Traitors at NBC News

www.aim.org...

I can not imagine the BBC or other media in WWII interviewing Hitler during the battle of Britian. Or how about an indepth humanity story of the poor concentration camp "guard" having to smell all the burning flesh from those ovens.

Major media needs to be slashed off the air and replaced. Take away the FCC liscense. Throw them all out!!!!!!!!!!!!

An interview with Hitler? During the Battle of Briatin? Man! That would of been fascinating!

I guess the phrase "Know your enemy" never really resonated with you.

Would you rather we fight an enemy we don't know? Isn't it better that we know how an enemy thinks, so we can defeat them?

In retrospect, I don't even know why I responded to this thread. Sure, I'd like to see my bar change color, but at what expense?

Now I feel guilty for being goaded to respond. I need a shower.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by curme]

WOW! What a jump in logic. Reminds me of a joke about flawed logic, a weedeater and homosexuality.

What's your BIG problem with this interview? Why are they traitors for interviewing some one that is on the other side of the fight? Since Osama bin Laden was named the most dangerous person to U.S. security by Ollie North back during the Iran Contra affair I guess ABC were traitors when they hunted him down back in the late 90's and interview him, right?

How 'bout we just report local human-interest stories and leave all the stories that could have differeing viewpoints from the U.S. government policy out? That way we won't get our licenses revoked by some McCarthy-ish group of people with the mentality you just expressed.

Also, I guess Rick Francona is either an idiot or a traitor as well, because he was able to see the value in showing the mentality and tactics of the other side of the fighting:

www.msnbc.msn.com...



Some one needs to clue him in real quick before the witch hunt has him in a burlap bag or roasting on a spit.


[edit on 3-22-2006 by Valhall]

What the FCC ought to do, is instead of fining people for profanity, they should jail people for lying.


The radio and tv waves would be empty.

You are so right there Val, lets glorify these terrorist, give them credibility so they can recuit more terrorist. great idea......

There's that weird logic rearing it's ugly head again! Are you going to contact Mr. Francona and let him know about his complicity, or do you want me to do it?

Seriously, I'm not sure how you can twist something that bad without it snapping like a rubberband and giving you a black eye.

Anyone remember when Putin blew a gasket because ABC did an interview with the Chechyan warlord?

I think maybe Thermo has more in common with the Put-meister than he ever thought possible.

It's called fervent, illogical nationalism, flying in the face of reason and decency.

The news is just doing their job. It's not like they're giving away state secrets or helping to load the rocket tubes.

Perhaps it is I whom is still untwisted. Anything done by the "major" media as of late is akind to treason. Perhaps too many "sideshow" mirrors in the neighborhood reflecting twisted images has warped the landscape. twisted is now the "norm"?

Simple logic...terror bad...........america good..........

So giving aid and comfort to the enemy is "fair and balanced"? Yes, Putin had a right to be pissed, ABC was providing sympathy for terrorist. As they always seem to do.

Nationalisim is not an evil thing during wartime.

Have you checked out the source of your report?



That should set a few warning flags waving--"botched and bungled news stories" and "sets the record straight" says we are against the way these issues are portrayed in the media and here is our bias.

Every news story has a bias--whether we want one or not. I would not count this organization any less biased.

Right, but bias doesn't kill a source. ESPECIALLY when they admit what it is...lol.

That's not really the point in my mind...the point is how they were able to twist this article to some type of treacherous act. That's just weirder than velcro as far as I'm concerned.

I was under the impression that a reporter's job was to report the news. Not call in airstrikes on Taliban forces.



I don't see the problem. Does an NBC producer somehow have knowledge of national security information that could be used against his country? Shouldn't he be reporting what he can, maybe even trying to shed some light for his readers on both viewpoints?

I've seen that site before and it always makes me laugh. AIM.org....



And all that without one single accredited reporter on staff! Wow! Gotta love those "citizen watchdog groups" full of busybodies who desperately need to show you that omigod the news is sooo slanted but we're not, we're telling it to you like it is and NBC IS STAFFED WITH TRAITORS SOUND THE ALARM!

Somebody ought to tell them to fix their Careers page though, over at Aim.



Deliriously funny. The "long hours for modest pay" right on the website is gold too. I would have substituted "committed" for rabid, though.




[edit on 22-3-2006 by Jakomo]

Accredited reporter?

Accredited by Whom?

Aid and comfort to the enemy!

How is an interview with people who want to kill women for wearing nail polish helping you understand the enemy?

Common' people. These interviewers don't want to help anyone understand the other side, they want to crow about exclusive interviews.

Stop it with the "Understand your enemy" BS. We know about the Taliban and Islamo-Fascists. They want to kill you and me and your dog.

Speaking as a journalist myself, they're just doing their job. You have to give a balanced viewpoint in order for your audience to get the big picture. If the person you are interviewing looks crazy, or does nothing but rant (5 minutes with Hitler should have been enough to convince anyone that the man was a dribbling bag of rabid insanity) or expresses really abhorrent views, then that proves that the other side has a serious point. You can't just say "we're at war, so we are automatically good and they are automatically bad", you have to prove it. Drive the point home. Mention the bad things when you are turning them around. Show why we are good and the other people are bad, don't wrap yourself in the flag and act virtuous.
A lot has been said about the media coverage of the war. If they report on something terrible like Abu Ghraib, surely that makes the soldiers who did those things bad in the first place? (By the way, given that the prison was used by Saddam's scum to torture people, whoever decided to use it as a holding place needs his head examined. Stupid!)
You can't kill the messenger for telling you that life is not operating as you see fit.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Darkmind]

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Darkmind]

thermopolis:

Sorry, my mistake. I meant "actual".

I'm confused.

y'all whine about the news being one sided, co-opted by the neocons, being too liberal, too dressed in plaid, not enough plaid etc and now they interview someone from "the other side" and you complain again.

For starters, there isn't a reporter on the planet who would have turned down the opportunity to interview Hitler. Hell, I would have done it if I could and I am jewish.

Second, you apparently never saw things on the news like interviews with Castro, Saddam Hussein etc. Yup, been done before. 60 minutes has done quite a few. A former client of mine had the wonderful task of interviewing Osama back before he became the phantom in the mountains.

Good reporting means following a good story, not ignoring one because the topic is not your belief.

If our reporters didn't interview the other side, we'd never get to peek inside the minds of Berkowicz, Gacy, etc.

Our newspapers would be pretty thin and our nightly news would consist of the following:

Today some bad stuff happened over there but we only have reports from people putting good spin on it so instead here's a video of some monkeys playing at a table. Wait, that's Bush and Rumsfeld meeting with Cheney, sorry for that confusion. Have a good night.

Nope, I saw those traitors interviewing castro and saddddam. Good reporting died in the 60's in vietnam.

Gotta......reporting since watergate has ruled. Let us not forget reporting is about MONEY to the newpaper or TV affiliate.

Reporters chase ambulances just like lawyers.

That might be true for some reporters. Personally I don't. Good reporting did not die in the '60s, it's still going. And you're saying that it died in Vietnam? What???
Vietnam was a place where reporters sawed a flawed military stategy being carried out to support a corrupt regime in Saigon. The South Vietnamese government was blatently corrupt and refused to address the real problems the country had, like absentee landowners and insane corruption. So the reporters showed the truth.
Iraq is a place where the wrong strategy has been used from the start. It's an almighty mess, and saying that it's a mess is just realism, not treason.
I'll say this again: Don't shoot the messenger

Thanks for proving my original point. Nam reporting has twisted reality once again based on YOUR own words. Those of us who lived it know the truth. YOUR version "ain't" it.