Here's Friday's commentary from Jonah Goldberg at NationalReviewOnline.com:

[size=4]Killing Journalists[/size=4]
[b]What's so special about Danny Pearl?[/b]

Danny Pearl's execution is a recruitment video for savages. According to CBS News, the film is being distributed out of Saudi Arabia, our strategic partner for peace and the war on terrorism. The footage is titled "The Slaughter of the Spy-Journalist, the Jew Daniel Pearl." It must trip off the tongue better in Arabic.

Apparently the footage is very popular with Saudi college kids, high-school students, and other folks whose idea of downloading porn from the Internet involves getting the latest pictures of Americans and Jews being carved up like animals. So much for the idea that education is the solution to all social problems.

Dan Rather introduced the footage by saying, "Enemies of this country are spreading on the Internet a gruesome piece of propaganda: It is videotape of the execution of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl."

Now, I realize I'm at least a week late in writing about this, but Dan Rather and the rest of the media are years behind schedule.

I think Rather and CBS were right for airing the video and I think the rest of the media is wrong for not following suit.

[b]But what's so special about Danny Pearl?[/b]

Is it because he was an American civilian? No, over 3,000 American civilians were murdered on September 11 and it's very difficult to see footage of that any more (See "Bring Back the Horror."). American tourists were killed in Cairo by fanatics, six people were murdered in the first World Trade Center attack, a prison guard was stabbed in the eye by al Qaeda member Mamdouh Mahmud Salim. Do you know any of their names? How many of their husbands or wives have you seen on Larry King Live?

Is it because Danny Pearl was Jewish? Hardly, Jews — many of them American citizens — are slaughtered for sport and fun almost every day, and we don't spend much time dwelling on the details or wringing our hands about whether the press should show the gruesome details. The nightly news doesn't show the maimed children or the decapitated old men piled on the streets of Israel partly because to devote so much time to such images would distract from stressing the need for Israeli restraint.

See remainder of article at:[url]http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg.asp[/url]

Here's a sweet little quote from Mike Wallace:
'I'm not an American first, I'm a reporter first.'

See this article for more on that:[url]http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah110501.asp[/url]

Eric The(Exasperated)Hun[>]:)]

HMMMM...whats so special about Danny? Could it be he's the media which runs this country?[rolleyes]

I think "special" is just the word-low IQ for going into a war zone and flirting with disaster. He ain't the first journalist to be offed in a war zone, and he ain't the last. He shoulda hung around with Whorealdo. Then you only have to worry about "enemy fire" from your own entourage.

It amazes me that people who are so interested in preserving the 2nd amendment are so unsympathetic to those who die acting in pursuit of the 1st amendment.

There is nothing special about Danny Pearl - he was just another human like the rest of us.  Wasn't it Stalin who said the death of a single Soviet soldoer was a tragedy, the death of a million just a statistic?  The press covers news events like this, lavishing attention on single tradegies, while usually glossing over larger tragedies throughout the world.  If you can't get easy video and it takes more than 10 words to explain it, they ignore it, especially if it does not fit in with their liberal worldview.  Journalists have to be the most intellectually lazy, biased, sensationalistic people of all of us.  Their holier than thou attitude makes me want to  [puke]

Seeking the real news in places like Pakistan and taking the risks associated with meeting these characters isn't exactly lazy.  How many of *us* put our butts on the line to do our jobs?

Maybe, but Pearl did everything wrong.  He could've had security with him but didn't, he could've done the meet in a public place but chose not to.  This doesn't justify his death, but he knew where he was and that Jews are not particularly welcome there. He died because he allowed himself to be kidnapped by Muslim fundamentalists, and for failing to take necessary precautions.

[bounce] BWWAAHAHAHAHA. Now I gotta clean the screen on the lap-top again!

3,000 American civilians killed in WTC
= News story of the year.[:\]

11 Volunteer American sailors killed on board USS Cole
= News story of the month.[:\]

1 Volunteer American soldier killed after falling out of chopper
= News story of the week.[:\]

1 Volunteer American soldier killed in Afghan firefight this week
= News story of the day.[:\]

1 Volunteer American Journalist killed in Pakistan
= A deep, deep tragedy and brutally savage loss of innocent life.[>Q]

It seems the alternative is the Geraldo model, where you never leave the safety of a large group, never venture into less than completely secured areas, and you and your large contingent of security carry weapons.  As was noted above, then you end up with nothing to add of substance.  That's not useful.

Journalists have mostly been considered neutral in many of these situations, and that's changing.  I think we all lose in the process.

DScott: I'm having a hard time digesting your comment about pursuing the 1st Amendment. It was his choice. It was his chosen profession. What's the big deal? Sometimes, ESPECIALLY IN A WAR ZONE, that profession can be dangerous. I'm CERTAIN he was awre of it. He CHOSE to do what he did, and how he did it. It's kinda like people that build their homes in a floodplain, and then you see them whining on the news when Mother Nature bites them in the ass, and they lose everything. I have NO sympathy for that kind of stupidity. If you want to risk your life reporting that "unreportable" news (oh, and gee, maybe get a Pulitzer while you're at it) YOU suffer the possible consequences. And to think I'm really gonna believe the tripe spewed forth from one of those hotairbag middle easterners? Come on-spare me.

What makes Daniel Pearl special you ask.....how about the circumstances surrounding his death? I mean here is a neutral member of the media who was tortured, killed and had his head cut off for just being an American. I know on average I am about as critical of the media as anyone, but this situation was just "going too far". My sympathy is with the Pearl family just as it would be with any American family who lost a loved one in such a manner to these vermin. I think it illustrates the kind of people we are dealing with here......pure scum of the earth bastards! Had Pearl died in car accident, plane crash, etc, that would have been different. But this was nothing but terrorism and murder.

[b]Charging_Handle[/b], did you read Jonah Goldberg's article in full?

It sounds as if you didn't.

Just as a reminder, Jonah Goldberg is also a Jewish reporter, so I don't think you have to worry about bias against Mr. Pearl from him.

What he's saying is that there is too much media bias in favor of Mr. Pearl, not because he's an American citizen, oh no, but simply because he's a member of the Fourth Estate!

Being a 'neutral member of the media', as you refer to him, sure doesn't raise the value of his stock in my estimation. I'd rather he be a pro-American member of the media.

We've seen a whole lot more coverage on Mr. Pearl's death than we have on any of our soldiers who have died in Afghanistan.

And that is wrong.

Do you not agree with that?

Eric The(SurelyYouMust)Hun[>]:)]

Eric,

I'm not saying it is right that he is getting so much attention. I don't think he is any better than the soldiers either. What I am saying is that this guy was a "non-combatent". What happened should have never happened. If he had been in combat and died, that would have been a different case. This guy was just trying to get a story. That's why he is getting so much attention. Seems you condemn this guy for being a reporter.  You love the second amendment don't you? What is wrong with him believing in the first? They are both written on the same sheet of paper. Until we all learn to accept that fact, we are never going to win. You can't pick and choose what parts of the constitution you like and the parts you don't and throw them out. If one part applies they all do.

No, no, no, [b]Charging_Handle[/b], have you been keeping up with my posts on this subject?

I'm one of the few that objected to the video being shown in deference to Pearl's widow and children! And, additionally, so as not to assist the terrorist POSs who did this to him in the first place!

Nonsense. I [u]love[/u] reporters who do not say stupid sh|t like 'I'm not an American first, I'm a reporter first.'

Remember, friend, this is Jonah Goldberg writing this article, not me.

How old are you, Son, are you even listening to what I'm saying?

I have never found anyone that supports the 2nd Amendment who did not support the 1st Amendment, as well. At least anyone whose opinion I valued to any degree!

Jeepers, I give up! You just don't get it, do you?

Your assignment for this evening is to go and re-read (or read for the first time!) the Goldberg article and tell me if you believe that Jonah Goldberg indicates that he does [u]not[/u] value the 1st Amendment by anything he says in that article!

Is that your comprehension of this article?

That Daniel Pearl [u]should[/u] have died for trying to chase this story?

BTW, do you remember Ernie Pyle? Isn't he the kind of reporter that you would like all of them to be like?

Eric The(Exasperated)Hun[>]:)]

Adding to this....I hear the comment that this guy would have never been killed if he hadn't been pursuing this story. Well, what if a cop was in a similar situation. He spots armed robbers leaving a bank which was just reported to him. This cop could sit there and do nothing, or he could do his job and try to apprehend them. If he is killed in the line of duty would people feel the same way and just brush it off? People could say that he would be alive had he just let them go. But that isn't the way things work. Americans have jobs to do and they do them. Anyone who died in the attacks on 9/11, the bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and all the other acts of terrorism that have occurred were doing there jobs also. Just because this man was a reporter, let's not just say "oh well, he was just a reporter". Even if he is getting extra attention from the media, that doesn't mean we should resent him! The people who are really at blame are the puke terrorists that do this. They hate us all, no matter what our occupation is. They are the enemy. Instead of arguing among each other over the little details of something, we should be making these guys pay for what they did.

[b][/b]

Nevermind, [b]Charging_Handle[/b], you simply don't get the thrust of Mr. Goldberg's story, and that's all there is to it.

I give up.

BTW, are you a journalism major, by any chance?[:D]

Eric The(See'Ya)Hun[>]:)]

I'm not talking about anything stated by that guy in the article. My original post was about what "I" thought about Pearl. Yet you had to jump all over my post. Do you not have anything better to do than try to make yourself look good at the expense of someone else?  

[b]Charging_Handle[/b] I think [b]Eric[/b] is exasperated because you don't seem to get the gist of the article which is summarized at the very end:

[b]Some journalists don't think this is fair because, as Mike Wallace once said, "I'm not an American first, I'm a reporter first."

[red]In other words: Killing American soldiers? Well, that's news. Killing reporters? That's tragedy. [/red]

When Peter Jennings reported Danny Pearl was dead, he said, "Very sad news for everybody in the journalist community, of course. Sad news for Americans at large." At least he was honest about the order. [/b]


Do you see the point of the article? It's not about the murder of Pearl, it's about the [b]coverage[/b] of that murder.

That about covers it.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, [b]The_Macallan[/b] and [b]subsailor[/b], for explaining this article far better than any of my poor attempts!

You guys are the greatest!

Eric The(Amazed)Hun[>]:)]

Daniel Pearl is nothing but propaganda, and he who beleives not, fell for it.
GG

I HATE THE ANTI-SEMITES ON THIS SITE!!!!!!

You are UN-AMERICAN!
You are ignorant!
You are part of whats wrong with this country!

Neutral?? (I don't think so). Killed for being an American? How do you know that? I think he was killed because he was a jew, a reporter, and according to the tape, his father was a "zionist"...... I've got a lot more sympathy for the SF guy who fell from the chopper and died defending himself!

So, what's so special about anyone, for Chrissakes!

It's not everyday someone is captured by a radical group in a foreign country at a certain moment in time and for whatever reason becomes front page news. Look at Chandra Levy, just an ordinary girl involved with a high powered creep who becomes missing then dead. That story happens all the time but this time it made the news.

I saw the video of Daniel Pearl's execution and came away impressed with his bravery. I wish he could've had the strength and courage to at least die in the act of killing one or more of his captors. I'd like to believe that others might learn from his example, whether that means avoiding the possibility of capture in some areas in the world like Pakistan or they deny the kidnappers by resisting in the face of death.

I think he was brave to venture into harm's way to gather information and try and report what's happening to the rest of the world.  Our first amendment guarantees the freedom of the press, but it is sometimes dangerous to exercise that freedom.  If you think that's stupid, that's fine.  I, for one, am grateful there are people willing to take such chances to keep us better informed.  

I'm also saddened by the brutality shown in the manner of his death, and that a good man died when he shouldn't have.  He amy have died prusuing his career, but he also died trying to help learn more about what surely affects us all as Americans.

Some guys are willing to risk life and limb are able to be places and report on things that the safe, security conscious reporters will never know.  I admire them.  Eric's example of Ernie Pyle is a good one- he was willing to put his ass on the line to let the American people in on what he saw.

Think Geraldo has offered anything of value, even with all his money, resources, and "security"?

Oh, and Eric, sorry- I didn't read Goldberg's article.  My bad!

Oy vey, I think I'm going to puke.  The eternal victim routine is wearing a little thin.

I don't see them beheading arab reporters.

I am not saying that Pearl is any better than anyone else. I read the article and I agree with that point. But I was just stating my opinion that anyone being killed by these terrorists are wrong. They are killing just because the person may not agree with everything that they think. If someone wants to blame the media for giving too much attention to Pearl, that is fine. I have no problem with that. But blame the media, and not Pearl. He isn't at fault for the coverage, afterall he is dead!

And if Pearl was a Jew do you think that means it's ok to just behead him? If we believe that then we are no better than the Islamic extremists that blew up the WTC or Pentagon.  I agree with Jack Burton. Seems anti-semitism is the real issue among some folks that post here.

Oh, and by the way I have an equal amount of sympathy for all Americans who died at the hands of the terrorists, regardless of what their occupation is or their religion. But some people just can't seem to see it that way.  

You're kidding right? Sarcasm perhaps?


On topic, great article. Thanks for posting it Eric.

And yes, The Macallan did a much better job of articulating your point. [:)]

Since you *hate* them, what makes you any better?

Here's a little tidbit that is sure to start a world of shit.  The original Americans, the Founding Fathers, have many quotes attributed to them that could be considered anti-Semitic.  Are they "UN-AMERICAN" too?

From Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade
"he choose poorly."

But I think a lot of the Muslems over there hate Americans & their culture period, whether they are journalists or not it doesn't really matter.

I think Pearl's murder singled him out because he WAS a journalist. I think that the murdurers aim was to get maximum publicity/exposue for their cause and they surmised(and correctly) that the news media in the USA is very close to each other even though each journalist don't personally know each other.

I have heartfelt sorrow for Danny Pearl's family, he didn't deserve to die at the handa of terrorists. However, it is truly a pity that real heroes who FIGHT for this country and are killed in the line of duty get .005% of the coverage that Danny Pearl did.

It's the cop's job to put himself in the line of fire if necessary to do his job. A journalist's job is to report the news, not put himself at risk to do it. What kind of an idiot goes deep into a country that is completely hostile to Jews, being a Jew himself? Daniel Pearl, apparently.


Yeah, I DO say he's "just a reporter" because the media seems to think that journalists' death are somehow more important than the deaths of soldiers and everyday people. Yes, he was killed in a barbaric way, but so have millions of other people. If the media doesn't care about them then I for one couldn't care less about Pearl.

I'm convined that Pearl was killed simply because he was an American reporter, and the animals who butchered him wanted to send a message to all of us here.  That he was Jewish and his family had some ties w/Israel was simply a little extra bonus for them.  They'd have killed him just as fast if he'd been Catholic or Baptist.

My advise to American reporters: "Guys, some stories just ain't worth going after".  Even if Pearl had gotten the interview he wanted, and got out safely, what would we have learned that we didn't already know?

Post from shotar -

Hmmm, that may be what's being [u]taught[/u], but it's certainly not what's being [u]learned[/u] in journalism schhols in the US! Or if it [u]is[/u] being learned, it's quickly forgotten!

Most journalists that make it 'big' in the business are the very ones that have dedicated themselves to pushing an agenda.

God forbid journalists should lose their ability to 'objectively' report on events!

If they ever had 'objectivity' to begin with, they would certainly have no clue as to where they could find their 'objectivity' again!

Gee, they are almost like front line soldiers in that respect, aren't they?

[b]No![/b]

If you want to see what sort of reporters the United States [u]used[/u] to be graced with, you need only go back so far as Ernie Pyle!

And, in all honesty, I respect Daniel Pearl all the more, because he was not content to stay out of harm's way, but chose to view the situation 'at the front.'

Eric The('Objectivity'MeansYouHaven'tChosenASideYet!)Hun[>]:)]

From the 'Honoring Ernie Pyle' website at:[url]http://www.dtic.mil/soldiers/june95/p50.html[/url]

Ernie Pyle, a Scripps-Howard Newspaper Alliance reporter, was known for his simple, descriptive stories about U.S. soldiers. His highly personal columns, like printed snapshots, erased the war's abstractions. They zoomed in on the mud, the cold, the loneliness, and the inner thoughts of America's fighting men. Other journalists wrote from a wide-angle perspective. Pyle shot close-ups.

That demanded that Pyle be tough enough to endure the hardships and perils of the soldiers he wrote about.

"The other war correspondents stayed safely back from the front and would ask the boys how it was when they got back," said Evelyn Hobson, curator of the museum. [b]"Ernie would go right up there with them and dig his own foxhole."[/b]

And when he was killed by a Japanese sniper's bullet while covering the war on the Pacific island of Ie Shima, no less a figure than Gen. Omar N. Bradley remarked that "I have known no finer man, no finer soldier than he."

The Army brass didn't always feel so positively about Pyle. The journalist initially angered them by quoting soldiers' profanity, and Hobson said he hit sensitive nerves by writing about "our boys who were shell-shocked." Pyle said the American people "need to know."

Those journalistic instincts got some of Pyle's first columns censored, which infuriated him. The practice came to an end when he threatened to stop covering the war. Today, that may sound absurd, but Pyle's popularity at home and abroad had been growing fast. Before long, Generals Dwight D. Eisenhower and Bradley were reading Pyle's columns to keep tabs on the morale of their troops.

But what made Pyle so loved by the soldiers he covered -- and respected by the brass -- wasn't just his journalism. It was the way, in the words of one soldier who was twice the subject of Pyle's stories, "he blended in like a member of the unit, and the soldiers responded as if he was one of them. He made invasions with combat troops, risking his life with them as if it were his duty."

This is what is most offensive about our current crop of journalists - hypocrisy.

In polls take regarding why college students chose the major they did, the overwhelmingy majority of journalism majors in college respond [u]"to change the world, to make the world a better place".[/u]

And yet they vault themselves up with an air of superiority that they are "objective" and "unbiased" in their coverage of news events and controversial topics.

[b]Just how in the world can any journalist consider themselves "objective" in reporting any news if their main reason for covering that news is to change the world into what THEY want.[/b]

Thus, "news bias" - it's seeds are planted even in the very reason most journalism majors WANT to become reporters. To USE their position to change people's thinking (to what the journalist  wants them to think of course) thereby making the world a better place in the eyes of the "objective" journalist.

Because of this hypocrisy, I have very little respect for journalists.

There is no "transparent" journalism anymore. There are SO MANY avenues in which reporter's bias not just seeps in, but actually floods into news reporting:
* Public opinion polls that become the lead story (bandwagon affect to sway the public a la endless Clinton approval-rating polls during impeachment)
* ALWAYS including quotes from HCI spokesmen in stories about guns, but rarely including quotes from NRA spokesmen.
* Editorializing in headlines
* Always attaching the lable "conservative" to those organizations/politicians/people etc. but NEVER attaching the label "liberal" to any left-wing organizations/politicians/people etc.

There are so many more but the point is plain - Journalists freely admit they got into the business of journalism to use their position to change the peoples thinking - into what THEY want to see.

WTF?  I hate to break the news to you, but no one has even hinted that there is a First Amendment over there (or any other part of our Constitution).


The guy died ostensibly acting in pursuit of a story, and showed some really shitty judgement in going after it.  Not only did he go into a war zone, but he took his WIFE over there, the dumbshit.  

The killers are bastards, but he went to them. Since self-preservation is a basic instinct, I have to wonder, "what was he thinking?".

Then there's always the possibility that he was a "company" man.

Bottom line:  It came with the territory, sorry to say.  He went into a 'minefield'.

Is it Easter again or why are you guys still talking about a dead jew?

You just love to piss people off, don't you? [;D]

Jackass.

Would you rather we talk about sh!t-for-brains buttholes like you??

He's an American trying to bring the news to Americans, about things that affect us and our foreign policy.

Don't you want an independent press, or do you just want ot hear what our government wants us to hear?

Maybe his judgement was faulty in this case: but we only know that in hindsight and who's to say how a journalist should do their job.  Not me.

For these reasons, I think his actions were heroic.

I guess you can take the man out of Germany, but you can't take the German out of the man.

Nothing so special about a dead Mossad Agent.

Post from MAUSER88 -

Trust me, if he [u]had[/u] been a Mossad agent, Daniel Pearl would still be alive!

The guys who were sent to nab him would be dead, however!

That's a fact, Jack![:D]

Eric The(Mossad'sAlwaysBeenPrettyDamnSuccessful!)Hun[>]:)]