Who Died Today?

[digitalmonkey 929]

I'm saying that I don't find The Call of the Journalist to be as Noble as LLY was trying to make it sound.However, in no way did he "deserve" to die.

You must work in politics.

[timwakefield 68]

I'm saying that I don't find The Call of the Journalist to be as Noble as LLY was trying to make it sound.However, in no way did he "deserve" to die.

You're a fucking idiot. Who cares if it was noble, or if he did it because he was a thrill-junkie. It was important, and extremely dangerous. Who the hell do you think takes the pictures that you see on the news and in newspapers literally every day? Pigeons?

[digitalmonkey 929]

You're a fucking idiot. Who cares if it was noble, or if he did it because he was a thrill-junkie. It was important, and extremely dangerous. Who the hell do you think takes the pictures that you see on the news and in newspapers literally every day? Pigeons?

I thought it was swallows.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

That's because you take it for granted.

No. I don’t overvalue what he did. There is a difference between not assigning a tremendous value to something and taking it for granted. You’re taking it for granted that it was terribly important.

You're a fucking idiot.

I know you guys hate me (I've certainly earned it in some cases) and you guys love to get into little feeding frenzies like this, but whatever. I mean does everything have to be like this for you? What a miserable **** you must be.

Who cares if it was noble, or if he did it because he was a thrill-junkie. It was important, and extremely dangerous. Who the hell do you think takes the pictures that you see on the news and in newspapers literally every day? Pigeons?

So, you're saying what he did was important, dangerous, and implying that it served a higher purpose for the rest of society... Sounds like you think it was pretty Noble.I just don’t feel the same way. I never said anything bad about him – I’m just not ready to lionize him either.I think that the role of the "Embedded Journalist" is overstated, you think it is of vast importance or else we wouldn't have all of this great War Porn on the news and in newspapers literally every day. You obviously want it to tell the rest of society the rest of the story that we wouldn't get otherwise. Good. I think that is sometimes good too. I don't trust our government either. I just think that the Media overstate their value and I believe that the Media want to turn the role of the Journalist into a combination rock-star and selfless hero. Someone asked if the Little Lizard didn't mourn the fallen soldiers implying that this guy was the same thing. I just don't put this guy in the same category as a soldier. Perhaps I over-lionize the soldier.

[speedz99 145]

How noble.

Yeah, it is noble to put your life at risk in order to document conflicts around the world that may never come to light otherwise. It is noble to surround yourself by things like invasions, civil wars and genocides so that they won't be allowed to proceed without the world seeing proof of the horrors going on under our noses. What the fuck? Of course it's a noble endeavor. Whether or not you think it's more noble than being a soldier is utterly inconsequential.

I know you guys hate me and love to get into little feeding frenzies like this, but whatever. I mean does everything have to be like this for you? What a miserable **** you must be.

I think you should also admit to the possibility that you actually are way off on this one.

I think that the role of the "Embedded Journalist" is overstated, you think it is of vast importance or else we wouldn't have all of this great War Porn on the news and in newspapers literally every day. You obviously want it to tell the rest of society the rest of the story that we wouldn't get otherwise. Good. I think that is sometimes good too. I don't trust our government either. I just think that the Media overstate their value and I believe that the Media want to turn the role of the Journalist into a combination rock-star and selfless hero.

You know what war porn does? It makes it real. It makes people realize that descriptions of conflicts can't be boiled down to words on a page. To pick one example, it makes tragedies like the genocide in Darfur real enough for people to stand up and take notice. It's easy to ignore "reports say that rebels are tearing up the countryside", but pretty damn hard to ignore first-hand accounts of entire tribes being slaughtered, along with pictures of the violence. It's easy to ignore talk about a lack of food or a drought, but it's hard to ignore a picture of starving children surrounded by flies and vultures.LLY is right, you totally take it for granted, and I'm thinking you're not really empathizing with how hard (not to mention terrifying) it must be for reporters and photographers to put themselves in the middle of those situations to document what's happening.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Yeah, it is noble to put your life at risk in order to document conflicts around the world that may never come to light otherwise. It is noble to surround yourself by things like invasions, civil wars and genocides so that they won't be allowed to proceed without the world seeing proof of the horrors going on under our noses. What the fuck? Of course it's a noble endeavor. Whether or not you think it's more noble than being a soldier is utterly inconsequential.I think you should also admit to the possibility that you actually are way off on this one.You know what war porn does? It makes it real. It makes people realize that descriptions of conflicts can't be boiled down to words on a page. To pick one example, it makes tragedies like the genocide in Darfur real enough for people to stand up and take notice. It's easy to ignore "reports say that rebels are tearing up the countryside", but pretty damn hard to ignore first-hand accounts of entire tribes being slaughtered, along with pictures of the violence. It's easy to ignore talk about a lack of food or a drought, but it's hard to ignore a picture of starving children surrounded by flies and vultures.LLY is right, you totally take it for granted, and I'm thinking you're not really empathizing with how hard (not to mention terrifying) it must be for reporters and photographers to put themselves in the middle of those situations to document what's happening.

Thanks for not calling me a "****ing Idiot"I understand all that. And of course I can admit the possibility I am off line. I think I did so by acknowledging that reasonable (and other) minds value more highly what the guy has done. But that is an opinion. Sometimes, too often in my opinion, the images are misused as a form of demagoguery to influence the masses and decision making.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah, it is noble to put your life at risk in order to document conflicts around the world that may never come to light otherwise.

I think I saw a news story bout Libya or someplace near there where some guns were being shot off or something.

[ShakeZuma 585]

jesus!

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

jesus!

No. You're not gonna fool me with that one.He died like a long time ago.

[AmScray 355]

You're a fucking idiot. Who cares if it was noble, or if he did it because he was a thrill-junkie. It was important, and extremely dangerous.

This is an interesting position.Do you accord the same degree of deference to uniformed law enforcement officers?

[timwakefield 68]

You obviously want it to tell the rest of society the rest of the story that we wouldn't get otherwise.

Journalists tell the story, not the rest of it. Absent journalists we would presumably have to rely on our government to tell us everything. Like they did in, say, the USSR.

This is an interesting position.Do you accord the same degree of deference to uniformed law enforcement officers?

I regard police officers very highly. It is by no means as dangerous as being a war correspondent (or a soldier, of course), and I'm not really sure how or why the two should be compared. But yes, I have massive respect for law enforcement officers and the risks they take every day.

[vbnautilus 48]

Sometimes, too often in my opinion, the images are misused as a form of demagoguery to influence the masses and decision making.

I don't really get this. You think we should suppress our emotional reactions to the horrors of war in order to make more rational decisions about it? Seems like the opposite problem is more prevalent: it's too easy to wage violence in some distant land without being in touch with the visceral consequences of what you are doing.

I regard police officers very highly.

This is nothing a year in los angeles couldn't cure for you.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

This is nothing a year in los angeles couldn't cure for you.

Just stay off the boardwalk with your dog.

[Balloon guy 158]

Just stay off the boardwalk with your hippy dog.

finished your point

[Balloon guy 158]

Journalists tell the story, not the rest of it. Absent journalists we would presumably have to rely on our government to tell us everything. Like they did in, say, the USSR.

Is this true of Fox News journalist also?Cause Bill O'Rielly used to be a war corespondent.Just wonder if this only applies to journalist from the AP...

[timwakefield 68]

Is this true of Fox News journalist also?

Of course it is. They're just not very good at it.Pot Odds, sorry I called you a fucking idiot, that was uncalled for. What I meant and should have said is that I found your comments to be idiotic.

[rsmbox 1]

Of course it is. They're just not very good at it.

No, actually I'd say they're incredibly good at it, considering journalists tells us their story, not the story. There is no such thing as unbiased journalism, and if you think there is, you're fooling yourself.

[mrdannyg 274]

No, actually I'd say they're incredibly good at it, considering journalists tells us their story, not the story. There is no such thing as unbiased journalism, and if you think there is, you're fooling yourself.

You're wrong. And even if you were right, your second point is wrong as well since someone presenting their own story in a way where their bias is obvious is not being persuasive.

[Balloon guy 158]

You're wrong. And even if you were right, your second point is wrong as well since someone presenting their own story in a way where their bias is obvious is not being persuasive.

Bill Clinton was persuasive.So is Rush Limbaugh

[digitalmonkey 929]

Bill Clinton was persuasive.So is Rush Limbaugh

So is Mickey Mouse.

[mrdannyg 274]

Bill Clinton was persuasive.So is Rush Limbaugh

And how often do those guys persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with them? I realize that sentence implies I don't know what "persuade" means.

[rsmbox 1]

You're wrong. And even if you were right, your second point is wrong as well since someone presenting their own story in a way where their bias is obvious is not being persuasive.

You honestly believe that any journalist out there is capable of presenting any story to you without allowing their own perceptions of events to shape what is presented to you? How naive. Everything you say, I say, anyone says is formed and driven by our experiences, beliefs, values, and ideas. Now, that is not to say that every report you witness is driven by the brainwashing machine of persuasion, because this is clearly not the case. However, two different people can witness the same event, yet give completely different detailed accounts of what happened. Why is this? If you can't figure it out yourself, the your mind is too shallow to grasp the point I was making in my previous post.

[timwakefield 68]

No, actually I'd say they're incredibly good at it, considering journalists tells us their story, not the story. There is no such thing as unbiased journalism, and if you think there is, you're fooling yourself.

I'll certainly agree with your second point, but in your first point you got it backwards. If a journalist is putting lots of spin on a story, they are doing a poor job. If a journalist is putting just a minor amount of spin on it, they are doing a better job. Fox news spins things like a fucking tilt-a-whirl. Thus, they are doing a bad job.

[mrdannyg 274]

You honestly believe that any journalist out there is capable of presenting any story to you without allowing their own perceptions of events to shape what is presented to you? How naive. Everything you say, I say, anyone says is formed and driven by our experiences, beliefs, values, and ideas. Now, that is not to say that every report you witness is driven by the brainwashing machine of persuasion, because this is clearly not the case. However, two different people can witness the same event, yet give completely different detailed accounts of what happened. Why is this? If you can't figure it out yourself, the your mind is too shallow to grasp the point I was making in my previous post.

You are doing an excellent job of presenting something simple and obvious as if your basic awareness of it implies any intelligence.The question is not whether the presentation of information contains the bias of the presenter. That is basic and obvious. The question is whether biased presentation should be used by journalists to promote their agenda. You seem to prefer other people doing your thinking for you, in which case that would be meritous. If you'd prefer to do your own objective analysis, then you should consider 'good' journalism to include maximum efforts to minimize the presenter's bias.

[GeneralGeeWhiz 0]