Skip to comments.Help for old news item
Posted on 04/20/2008 10:48:06 AM PDT by mushroom
I'm looking for the news item about the TV anchor who said something along the line of "if I knew of an imminent attack on US forces, I wouldn't tell them because journalists are supposed to be neutral."
Might just convince a liberal with this one.
Could be anyone of the MSM as they are all, or I consider them all to be, anti-American pro terrorist.
Someone at CBS, Mike Wallace?
it was a roundtable with I think wallace, maybe jennings, possibly westmoreland, several others( journalists and military men together on the panel). there was some controversy afterwards about the statement one of them made on the subject of alerting US troops if they knew an attack was coming..
The other news anchors and reporters present had about the same ambiguous answers to hypothetical scenarios where they had to decide between patriotism and reporter neutrality.
In short, there are no more Edward R. Murrows, and "This Is London.........".
You sure as hell don't have to stay neutral when you know someone is going to die when you can prevent it, especially for your country.
It would be a great news story in itself if a reporter turned out to be a hero. Liberals just don't or can't think logically and feel little empathy for their fellow man.
Their rarely understand conceptual distinctions, either, causing them to make horrific mistakes.
Something else about Wallace and his ilk disturbs me. In most other professions, there are codes of ethics. Many reporters act like they don’t have to follow the moral obligations of other human beings because the story or their position in society is more important. Disgusting.
Thanks for posting that. I’ve known about that exchange for years, but I’ve never had the opportunity to see it...
Don’t tell me — tell HIM.
I remember this. It had to have been posted here on FR. I could be wrong but I think it was Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings.
Thanks, the video was conclusive for me (once again). However, the person I’m arguing with once again started coming up with “I don’t think he meant that”, “I don’t agree but . . .”, etc.
Might want to try Peter Arnett too.
Yes, I started to ask why you were trying to convince a liberal of anything. Waste of time, and it annoys the pig.
I have to write a “Persuasive Speech” for a college class in a few weeks. My topic is “The Antimilitary Bias of American Media.” I’ll be using that material. Thanks!
CALLER: There's a young man named Prince Harry who is third in succession to the monarchy in Great Britain, who has been serving apparently now in Afghanistan on the front lines for about the past three months; and you've got a country with probably the most aggressive media in printing scandalous material, et cetera, that's managed to put their own financial interests, their own personal interest in breaking a story, subordinate that to their national interests for their country. And I know you recall back in the Gulf War when CNN had a team in the hotel in downtown Baghdad.
RUSH: That would be the Al-Rashid Hotel, and that would be Bernard Shaw.
CALLER: Yes, sir, and I believe there were a couple other, folks, obviously his team with him. But they were in a unique position to get some actionable military intelligence that could have helped their country, and could have saved some lives -- potentially could have saved some lives -- and they wouldn't talk to their own government about things, under some misguided belief about journalistic principles.
RUSH: That's right. Because they couldn't take sides; it would be compromising their principles.
CALLER: I just wondered if you kind of saw the same thing that I did. I was just really struck by the unanimity and discipline with which the British press was able to control itself.
RUSH: Well, there's more involved there than you know. It looks admirable, but I think there were criminal penalties for violating the rule. I think I saw that when I was skimming the story. There's something other than honor that keeps the British press silent on something like this. The queen and everybody issues the edict: It's not to be reported that Prince Harry is there. By the way, he served ten weeks. He's been there ten weeks. I think he participated in battles where 30 Taliban were killed. Now they've pulled him out of there, for obvious reasons. But he got most of his three months in. (sigh) I'm going to have to double-check. I can't assert with ontological certitude that there are criminal penalties for the press violating that promise, that trust not to report that Prince Harry was there, but if not, your point is still valid. There's no question.