Thursday, June 23, 2005
L Foley - uh, people...
OK, I finally broke down and read a transcript of the "US targets journalists" remarjs by Ms. Foley.
http://thedustyattic.blogspot.com/2005/05/more-of-linda-foleys-talk.html
Is this what all the hullaballo is about? Now, with Eason Jordan, the statement ws clear that the military was "targetting" American (and other) journalists with weaponry. But with Ms. Foley, it is that the military does not do as much about it as she would like when journos are killed by others or explain to her satisfaction when other nation's `journalists` are hit by US weapons. I think she is expecting too much and/or, as with the bombing of the Baghdad office of al Jazeera, not paying attention.
And note her criticism is actually directed at the corporate news organizations for not doing more to protect their employees or find out more about what happens to them.
But yes, she does say the US actually uses weapons against other nation's news people. I disagree, but it is a matter of interpretation and bias. And thought a number of the incidents she worries about happened when we were effectively the government - we did not need to use weapons on journos, just declare them the equivalent of persona non grata: weapons may be used if such refuse to leave, much as when a group of people in Peoria confront police and do not follow legitimate instructions. Where others used weapons, our military either was not there or was kinda busy: but they were investigated - perhaps not as well as she would like, and maybe the employers of her union members should have pushed more to make her happier (not happy), but not ignored.
My query here is whether she has an open-enough mind to listen (again) to the explanations and if still wants more to specify just what she is looking for, and from whom. I have sone doubt, but attacking her rather than asking for nore is not going to do much good.
http://thedustyattic.blogspot.com/2005/05/more-of-linda-foleys-talk.html
Journalists, by the way, are just being targeted, ah, verbally or, ah, or, ah, politically. [But - jsa] They're also being targeted for real. Um…in places like Iraq. Ahn and, ah, what outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq. I think it's just a scandal.
And it's not just US journalists, either, by the way. They target and kill, ah, journalists from other countries, particularly Arab countries like Al -, like Arab news services like Al-Jazeera, for example. They actually target them and blow up their studios, ah, with impunity … and, ah, this is all part of a culture that it's okay to blame the individual journalists and it just takes the heat off these media, ah, conglomerates who are actually at the heart of the problem.
Is this what all the hullaballo is about? Now, with Eason Jordan, the statement ws clear that the military was "targetting" American (and other) journalists with weaponry. But with Ms. Foley, it is that the military does not do as much about it as she would like when journos are killed by others or explain to her satisfaction when other nation's `journalists` are hit by US weapons. I think she is expecting too much and/or, as with the bombing of the Baghdad office of al Jazeera, not paying attention.
And note her criticism is actually directed at the corporate news organizations for not doing more to protect their employees or find out more about what happens to them.
But yes, she does say the US actually uses weapons against other nation's news people. I disagree, but it is a matter of interpretation and bias. And thought a number of the incidents she worries about happened when we were effectively the government - we did not need to use weapons on journos, just declare them the equivalent of persona non grata: weapons may be used if such refuse to leave, much as when a group of people in Peoria confront police and do not follow legitimate instructions. Where others used weapons, our military either was not there or was kinda busy: but they were investigated - perhaps not as well as she would like, and maybe the employers of her union members should have pushed more to make her happier (not happy), but not ignored.
My query here is whether she has an open-enough mind to listen (again) to the explanations and if still wants more to specify just what she is looking for, and from whom. I have sone doubt, but attacking her rather than asking for nore is not going to do much good.
