaily adding to the grief of a military family suffering a fresh loss is an offense against common sense, if not common decency.
Publishing this photo was a judgment call – the kind of decision that reporters, photographers and editors make every minute of every day. And judgment means weighing not only the quality of a story or an image but also its impact.
Although I cherish the principle of an unfettered press that can publish freely without fear or favor, there was nothing in the public interest that demanded the publication of this picture.
==============================================
Pastor Martin Luther Dzerzhinsky Lindstedt said...
All of the above article simply goes to show in large part why the major lie-papers are simply no longer trusted to give out the real news in an honest manner. A dead soldier dying -- for no reason other than to advance the corporate or imperial agenda -- someplace in Afghanistan where there really is no reason for him to die because there really is no good reason for him to be there in the first place.
But you give some long, drawn-out rational for why the corporate and imperial interests should be advanced against that of the People wanting an end to this useless unnecessary war and like a corporate pimp trot out the family of the dead victim of that useless unnecessary war -- he fought to go to college -- in order to give this lie a sanctimonious gloss. A lie benefiting nobody but yourself.
You see, the main reason that the media and liepapers died is that most of us able to read and think for ourselves simply can't trust you media whores to do anything other than lie to us and then use some so-called excuse for doing so. You engage in lying to us by first lying to yourself. And then we are supposed to pay for all this lying by lying whores? I don't think so. At least I got some satisfaction when I left $20 on the nightstand when dealing with an honest whore, but you newsmedia whores can't even be honest with yourself.
The Vietnam War was lost when Walter Cronkite said it was lost. An accumulation of corpses photographed ahowed that even though the Army was winning every single battle, it was at a cost that America was unwilling to pay. And so the North Vietnamese won the war even though we killed millions for 60,000 of our own dead because they were fighting to unify their own country and our 60,000 were dying for a lie.
The butcher's bill, be it wholesale or retail is news. You had a duty to report it honestly. Since you didn't, when the Internet came along we went and found someone, anyone who even if they didn't know what they were talking about, would even try to tell us what we wanted, even sometimes what we needed, to hear.
Your column simply shows everyone who reads it why we abandoned you liars, you false media, you lying mangy dogs who cried "sheep." You were in the media to lie to us and make money while carrying out these evil and stupid policies. So first we shut you out from lying to us by not bothering to read or listen to your lies and by doing that we shut off the money you needed to survive in order to lie to us another day.
You are like the Bourbons, remembering everything and learning nothing. Your time is up. Couldn't you simply crawl off and die without further whining unlike that kid who got killed fighting in a foreign land in which he had no business in being in in the first place?
6:40 AM
jewsmedia whores jewstify lying to whigger feebs
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...?p=974#post974
AP didn’t have to run dying Marine’s photo
Friday, September 11, 2009
http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/2009/0...g-marines.html
While I defend the right of the Associated Press to distribute the controversial picture of a mortally wounded Marine in Afghanistan, I can’t support its decision to do so.
The controversy came to light over the Labor Day weekend when Defense Secretary William Gates begged the AP to honor the request of the family of Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard not to run a photo of the young man taken in the moments after he was shot in combat on Aug. 14.
But the AP ran the photo, anyway. While it was well within its rights to do so, was the need to publish the picture so compelling as to knowingly compound a family’s grief?
I don’t think it was, as I will discuss in a moment. First, the background:
The AP reports that it waited until after Bernard was buried on Aug 24 to show the picture to the Marine’s grieving family members, saying the agency planned to put the photo on the wire along with a story about the ambush in which he died. The family immediately objected to the publication of the picture and asked Gates to urge the AP not to do so.
After some internal soul-searching, the AP decided to publish the photo on Sept. 4 because “we believe this image is part of the history of this war,” said AP senior managing editor John Daniszewski. “The story and photos are in themselves a respectful treatment and recognition of sacrifice."
A respectful treatment? Arguably. A recognition of sacrifice? Perhaps. But historic? No. And that’s why I question the decision to run the photo.
Had the picture not generated this bit of controversy, it would have been little noted and soon forgotten, because its news value was modest. Distressing as the subject is, it unfortunately is just another of thousands of pictures of death and destruction in the long, depressing blur of images produced over eight, long years of war in the Middle East.
With solemn respect to the tragic sacrifice of this young American, this wasn’t a dramatic news photo like Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald, a game-changing image like the pictures from Abu Gharib prison or an instant icon on the order of the naked girl running down a road after a napalm attack in Vietnam.
The Bernard photo was another picture of another senseless death in a string of thousands of senseless deaths. It was not particularly newsworthy, because it neither altered the well-established narrative of the conflict nor added anything appreciably new to its bloody history.
While it would it would be fully appropriate to publish the picture as breaking news or in the absence of an objection from the family, there is not sufficient journalistic value in this image to justify the pain its publication evidently has caused.
Knowing well in advance of publication of the family’s objections to the picture, the AP would have been within the bounds of responsible and, yes, compassionate journalism to not publish it.
The AP acted sensibly and sensitively when it informed the family about the picture and the story well before they were scheduled to be published. The otherwise commendable process broke down when the AP disregarded the family’s objections. It didn’t have to end that way.
Plenty of stories, pictures, sound bites and video don’t make the news every day, because editors find them to be disruptive, distasteful or otherwise offensive to common decency. Unnecessaily adding to the grief of a military family suffering a fresh loss is an offense against common sense, if not common decency.
Publishing this photo was a judgment call – the kind of decision that reporters, photographers and editors make every minute of every day. And judgment means weighing not only the quality of a story or an image but also its impact.
Although I cherish the principle of an unfettered press that can publish freely without fear or favor, there was nothing in the public interest that demanded the publication of this picture.
==============================================
Pastor Martin Luther Dzerzhinsky Lindstedt said...
All of the above article simply goes to show in large part why the major lie-papers are simply no longer trusted to give out the real news in an honest manner. A dead soldier dying -- for no reason other than to advance the corporate or imperial agenda -- someplace in Afghanistan where there really is no reason for him to die because there really is no good reason for him to be there in the first place.
But you give some long, drawn-out rational for why the corporate and imperial interests should be advanced against that of the People wanting an end to this useless unnecessary war and like a corporate pimp trot out the family of the dead victim of that useless unnecessary war -- he fought to go to college -- in order to give this lie a sanctimonious gloss. A lie benefiting nobody but yourself.
You see, the main reason that the media and liepapers died is that most of us able to read and think for ourselves simply can't trust you media whores to do anything other than lie to us and then use some so-called excuse for doing so. You engage in lying to us by first lying to yourself. And then we are supposed to pay for all this lying by lying whores? I don't think so. At least I got some satisfaction when I left $20 on the nightstand when dealing with an honest whore, but you newsmedia whores can't even be honest with yourself.
The Vietnam War was lost when Walter Cronkite said it was lost. An accumulation of corpses photographed ahowed that even though the Army was winning every single battle, it was at a cost that America was unwilling to pay. And so the North Vietnamese won the war even though we killed millions for 60,000 of our own dead because they were fighting to unify their own country and our 60,000 were dying for a lie.
The butcher's bill, be it wholesale or retail is news. You had a duty to report it honestly. Since you didn't, when the Internet came along we went and found someone, anyone who even if they didn't know what they were talking about, would even try to tell us what we wanted, even sometimes what we needed, to hear.
Your column simply shows everyone who reads it why we abandoned you liars, you false media, you lying mangy dogs who cried "sheep." You were in the media to lie to us and make money while carrying out these evil and stupid policies. So first we shut you out from lying to us by not bothering to read or listen to your lies and by doing that we shut off the money you needed to survive in order to lie to us another day.
You are like the Bourbons, remembering everything and learning nothing. Your time is up. Couldn't you simply crawl off and die without further whining unlike that kid who got killed fighting in a foreign land in which he had no business in being in in the first place?
6:40 AM
