(no subject)
Mar. 31st, 2003 02:42 pmLooks like Peter Arnett tossed is career out the door, unless he wants work in Iraq: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/31/sprj.irq.arnett/index.html
Part of me disagrees with our reaction today. He wasn't saying anything that couldn't be found by the nation on the web.
In other news, I just heard that U.S troops shot up a van filled with women and children. I don't know the full details. It sounds like they tried to drive past a checkpoint, or so we say. Regardless. It continues to sully our international reputation.
Part of me disagrees with our reaction today. He wasn't saying anything that couldn't be found by the nation on the web.
In other news, I just heard that U.S troops shot up a van filled with women and children. I don't know the full details. It sounds like they tried to drive past a checkpoint, or so we say. Regardless. It continues to sully our international reputation.
no subject
Date: 2003-04-01 02:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-04-01 02:45 am (UTC)This gets dangerously close to censorship.
no subject
Date: 2003-04-02 03:43 am (UTC)Is it your position that a reporter should be able to appear on any network, period?
Please don't take this as an attack. I don't necessarily think that is such a horrible thing to believe, in fact. Though of course I personally disagree.
no subject
Date: 2003-04-02 05:56 am (UTC)Yes, I think a reporter should be able to appear on any network, if they are interviewed by someone. As long as the line of troop safety and freedom of speech is not blurred. Geraldo's case is a clear example.
In this case, he wasn't spreading misinformation, but giving his opinion on events. Though it's not a perfect world, what network they show up on should be immaterial.