Media Responsibility

[Ghost of BiB]

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.

[Reuben Gant]

I saw some of the Broadcast and thought the same thing to myself.

My first inclination was that it was freelance journalism and the

story was picked-up by ABC, or sold to ABC.

 

Having said that, the show seemed to make a distinction between

Osama Bin Laden and this guy, which was that this guy has only

regional aspirations, and Osama wants to see the complete distruction

of the west.

 

My reaction was that they seemed to go to some lengths to discriminate

between the motivations for his type of terror and Osama's.

 

 

What also came to mind was that in Britain, they never let Jerry Adams

speak on the BBC without a voiceover. Which was kind of silly.

 

I was left wondering if this guy is any threat to the US, or should be

viewed through the scope of a regional revolutionary/seperatist.

 

I

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I saw some of the Broadcast and thought the same thing to myself.

My first inclination was that it was freelance journalism and the

story was picked-up by ABC, or sold to ABC.

 

Having said that, the show seemed to make a distinction between

Osama Bin Laden and this guy, which was that this guy has only

regional aspirations, and Osama wants to see the complete distruction

of the west.

 

My reaction was that they seemed to go to some lengths to discriminate

between the motivations for his type of terror and Osama's.

What also came to mind was that in Britain, they never let Jerry Adams

speak on the BBC without a voiceover. Which was kind of silly.

 

I was left wondering if this guy is any threat to the US, or should be

viewed through the scope of a regional revolutionary/seperatist.

 

I

393627[/snapback]

 

So he's regional. It ain't the War on al Qaeda, it's the War on Terrorism. Bin Laden used to be a "regional" threat, too...

[Ghost of BiB]

Having said that, the show seemed to make a distinction between

Osama Bin Laden and this guy, which was that this guy has only

regional aspirations, and Osama wants to see the complete distruction

of the west.

 

So, this should be viewed from an aspect of scale? To me, that's a smokescreen to help justify. It's also not accurate. Bin Laden and AQ would like to see the complete destruction of the west, but their primary issues are regional as well. I didn't see the show. I haven't watched Nightline in a year. But, if they made pains to make that distinction, that's even more irresponsible.

[Reuben Gant]

So, this should be viewed from an aspect of scale? To me, that's a smokescreen to help justify. It's also not accurate. Bin Laden and AQ would like to see the complete destruction of the west, but their primary issues are regional as well. I didn't see the show. I haven't watched Nightline in a year. But, if they made pains to make that distinction, that's even more irresponsible.

393639[/snapback]

Would it have been irresponsible for ABC to interview leaders of the ETA in the Basque? (not a loaded question, I don't know the answer)

 

It seemed to me the guy had a chance to say a lot to discredit himself, and if anything he looked kind of pathetic holding his artificial leg over his shoulder

cooking meat on a stick. "They are looking for me, but I am looking for them"

sounded like a B movie script.

[Ghost of BiB]

Would it have been irresponsible for ABC to interview leaders of the ETA in the Basque? (not a loaded question, I don't know the answer)

 

It seemed to me the guy had a chance to say a lot to discredit himself, and if anything he looked kind of pathetic holding his artificial leg over his shoulder

cooking meat on a stick. "They are looking for me, but I am looking for them"

sounded like a B movie script.

393646[/snapback]

 

And, you obligingly viewed it as entertainment and are either ignoring, or missing my and Tom's point. The Soviet Union (way back when) invaded Afghanistan because their attempt at a communist regime there failed. It was a strategic decision made to avoid the dangers of a fundamental Islamic state along their border. Chechnya is their new Afghanistan. We might view Mexico a bit differently if it weren't predominantly catholic. Point is, if you don't think these guys are in bed with "AQ" (would take too long to explain the relationships) you're wrong.

[blzrul]

By the way if you go back a few weeks and listen to administration speeches you'll notice that the "war on terror" has now morphed into something like "action against groups who use terroristic tactics" or some such descriptive phrase.

 

I wonder is that because it is quite possible to lose a "war" but not so much a nebulous "campaign" or "project" or whatever it is...? I'll see if I can find it, Rummy hisself has been using it lately but I would never want to mis-quote him.

[Reuben Gant]

I saw some of the Broadcast and thought the same thing to myself.

 

 

393627[/snapback]

I am not as certain as you, but I generally agree with you. (BiB)

I follow the media closely and didn't enjoy the segment,

I found it disturbing, but I was wondering what line the

media crossed exactly. Defining such a thing seems murky,

that was just my impression from what I did see.

[Ghost of BiB]

I am not as certain as you, but I generally agree with you.

I follow the media closely and didn't enjoy the segment,

I found it disturbing, but I was wondering what line the

media crossed exactly. Defining such a thing seems murky,

that was just my impression from what I did see.

393667[/snapback]

 

I got you.

[Reuben Gant]

I got you.

393670[/snapback]

Do you think that the Chechyan's (sic) and AQ have

a coalition of convenience or shared goals?

[Ghost of BiB]

By the way if you go back a few weeks and listen to administration speeches you'll notice that the "war on terror" has now morphed into something like "action against groups who use terroristic tactics" or some such descriptive phrase.

 

I wonder is that because it is quite possible to lose a "war" but not so much a nebulous "campaign" or "project" or whatever it is...?  I'll see if I can find it, Rummy hisself has been using it lately but I would never want to mis-quote him.

393664[/snapback]

 

And that is relevant how?

 

A short explanation is that things do constantly morph, that is why we have initiated an adaptive planning process. It is reactive, yes, but also proactive.

 

The public wants their daily diet, and they must be fed, whether they understand anything or not. The problem often is that to do that, one must offer things, including terms and statements in an unclassified format. Lots of time is spent on terms and definitions. It's almost an art form to strike the right balance to give the hotpockets what they want (they usually go away and argue amongst themselves, then, whether it be PPP or Meet the Press) and enough meat for the "read between the liners". Knowing that much of America is of the hotpocket variety, what gets said is usually pointed more to the "read between the liners", as they might have a clue and know better.

 

But, that will be my post addressing your "Bush Bad".

 

Go make me a sandwich. (One of the best comebacks I've seen Ed do)

[Ghost of BiB]

Do you think that the Chechyan's (sic) and AQ have

a coalition of convenience or shared goals?

393677[/snapback]

 

Both.

[Wacka]

The press has no ethics. They are citizens of their country first, newsmen second. If they know where a scumbag like that guy is, they have a moral obligation to tell the authorities that, so they can arrest or get rid of him. To hell with protecting sources. Same as interviewing any murderer.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

The press has no ethics. They are citizens of their country first, newsmen second. If they know where a scumbag like that guy is, they have a moral obligation to tell the authorities that, so they can arrest or get rid of him. To hell with protecting sources.  Same as interviewing any murderer.

393719[/snapback]

 

Wow, this is a first...I actually agree with Wacka on something.

 

Why the hell do we give an open forum to terrorists and murderers? Why does a network consider this "newsworthy"? The same thing with Atta's father wanting to state his views. Sorry, but your kid was a terrorist scumbag and we don't give a flying !@#$ about what you think about anything.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Do you think that the Chechyan's (sic) and AQ have

a coalition of convenience or shared goals?

393677[/snapback]

 

I'm pretty sure it's FAR more complex than the answer to that question...

[Ghost of BiB]

I just find this disturbing. Yes, it was done through a Russian newscaster, but ABC isn't going to just "pick up a story". This was pointed, calculated and extremely coordinated. I've said "Big Picture" till I'm blue in the face. There's a serious bad guy, on Niteline, for all to see. The Russians are much more pragmatic, and often much more practical than we. How did this help our cooperative efforts? You have a government working their ass off to get synergistic operations and agreements, and for the sake of "poor" ratings, that basically for a show no one watched, a "major" American news network interviews one of our ally's number one bad guys.

 

That doesn't help, folks. How would you feel?

[Ghost of BiB]

I'm pretty sure it's FAR more complex than the answer to that question...

393741[/snapback]

 

Already answered it.

[Terry Tate]

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.

Just despicable. I was initially stunned they could find enough people, from camera crew to editors and production personnel to do this. Then I read some of the comments at the end of the story, and I was saddened to see there are plenty of people who think it is ok to do something like this.

 

Maybe if Eric Rudolph had been more successful at killing people with bombs, he could've gotten on Nightline while he was still hiding out.

[BigAL]

And that is relevant how?

 

A short explanation is that things do constantly morph, that is why we have initiated an adaptive planning process. It is reactive, yes, but also proactive.

 

The public wants their daily diet, and they must be fed, whether they understand anything or not. The problem often is that to do that, one must offer things, including terms and statements in an unclassified format. Lots of time is spent on terms and definitions. It's almost an art form to strike the right balance to give the hotpockets what they want (they usually go away and argue amongst themselves, then, whether it be PPP or Meet the Press) and enough meat for the "read between the liners". Knowing that much of America is of the hotpocket variety, what gets said is usually pointed more to the "read between the liners", as they might have a clue and know better.

 

But, that will be my post addressing your "Bush Bad".

 

Go make me a sandwich. (One of the best comebacks I've seen Ed do)

393691[/snapback]

 

Well, I always thought the GWOT was a joke. It's like the war on drugs. Prior to the election, it was another way to keep the American people scared into voting for Bush. Now they don't want us to think that we are in a constant state of war because support for it continues to fall. All you guys who keep saying "its the GWOT stupid" need to find a new catch phrase to hang your hat on.

 

Now they say that getting Bin Laden is irrelevant. Unfortutely, we made him more than irrelevant, we made him unnecessary, and in doing so inspired others to fill in the gaps. Killing or capturing him now would mean almost nothing. However, if we had caught or killed him during the Afghanistan war, it might have made a big difference.

 

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.

[blzrul]

So when whatsisface interviewed Saddam Hussein years ago were you all as upset? On the Evildoer Meter he's probably far worse than this guy.

 

Dust in the wind...100 years from now what will it all matter. 1000 years from now they'll teach about America in schools much the same as we learned about Greece and Rome and kids will wonder "how'd they manage to blow it?"