|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 04/13/2003 : 12:16:15
|
Poll Question:
Last night(4/12/03) CNN reported from Tikrit and when things turned ugly their armed guards fired at checkpoints. Here is more on the matter: Reuters Story
Should armed guards accompany journalists?
|
| Results: |
| Yes |
 [46%] |
6 votes |
| No |
[46%] |
6 votes |
| Other(See Comments) |
[8%] |
1 vote |
|
Poll Status:
Locked »» |
Total Votes: 13 counted »» |
Last Vote:
06/28/2005 19:02:40 |
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 04/13/2003 : 18:26:52 [Permalink]
|
| Armed guards are accompanying journalists. They are called Marines. |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2003 : 22:46:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
Not in this case. I saw it all live last night. CNN basically had mercenaries that opened fire in Iraqis.
@tomic
1st thought, I said no. Because I did think they were military who were guarding the reporters. Thereby taking away from the job they are supposed to be doing. However, if a reporter wants to pay for his own protection, I don't have a problem with that for the most part. Other than, should non-military be firing on people, soldiers on the 'other side' or whom ever when it's countries that are at 'war'?
The other question is, if a reporter is in a dangerous place, he knows it when he accepts the assingnment, so having guards is kind of not 'fighting fair', excuse the pun! Should he be there if he has to have extra protection? |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2003 : 05:15:47 [Permalink]
|
These guards are not military personell assigned to them? They are civilians?
I don't like that. What is the training of these guards? What is their experience?
I would rather see a couple of Marines, some who are well trained to know when to fire and when to escort their charge away.
 There's a couple of journalists over there who's reporting might improve considerably, with a minor bullet hole or two.
Ernie Pyle weeps!
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2003 : 08:27:35 [Permalink]
|
CNN has reporters with the military. Sometimes the point is to deliberately get away from the military in order to find a story. I don't think they wanted to be with the marines.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2003 : 09:55:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
CNN has reporters with the military. Sometimes the point is to deliberately get away from the military in order to find a story. I don't think they wanted to be with the marines.
@tomic
Then upon their own heads be it. I have no problem with that. But I still don't like armed civilians acting as body guards. Who knows what training these people have? Are they ex-military; ex-law enforcement; or mere hired thugs?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2003 : 11:01:18 [Permalink]
|
| Debating this seems absurd to me. Why shouldn't reporters have protection? It's not like the security guard is at fault for PROTECTING the life of people when they are under attack, light attack or otherwise. Why is there so much concern over this incident and the training of the security guard? Put yourself in that situation. You have someone attacking you, threatening your life, and you have access to a gun that could save your life. Does it matter whether you are trained or not? Would you not use the gun because you weren't trained? I don't get the problem with it....people hire security guards all the time in the US and when there is a threat against the person they act upon it. If this person protecting the CNN reporters fired upon people without a reason, I could understand being upset about it, but clearly it was justified from what I read in the article. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2003 : 13:15:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
Not in this case. I saw it all live last night. CNN basically had mercenaries that opened fire in Iraqis.
@tomic
Having Mercs providing security calls in question objectivity and increases their zapped quotient. That is their chances of being killed (zapped) by forces returning fire. How genuine is the responce from natives gonna be with a bunch of hired guns hanging around? How likely that they are gonna get killed? How likely is a bunch of trigger-happy soldiers of fourtune to start a massacre or shoot up a check point?
Other questions. Why should we feel the least bit sorry when the reporters who hire gunsels die in a hail of gunfire? Why shouldn't the US prosecute news agencies that hire mercs that fire on US soldiers? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2003 : 13:40:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Debating this seems absurd to me. Why shouldn't reporters have protection? It's not like the security guard is at fault for PROTECTING the life of people when they are under attack, light attack or otherwise. Why is there so much concern over this incident and the training of the security guard? Put yourself in that situation. You have someone attacking you, threatening your life, and you have access to a gun that could save your life. Does it matter whether you are trained or not? Would you not use the gun because you weren't trained? I don't get the problem with it....people hire security guards all the time in the US and when there is a threat against the person they act upon it. If this person protecting the CNN reporters fired upon people without a reason, I could understand being upset about it, but clearly it was justified from what I read in the article.
There is an old saying that reporters should never become the story. They are there to report news, not be the news. I thought and still think it is 100% inappropriate for reporters to go in armed. What will happen is that reporters will not be allowed to cover any story and we won't know what's going on. You don't seem to realize that this is something that has never happened before. When they said they were opening fire on Iraqis I was like "what the hell!" because reporters are there to report, not act as a paramilitary force.
I think this was one of the worst moments in CNN's history.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2003 : 07:31:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
They are there to report news, not be the news
They are there to report the news, not be killed. So, if someone is shooting at reporters then they should know that it's not going to be tolerated. Armed security guards ensure their safety.
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2003 : 09:22:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Deborah
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">They are there to report news, not be the news
quote:
They are there to report the news, not be killed. So, if someone is shooting at reporters then they should know that it's not going to be tolerated. Armed security guards ensure their safety.
============================
The reason I don't watch the 'news' anymore is because so much of what they say is speculation. They never seem to know exactly what's going on. I'm talking mostly local news. They report a car crash or a body found but when they talk about the details they say they aren't sure. What kind of news reporting is that???
However, war reporters, IMO, going smack into the action and being in that much danger would be like a reporter trying to cross a police line to find more information and messing up the investigation. They can't do that. You have to wait until the authorities say it's ok.
Since they are always telling us they don't know, so why can't they do the same there too? If they are in that much danger, then WE will just have to wait. Has this society become to instamatic that the very second something happens, if we don't know we will die or something? It's not like we ourselves could do anything about it anyway, knowing 2 seconds faster then the army itself.
|
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2003 : 10:43:50 [Permalink]
|
Arming journalists would be like arming the Red Cross and most civilized societies do not shoot at either (except for ours :<) and arming them might provoke them to do so thus increasing their odds of being killed.
What would be better, being armed and considered dangerous, but heavily out armed or not being armed, being a pacifists, and thus not considered dangerous nor a target.
Arming groups of journalists endangers all journalists including those not armed plus it endangers the quality of the reporting they will be able to obtain. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2003 : 12:15:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Arming groups of journalists endangers all journalists including those not armed plus it endangers the quality of the reporting they will be able to obtain.
Exactly! If some journalists are armed or are using mercenaries a lot of people are going to have to assume that all journalists are doing the same so that they can be on the safe side. I have to admit that the responses in here are surprising to me. Is it that everyone is ignorant to how journalists are expected to behave or is that expectation outdated and journalists are now just a new arm of the military??
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2003 : 12:54:00 [Permalink]
|
Let's make sure to keep this in context of the original incident.
quote:
Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF) made the comments after an incident in the northern Iraqi town of Tikrit in which a security guard hired by CNN fired his machinegun at a checkpoint when the CNN convoy came under gunfire.
What's all this "armed journalists" and "new arm of the military" hyperbole?
What you guys are arguing against are military escorts who fire upon strategic targets of opportunity accompanying the journalists. This is not at all what happened in the incident mentioned in the article, and not at all relevant to the question at hand, which is should journalists have armed protection in case they are attacked.
[unless, of course, one thinks the journalists' lives are less important than one's "right to know"...] |
| Edited by - Tokyodreamer on 04/15/2003 12:56:33 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2003 : 13:05:50 [Permalink]
|
I was watching this live. It was not attacking targets of opportunity. They went somewhere they knew was dangerous and they brought non-military security. The journalists acted as if they were part of the US military not people out looking for a story. In fact, they way the story unfolded it was damn near like they were doing a mission for the special forces. Only they were a CNN crew out on their own.
There is no hyberbole. Check your facts.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
