Contempt? No, Try Blatant Disrespect To Those Who Serve
Yesterday, Thomas brought up a point made by Senator Inhofe (OK) on Hugh Hewitt's show; that being that he "hates CNN." Now, many think this sounds rather partisan, and a couple of our e-mailers have even presented the argument that Defense Minister Jasim was coached to say that. Again, the tinfoil hat crowd does love their conspiracies. (And no, that picture is not doctored; it is authentic.)
Today, Mr. Hewitt to one of many reasons for the disgust that Minister Jasim might use to explain his point. It comes from Andrew Cochran at Counterterrorism Blog.
You would think that a worldwide news operation would recognize and apply standards and definitions for the reporting of a "terrorist" and "terrorist act." We appreciate and work with many outstanding reporters and commentators worldwide who certainly have no problem. CNN apparently has a problem, as indicated in an interview of "Senior Editor for Arab Affairs," Octavia Nasr, by a student news reporter for CNN Student News. Read this excerpt:
CARL AZUZ, CNN STUDENT NEWS REPORTER: WordCentral.com defines terrorism as the use of a violent or destructive act to achieve a goal. Why is it so difficult for the international community to agree on a definition for terrorism?
OCTAVIA NASR, CNN SENIOR EDITOR FOR ARAB AFFAIRS: Well, I think for one, terrorism for one person is a freedom fight for another. And you know, the Arab world always talks about this, as they say the so-called terrorism, because they believe that - in Iraq, for example, many people are struggling against occupation, so in many ways they support that struggle against occupation but then they draw a line between those who are struggling. They want a free Iraq, they want the occupiers out and those who are pushing the envelope and crossing the line by terrorizing people. And when we say terrorizing people, in a sense, it's going after the innocent civilians, the unsuspecting civilians, taking hostages, beheading them. Committing acts that are totally unacceptable, even by the standards of a freedom fight. So, you know, if you think about it, "terrorism" is a subjective term depending on which side you are on.
Let me get this straight here. Mr. Nasr cannot seem to tell the difference between the "good guys" and the "bad guys?" Is he serious? To put this in perspective for the media. here are a few hints to remind them of the difference.
The Good Guys do not: Behead innocent men and women; Use suicide bombs to kill innocent civilians; Assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, government officials because they dislike their newfound policies; feign death or disability to sucker in military forces; Use children to plant roadside bombs. The list is endless. The Bad Guys, on the other hand, have done all of the above. And I would also like to remind Mr. Nasr that one of his own--a journalist embedded with soldiers--was recently wounded seriously. Kimberly Dozier was seriously wounded when her crew's armored Humvee was hit by a roadside bomb. The Bad Guys killed Daniel Pearl, another journalist working on stories connected to the war. While he may have been killed in Pakistan it changes little.
These are the tactics of the animals we fight, and a CNN executive cannot bring himself to identify with that concept. That has me positively stymied. I can think of no other way to describe the feeling I have right now. The idea that a journalist can pretend to be that biased, and all the while slanting the bias to suit his worldview, then refusing to admit there is a bias is simply reprehensible. This is beyond simple words. CNN, I think needs to make a clarification on this, or remove Mr. Nasr.
I can understand wanting to "get the story," but in his own words Mr. Nasr basically just said there was no discernible difference between coalition and US forces, and the animals that we fight. It is a sad portrayal of why America is growing distrustful of the MSM. And based on this comment, I would state that Minister Jasim's dislike of CNN is more than warranted.
Marcie
Yesterday, Thomas brought up a point made by Senator Inhofe (OK) on Hugh Hewitt's show; that being that he "hates CNN." Now, many think this sounds rather partisan, and a couple of our e-mailers have even presented the argument that Defense Minister Jasim was coached to say that. Again, the tinfoil hat crowd does love their conspiracies. (And no, that picture is not doctored; it is authentic.)
Today, Mr. Hewitt to one of many reasons for the disgust that Minister Jasim might use to explain his point. It comes from Andrew Cochran at Counterterrorism Blog.
You would think that a worldwide news operation would recognize and apply standards and definitions for the reporting of a "terrorist" and "terrorist act." We appreciate and work with many outstanding reporters and commentators worldwide who certainly have no problem. CNN apparently has a problem, as indicated in an interview of "Senior Editor for Arab Affairs," Octavia Nasr, by a student news reporter for CNN Student News. Read this excerpt:
CARL AZUZ, CNN STUDENT NEWS REPORTER: WordCentral.com defines terrorism as the use of a violent or destructive act to achieve a goal. Why is it so difficult for the international community to agree on a definition for terrorism?
OCTAVIA NASR, CNN SENIOR EDITOR FOR ARAB AFFAIRS: Well, I think for one, terrorism for one person is a freedom fight for another. And you know, the Arab world always talks about this, as they say the so-called terrorism, because they believe that - in Iraq, for example, many people are struggling against occupation, so in many ways they support that struggle against occupation but then they draw a line between those who are struggling. They want a free Iraq, they want the occupiers out and those who are pushing the envelope and crossing the line by terrorizing people. And when we say terrorizing people, in a sense, it's going after the innocent civilians, the unsuspecting civilians, taking hostages, beheading them. Committing acts that are totally unacceptable, even by the standards of a freedom fight. So, you know, if you think about it, "terrorism" is a subjective term depending on which side you are on.
Let me get this straight here. Mr. Nasr cannot seem to tell the difference between the "good guys" and the "bad guys?" Is he serious? To put this in perspective for the media. here are a few hints to remind them of the difference.
The Good Guys do not: Behead innocent men and women; Use suicide bombs to kill innocent civilians; Assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, government officials because they dislike their newfound policies; feign death or disability to sucker in military forces; Use children to plant roadside bombs. The list is endless. The Bad Guys, on the other hand, have done all of the above. And I would also like to remind Mr. Nasr that one of his own--a journalist embedded with soldiers--was recently wounded seriously. Kimberly Dozier was seriously wounded when her crew's armored Humvee was hit by a roadside bomb. The Bad Guys killed Daniel Pearl, another journalist working on stories connected to the war. While he may have been killed in Pakistan it changes little.
These are the tactics of the animals we fight, and a CNN executive cannot bring himself to identify with that concept. That has me positively stymied. I can think of no other way to describe the feeling I have right now. The idea that a journalist can pretend to be that biased, and all the while slanting the bias to suit his worldview, then refusing to admit there is a bias is simply reprehensible. This is beyond simple words. CNN, I think needs to make a clarification on this, or remove Mr. Nasr.
I can understand wanting to "get the story," but in his own words Mr. Nasr basically just said there was no discernible difference between coalition and US forces, and the animals that we fight. It is a sad portrayal of why America is growing distrustful of the MSM. And based on this comment, I would state that Minister Jasim's dislike of CNN is more than warranted.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home