Author Topic: US Journalist Dead (Read 655 times)

Eagler · « **Reply #15 on:** February 22, 2002, 01:53:52 PM »

Maniac

I'm not 100% those three were not armed and dangerous and enemies of the US

I am 100% sure the reporter was not armed and meant no harm to those he sought to interview.

please BLOW IT OUT UR ASS!

Maniac · « **Reply #16 on:** February 22, 2002, 01:55:29 PM »

Udie at Work · « **Reply #17 on:** February 22, 2002, 02:02:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maniac
I find this just as sad as when the US sent an rocket and killed those 3 afghanistan farmers because 1 of them was tall and could have been Bin Ladin.

Who said they were farmers? Every report I've seen said they they found communications equipment with the "human remains" If it turns out that they were farmers then it was a sad mistake, but it is defenately diferent that kidnapping somebody and killing them "because they were not islamic and a jew" and video tape his killing WITH A KNIFE!

Apples and oranges my friend. The US will kill inocent people in this and that is regretable and sad. We will also go out of our way like no other nation in history to stop it from happening whenever possible, that's a fact. Why do you think they use million dollar bombs to destroy $5000 targets? Hell we have the power to level that whole region within 20 minutes or less, have we?

Sandman · « **Reply #18 on:** February 22, 2002, 02:12:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunthr
- Sandman

Wrong. The reason you see this story on tv, radio and the papers all over the world is because this particular kidnapping/murder was perpetrated by militant Islamic extremists who attempted to extort the United States of America, and shame and embarass the country of Pakistan.

As if the U.S. government gives a wit about the life of one journalist who entered a dangerous country willingly. If the kidnappers actually believed that they could extort the U.S. with the life of one man, they deluded themselves. The U.S. media knows this already.

As for kidnapping in the middle-east... it's practically a business over there. A business that preys upon foreigners.

Quote

When you add the human drama of the victim's wife being 6 months pregnant, begging in broadcasts for her husband's life, its pretty obvious why this was reported so widely.

Exactly what do the networks expect to accomplish by doing this? To pressure the government into action? Or... does it simply keep the viewers next to their sets where they can view what Ralston Purina is trying to sell for their pet dog... or... "Stay tuned for the riveting pleas of Mrs. Pearl, but first this note from Maybelline."

Maniac · « **Reply #19 on:** February 22, 2002, 02:14:04 PM »

The newspapers said that they were farmers. The village wich they came from missed three farmers after that day.

Udie at Work · « **Reply #20 on:** February 22, 2002, 02:44:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maniac
The newspapers said that they were farmers. The village wich they came from missed three farmers after that day.

Very well may be, but I wonder if they were Taliban farmers. My point that I didn't mention

is that I trust my government (shudder) on this type of issue more than I trust anybody from Afganistan. You have to remember that 1/2 or more of the Taliban switched sides as soon as the bombs started dropping. How do we know the people in the village aren't all taliban supporters trying to spread disinformation? No way that I can ever know this 100% so I'm forced to do something unnatural to my nature, trust my government.

That's just me, I'm having problems trusting any information that comes from the region of my enemy......

Gunthr · « **Reply #21 on:** February 22, 2002, 03:14:01 PM »

Sandman, I don't understand what point you are trying to make...
my impression is that in your eagerness to be contrary and insightfull sometimes you overlook some obvious things.

I responded to your comment:

Quote

But... Pearl is no more important than those other 13,000 people. The only reason you see his story on television and the papers and hear it on the radio is because he's part of the media.

I illustrated why you were wrong when you stated that this murder was being widely reported "only because he's part of the media".

Your subsequent comments in your reply trail off like red herrings.

I won't speculate as to what the murderers "actually believed."

Its immaterial whether or not kidnapping is "a business in Pakistan."

As to your retorical question "what do the networks expect to acomplish by doing this?" (ie, covering this newsworthy story) ... well, I don't know.

How about, to inform?

To sell papers, to sell ads?

Maybe they do it because covering news is what they do?

What difference does it make?

I'll tell you, I wouldn't have a problem with it if you were correct anyway - that is, if the only reason they covered the murder was because it was one of their own - so what? Why do you have a problem with this?

Sandman · « **Reply #22 on:** February 22, 2002, 04:49:39 PM »

Right back to the beginning Gunthr... the 13,000 trivial lives that weren't plastered all over the national news.

BTW... According to NPR, 37 journalists were murdered last year worldwide.

The rest... well... I admit... I'm off on a tangent trying to understand mass media motivation.

Fatty · « **Reply #23 on:** February 22, 2002, 05:19:52 PM »

What Maniac means to say, since he's implying equality between the two events, is that the killers mistook him for George Bush (I guess).

Gunthr · « **Reply #24 on:** February 22, 2002, 05:24:51 PM »

Fair enough, Sandman.

I know you are being sarcastic when you say the other 13,000 lives are "trivial".

But becuase the Pearl story is important doesn't mean the others are trivial...

The fact that the Pearl kidnapping was found to be related to terrorist plans targeting the embassy in Karachi, Pakistan, shows just how newsworthy the story was, and still is.

Or should the Pearl case be reported on unless we give equal coverage to the other 13,000 murders that you say occurred in the US?

Sandman · « **Reply #25 on:** February 22, 2002, 05:52:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunthr
I know you are being sarcastic when you say the other 13,000 lives are "trivial".

>SNIP<

Or should the Pearl case be reported on unless we give equal coverage to the other 13,000 murders that you say occurred in the US?

Yep... that was sarcasm.

FWIW, I'm not stating that the Pearl case should NOT be reported. I'm simply noting the disproportionate amount of coverage it's getting.

Oh... and yes, I'm often (or attempt to be) contrary and insightful for the sole purpose of being contrary and insightful.

Cobra · « **Reply #26 on:** February 22, 2002, 06:37:27 PM »

Hehe, Sandman, I think you're giving yourself too much credit when you say you are insightful.

Now I agree that you are contrary for the sole and express purpose of being so, but insightful is a stretch.

Cobra

Sandman · « **Reply #27 on:** February 22, 2002, 06:38:51 PM »

Gunthr said it... not me.

Fatty · « **Reply #28 on:** February 22, 2002, 06:41:08 PM »

I don't know, domestic hostage situations tend to get covered pretty broadly too. If the media knew about each of the 13,000 murders before they happened, and they were able to cover an effort on each and every one to prevent said murder, you might have a point. Any idea how many of those there were last year?

Sandman · « **Reply #29 on:** February 22, 2002, 06:45:19 PM »

I went digging in the FBI files for kidnapping statistics. Damn hard to come across.