[Gaffer]

There is nothing more than a US Journalist that would betray our own soldiers for a story. And, in this day and age, whenever one of them bites the bullet in a war zone, they are cannonized and overly mourned.

As far as I’m concerned, they’re just collateral damage who got the wrong end of that coveted Pullitzer Stick...

[unkus]

And, in this day and age, whenever one of them bites the bullet in a war zone, they are cannonized and overly mourned.

---

I saw a “journalist” from England get the barrel of an M-16 shoved into his belly and told to get the hell out of our faces. We hated the bastards whenever we encountered them.

[unkus]

Woops, I didn’t mention that took place in Vietnam.

[driftless2]

Wallace and Peter Jennings fulling demonstrated the moral void that is liberal journalism some years ago when asked by Wallace if he, Jennings, while covering a war would warn his own side of an ambush. Jennings said he would, and an astonished Wallacer asked him why. According to Wallace, journalists should not take sides. Then Jennings changed his mind and agreed and said the proper thing for a journalist to do in that situation would be to let the American troops get ambushed (and supposedly slaughtered). After reading the transcript of that conversation, I lost whatever respect I had for either "journalist."

Could you imagine coming back to your own country and admitting you could have stopped some of your own troops from being killed, but you did nothing because journalists are above petty things like patriotism and love of country? I would have absolved any parent of one of the slain troops for strangling Wallace or Jennings if they had done so.