...of this little exchange between Peter Jennings, Mike Wallace and a few others:

[b]From the April 1989 MediaWatch[/b]

[size=3]Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace Agree[/size=3]
[b]Reporters First, Americans Second[/b]

In a future war involving U.S. soldiers what would a TV reporter do if he learned the enemy troops with which he was traveling were about to launch a surprise attack on an American unit?  That's just the question Harvard University professor Charles Ogletree Jr, as moderator of PBS' Ethics in America series, posed to ABC anchor Peter Jennings and 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace. [b]Both agreed getting ambush footage for the evening news would come before warning the U.S. troops.[/b]

For the March 7 installment on battlefield ethics Ogletree set up a theoretical war between the North Kosanese and the U.S.-supported South Kosanese. At first Jennings responded: "If I was with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans."

Wallace countered that other reporters, including himself, "would regard it simply as another story that they are there to cover." Jennings' position bewildered Wallace: "I'm a little bit of a loss to understand why, because you are an American, you would not have covered that story."

[b]"Don't you have a higher duty as an American citizen to do all you can to save the lives of soldiers rather than this journalistic ethic of reporting fact?"[/b] Ogletree asked. Without hesitating Wallace responded: [b]"No, you don't have higher duty... you're a reporter."[/b] This convinces Jennings, who concedes, "I think he's right too, I chickened out."

Ogletree turns to Brent Scrowcroft, now the National Security Adviser, who argues "you're Americans first, and you're journalists second." Wallace is mystified by the concept, wondering "what in the world is wrong with photographing this attack by North Kosanese on American soldiers?" Retired General William Westmoreland then points out that "it would be repugnant to the American listening public to see on film an ambush of an American platoon by our national enemy."

A few minutes later Ogletree notes the "venomous reaction" from George Connell, a Marine Corps Colonel. [b]"I feel utter contempt. Two days later they're both walking off my hilltop, they're two hundred yards away and they get ambushed. And they're lying there wounded. And they're going to expect I'm going to send Marines up there to get them. [u]They're just journalists, they're not Americans[/u]."[/b]

Wallace and Jennings agree, "it's a fair reaction." The discussion concludes as Connell says: [b]"But I'll do it. And that's what makes me so contemptuous of them. And Marines will die, going to get a couple of journalists."[/b]

See article at:[url]http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/mediawatch/1989/mw19890401p1.html[/url]

Does this make your blood boil, just a bit?

Eric The(ButTheyAreRight-They're[u]Not[/u]Americans!)Hun[>]:)]

Eric, take a look at my wild rant a few threads down.

Or how about this article from Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe:

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist, 10/28/2001

[size=3]TO WHAT DO journalists covering this war owe their loyalty?[/size=3]

The Journalism 101 answer is: to the story. But what happens when getting out the story means jeopardizing the legitimate war aims of the United States - or the lives of US soldiers?

The answer to that question is: Some journalists put their country and countrymen first - and some don't.

On Sept. 28, USA Today became the first American paper to break the story that US commandos were operating inside Afghanistan. That didn't come as news to the Knight Ridder news organization: Its Washington bureau had known for a week that Green Berets and Navy SEALS were in the war zone. So why didn't Knight Ridder beat USA Today to the punch and claim the scoop for itself?

Because, wrote bureau chief Clark Hoyt to the editors of Knight Ridder's 32 dailies, ''When we sought Pentagon comment, we were asked not to publish the story on the grounds that it could endanger the lives of the servicemen involved.'' Hoyt said he and his staff ''had a conversation about it, not really a very long one, and decided not to publish.'' The memo promised aggressive war coverage but stressed that in one area the bureau's journalistic decisions would be ''very conservative - and that is reporting about ... military operations when American lives could literally hang in the balance.''

Hoyt's memo was quoted in a column written by one of the editors it was sent to, Walter Lundy of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. ''He's right,'' Lundy commented. ''We are loath to keep anything from our readers, but when people's lives are at stake, what's to debate? You wait.''

Contrast Hoyt's and Lundy's attitude with that of Loren Jenkins, the senior foreign editor of National Public Radio. Talking with Steve Johnson of the Chicago Tribune, Jenkins said he had ordered his reporters to track down the American Special Forces. ''The game of reporting is to smoke 'em out,'' he said.

Johnson pressed him. If NPR reporters discovered the whereabouts of an American commando unit - information the Pentagon says could put the troops' lives at risk if made public - what would the network do?

[b]''You report it,'' Jenkins replied. ''I don't represent the government. I represent history, information, what happened.'' What about the warnings from the military? Jenkins brushed them aside. ''They never tell you the truth. ''[/b]

That attitude - the story is what matters, not the servicemen - exemplifies what Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center calls journalism's ''neutrality fetish.'' It isn't just Jenkins. Last month ABC News prohibited its reporters from wearing US flag lapel pins. ''We cannot signal how we feel about a cause, even a justified and just cause,'' a network spokesman said.

[b]When CNN's Bernard Shaw returned from Baghdad in 1991, having witnessed the outbreak of the Gulf War, he refused to talk to American debriefers about what he had seen - because, he said, he had to remain ''neutral.''[/b]

- continued -

The country needs Marines more than it needs "journalists". Let the newsies bleed out slow, thats what I say!!!!

The most infamous expression of this neutrality fetish occurred during a PBS debate in 1989. A hypothetical case was put to Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace: You're covering a war, traveling behind enemy lines with a ''North Kosanese'' military unit that sets up an ambush to kill a group of Americans. Do you film the ambush or do you try to warn the Americans?

Jennings answered first. ''I think,'' he said after a long pause, ''that I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans.''

That appalled Wallace. ''I am astonished'' that you would interfere, he said to Jennings. ''You're a reporter!'' But shouldn't a reporter do something, asked the moderator, when his fellow Americans are about to be massacred? Doesn't he have a higher duty than covering the story?

''No,'' Wallace replied at once. ''You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!''

This we're-journalists-not-patriots mind-set has so far been largely absent from the current war. NPR's Jenkins is an exception; more common has been the view of Tim Russert, the moderator of ''Meet the Press,'' who said in Boston last week, ''We are journalists but we are also Americans.'' A few days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Dan Rather went even farther. During an emotional appearance on David Letterman's show, Rather said, speaking of the president, ''He wants me to line up, just tell me where.''

In times of war, journalists are not supposed to be neutral. They are supposed to be objective. They are supposed to cover developments fairly and accurately, convey information honestly, and report what is relevant. But it is no part of journalistic integrity not to take sides in a war between the United States and a cruel, fanatic enemy. During World War II, Ernie Pyle and Edward R. Murrow left no doubts about where their sympathies lay. They were great journalists and great patriots. Then as now, it is possible to be both.

See article at:[url]http://www.voy.com/9623/888.html[/url]

Jennings ISN'T an American, he's a Canadian.

Yes, Jennings has never made any bones about not applying for American citizenship. But I assume, as did Wallace, that the hypothetical situation contemplated that the reporters were Americans.

How else to figure Wallace's frustration with Jennings?

Eric The(AVeryHighlyPaidCanadian,IMightAdd)Hun[>]:)]

They are both sub-human scum.  Paid to read a teleprompter.

A 7.62 to their spine would be most appropriate (in a war zone that is).

Thanks Hun and all !

Inspiring.

Would that be a 7.62x39 or a 7.62x51?  [:D]

Hmmm, does midtown Manhattan still qualify as a 'war zone'?

Eric The(Hey!I'mJustAsking!)Hun[>]:)]

Sorry I have to defend the press a little bit.
While not warning American troops about an attack would be cruel and un-American, I would even charge them with "aiding the enemy", the press is very good at exposing the abuses of goverment & corporations. I shudder to think how badly off we would be w/o a free press.

Hey, we've got Fox, and MSNBC gave Alan Keyes his own show.

But the remainder of the media are just a bunch of lickspittel liberals elites!

No one here is talking about destroying any printing presses!

Eric The(Yet!)Hun[>]:)]

 What is a "free press"?  In general the "big media" is beholden not to the government, but the money of its advertisers or the preceptions of the "big cheeses" who direct things, who seek not to inform America but to propagandize it.

Who would expect less from Mike Wallace, who would piss on him to put him out if he was on fire?

Chairborne The(GladThisIsn'tYetAnotherThreadAboutPresidentReagan) Ranger

Hmmm, Chairborne_Ranger, what's your problem with President Reagan?[:D]

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

Hey, I support the concept of a free press as much as most Americans, but when I read things like:



Simply put, these.....beings (the term people connotes possession of a basic level of humanity and intelligence, and is not applicable here) have stated they have no issue with allowing American soldiers to be killed for the sake of ratings, and even consider it a 'duty' to willfully and intentionally, once again for the sake of ratings, violate the integrity and security of our nations forces.

By these beings own words, they are nothing more than a hostile force threating the security of our forces, and as such I firmly believe that, were a squad to run across a band of reporters attempting to 'smoke them out', said squad would be utterly justified in termination with extreme prejudice.



Why I have never, and will never, accept anything but irrefutably substantiated criticism of military officers and soldiers from the media. The men in uniform have proven time and again their integrity and honor. When was the last time a 'journalist' has done the same.

Welllll . . . if you've read my previous posts in your Reagan birthday thread, you already know my opinion of President Reagan.  In sum:  I like him, but I am not guilty of worshipping the ground he walks on, nor would I start several tribute threads . . . [;)]

That Wallace scnario above makes me wonder what if "Omar" had come to our buddy Mikie on Sept. 10 and said, "look, here's some evidence of 20 guys who are about to hijack four jets . . ."  I am sure our "journalist" Mikie would smack his lips at the prospect of such a great story tomorrow, and do nothing.

REf: Eric's original post.

Which is why the rules of engagement on the battlefield should be modified slightly to..

Always engage the press first, after that you may safely engage the opposing forces.

7.62x54R would be fine.  Whatever works and is available.

Yup.

File it under "acceptable collateral damage."

If the press wants to NOT have allegiance to America first, that's fine. Just move to Afghanistan where the luxury of "exercising your journalistic integrity" is unavailable.

Friggen marxists.

"Every time a journalist is whacked, a sniper gets his wings."

Actually, the good news is that there have been more journalists killed by enemy action during the War in Afghanistan (8), then there have been US armed forces (2).

Maybe the Press should start carrying weapons?

Eric The([u]That[/u]WouldBeRichIndeed)Hun[>]:)]

You make some very good points here Eric.

FWIW, IMO money buys "the press" just like big businesses buy politicians to further themselves.


Tyler

The best would be a barrage of full-auto 7.62mm fire.  The muzzle velocity of the rounds would be 100 fps and would proceed until the target was terminated, no matter how long it took.