honestreporting.com — Would a prominent media outlet believe the claims of a terrorist organization over that of it's own photographer? Sounds hard to believe, but according to recent revelations by a photojournalist, this is exactly what happened with a photograph that was featured in Time Magazine during Israel's conflict with Hizbollah.
Nov 16, 2006 View in Crawl 4
ashole71Nov 17, 2006
Prove it Fly.
volatilewhimsyNov 17, 2006
"Journalism is a discipline of collecting, analyzing, verifying, and presenting news regarding current events, trends, issues and people"<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism</a>note the word of verifying
brandnewdiggerNov 17, 2006
I know someone who was on that original CIA analyst team that told Bush there were WMD's. That person is a democrat and told me a few interesting things. 60% of their information turned out to be correct (a very high % for the CIA when it comes to human intelligence.) Another thing he said was that they knew exactly where Saddam's stocked uranium piles were. They weren't enriched, though, but they still had some WMD's from over a decade ago that they've probably since shipped out of Iraq. The important thing to learn from this is that Bush did not misrepresent anything. From the information that he was told, he made the right decision to invade Iraq. If we knew what we know today that the WMD's aren't in Iraq, they've most likely been shipped out, what would Bush have done? Personally I don't see what their goal in Iraq is. You aren't going to convert people who have been taught their entire lives to hate anything from the Western Culture/World/Religion. What do you do, tell all the "good" people to leave and then bomb all the evil ones? Of course thats impossible, but I want to hear what you think should have been done. Don't give me any of that diplomacy s**t, it doesn't work with leaders like Saddam. They could have assassinated Saddam, but that probably would have just caused a bigger problem. The issue here is that neither Republicans or Democrats have an answer. Republicans don't know of a sure fire way to win, and Democrats want to just get the hell out of there. The republican way is best in the long-run IF we win, but hurts us economically until then. The democrat way would help us for the short-term, but a few years from now you can bet your ass the 6 million Jews will cease to exist when Iran gives Iraq a nuke to blow away the state of Israel. I think our only choice is to win this war, doing whatever it takes. There are some idiot Americans who think Rumsfeld and Bush are war criminals. They aren't war criminals, they just suck at leading an army. On the other hand, our terrorist enemies commit war crimes on a daily basis. From dressing in civilian attire (some of them) to hanging around civilians as a safe spot and then getting angry when we bomb them. The Media then reports that the US killed 10 civilians when the real story is that the terrorists just decapitated the Geneva Conventions.Please, for the love of humanity, even if you are one of those pro-peace people, understand that we must win this war or it will most definitely lead to some sort of nuclear war. I don't trust the UN for one minute in handling North Korea or Iran.
bledbetterNov 17, 2006
@xencoderVery well put. :)
Closed AccountNov 17, 2006
BrandNewDigger,I appreciate that you feel like the Boogie Man is coming to get you. Your government orchestrates all their press releases for that reason. The fact is, they want to keep you and I in fear (from terrorists and each other) for the purpose of control. You have your sources in the government, and I have mine. Mine say that the government needed another super-power ever since the fall of Russia. Once that enemy was gone, our country had no Clear And Present Danger. Thus followed years of moderate values becoming more accepted, bi-partisanship in the House and Senate, a glorious $284 Billion surplus, and the beginning of Health-Care reform.However, after the Newt Gingrich 'Contract On America', bi-partisanship died. Conservatives to the far right began pushing for the old values of War, bigotry, and fear.Those are the lessons I take from all of this. And from my well informed friend.Now, the CIA may be fallable, but 60% is ridiculous. What the heck are they doing wrong? That's the real question. If the world's #1 security and information agency cannot get better results, there's a huge problem.You are right, though, about converting them. It is unlawful and immoral to push our agenda on another country. Iraq has been there for thousands of years more than America and they were content with their lives before we invaded. Who are we to intrude and insinuate our way is the only way? I disagree that they are taught to hate us. That's preposterous seeing as Hussein was on our side up until 1990 (see: Rumsfeld meets with Saddam/Bush signs pact with Saddam). Ideological maniacs may preach against us, but not Hussein, until we intended to attack him and his country.I don't know but a handful of Dem's who want to get out of Iraq immediately. They're educated enough to know we need to stay and clean up our mess. They also know the Iraqi Police aren't trained nor is their military up to par. Making a few Dem's the voice box for all of them is ridiculous, but common amongst those who would vilify anyone who disagrees with them (i.e. Faux News)I do know, however, some Rep's who want to cut and run and some who have already in their careers in Washington, but that's neither here nor there right now.Lastly, and going back to the beginning of my reply...the world is not being haunted by Boogie Men with itchy trigger fingers. At least no more than it ever was. The fact that we got hit on 9/11 just means we let our guard down that once. The threats remain the same today as they did pre 9/11. bush has always preached about accountability, yet when he is faced with his own inequities, he sweeps them off his shoulder and under the carpet. This is a clear fact. So please, for the love of humanity, don't believe everything you hear. Find out from OTHER sources. Don't limit yourself to people proclaiming to be 'fair and balanced'. If they have a need to prove that, then they are not by default. I don't proclaim to be anything but what I am, but no one should go on my word alone--they should judge me by my actions, my character, and my history.Yes, I believe that war is wrong, no matter what. I feel it is ignorant to fight violence with more violence. Those that want this war also, ironically, believe in Christ and his teachings which CLEARLY STATE that we should TURN THE OTHER CHEEK. Defending ourselves is one thing...acting on false or misleading intelligence is another.The administration admits to wanting to take more actions around the world. They call it Preemptive Strikes.I don't know...this whole partisanship, anti-anyone who disagrees with you, hatred for the other guy, if you're not with us you're with the terrorists thing is starting to leave a bad taste in my mouth. Like the taste of over 3000 Dead Soldiers, 32,000 Iraqi citizens, and thousands of other British, Australian, Polish, and Canadian soldiers.Why did they die? They didn't attack the US. Preemptive Strikes are illegal and immoral.NamasteP.S. I gave you a + digg for your comment because you spoke with respect and I appreciate that, even if our opinions differ---that's what makes this a wonderful country.
Closed AccountNov 17, 2006
xencoder,My gal Pelosi? My S--t together? As with many neo-cons, you seem to be making the mistake that all liberals/commies/moonbats/nutroots/whatever you're calling them this week are on the same plane of existance or that they all share a brain. Also, no one voted for ME (nor you) so it isn't up to ME to get the s--t done. It's up to our duly elected representatives.This is America, and in this country we are each allowed our own free will. I am allowed to disagree with liberals AND conservatives. And you know, I do that quite often. I agree, for instance, that we should give out ID's to illegal aliens, but I don't believe we should erect a fence. I believe in a woman's right to choose, but I do not believe the government should have a say. Only the local municipalities. I believe in conservative fiscal responsibility, but I believe in liberal social causes.I'm a dichotomy, I guess. I will say that I am far from Independent. I'm still for the Democratic party, admittedly, because I still believe they can return to their former glory--just as the Republicans who are now dismayed with the current state of affairs has a belief in their own party.The real problem here is not so Black And White. It is complex and ever changing. Therefore, my views have differed as time has passed. Kerry had a chance to admit that and he stupidly didn't. Instead, he waffled in the debates. Had he said, plainly and from the beginning, that he voted for the war at the time based on the evidence at the time or that he would have changed his vote had he been given the real documentation, he might have won. Instead, he played politics and pretended to go along with what he thought was the majority way of thinking amongst Americans. His eventual admission to the facts I stated were much too late to have an effect on the elections.Now, here's another part of the problem. Using that Kerry issue as the basis for ALL Democrats or Liberals. As if we all had a meeting and all of us agreed to agree.We didn't. And I don't.Yet another level to the ridiculous reality is the following phrase:"You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."Bull hockey indeed.bush has been divisive, controlling, and misleading. cheney, too.I'm not a sheep, therefore I have searched for, gathered, and absorbed all the information I can about the truth. I believe what I know to be valid, but---unlike some people--I am willing to hear any argument or updated information to base my beliefs on.This unbelievable attempt to divide people amongst social classes, ways of thinking, and support for the war are tearing our country apart from the inside.Instead of 'You damn hippy liberals' we should be listening to EACH OTHER. I go to these stories because I want the opposing view. I am not here to antagonize, but to inform and educate myself and others. I also watch Faux News as well as MSNBC to get a better picture (Although, at least MSNBC has a healthy mix of conservative, liberals, and independents).I'm all for supporting our men and women in uniform. I'm all for staying until we AND the Iraqi's are safe. I'm all for open and intelligent discourse with our foes.But I will NEVER be a war-monger and let my government lie to me and pretend it didnt happen. Just because bush has the moniker of Pres doesn't give him Carte Blanche.Namaste
Closed AccountNov 17, 2006
I just hope this outrage against Time's dishonesty carries over when the issue is not the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Time injects a transparent neoliberal bias into all of its coverage, whether it's changing a picture capture to reframe events, or by only interviewing radicals on every contentious issue. Time, like NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NYT, CT, SFC, and LAT gets its talking points from radical groups that want to change the country in their image, with no respect for anyone but the members of their own tribes.
aceg1357Nov 18, 2006
Time. Unprofessional in two respects1) they think sensationalist news is more important than real news- sells more2) they think it is their job to help the left. all under the guise of unbiased claims.