Infinite Monkeys

Yeah, I'm sure Mr. Silva's time would have been much better spent taking photos of U.S. forces instead, because NOBODY'S covering that stuff. We couldn't possibly learn anything productive about the nature of the conflict in the middle east by having independent journalists and photographers chronicling the perspective and experience of those that oppose the occupation.

The same criticisms could be leveled, I'm sure, at Robert D. Kaplan for his remarkable book, "Soldiers of God," written while traveling through Afghanistan with the Mujahideen at the tail end of the Soviet occupation. Except, of course, for the fact that he's currently a darling of the Shock Jock and others in the pro-war right. Oh, and of course that was when the Muj were on "our side" - right before they ushered in the Taliban.

Or, perhaps, the press should not have placed journalists in Baghdad prior to the invasion, or allowed cameras to air "Baghdad Bob" announcing the failure of U.S. attacks as tanks were rolling into the city and securing the airport. That's not news, after all, it's giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

So, are you saying freelance/contract journalists and photographers should never attempt to embed themselves with forces opposed to the United States and cover their activities? Or, for example, they should never take pictures of mobsters, street gangs, or other criminals while they engage in criminal acts?

Yes, I think that is what I am saying. I look at the photo and I see some 18 year old American about to die at the hand of a terrorist, maybe in part so the NYT can get the photo in the first place. It would not be the first time a press photographer was complicit in a staged event, and won't be the last.

Reporting events is one thing. My problem arises from our elite media feeling it is okay to simply watch and report as Americans die, and then profit from book sales because of their own "courage."

And Kaplan's case is a non sequitor. He wasn't photgraphing American soldiers getting killed.

And you know what? Maybe Silva could photograph our forces, because you're right, nobody is covering that. Maybe something in the Times about acts of heroism and courage that don't involve their photographers taking pictures of terrorists killing Americans.

If a foreign power had invaded whatever state you live in and was tromping around like they owned the place and you were taking shots at them, would you be a "terrorist?"

If you weren't taking shots at them, I guess you'd be exactly the wimpy little coward you sound like, you flag-waving turdhead.

It's nice to know that they finally got wireless Internet access on the short bus.

I was assuming it was someone from Harvard. Same diff I guess.

Flag Waving Turdhead.

It's worth noting that you should not expect the press OR the government (or any other institution, for that matter) to be on "our side" - except to the extent that "our" interests coincide with their own. Expecting anything else is denying some pretty fundamental realities about both human and institutional nature.

Yes, yes, they are all out to get us, and are too busy building black helicopters to think about us.
Whatev...

Seriously, I think what you're missing is that our whole government is founded on ways of setting up competing interests to make sure that special interests cancel, and the core interests--such as the most fundamental role of government, defending the nations from enemies outside the gates--are sorted to the top.

While it's clear that we aren't entirely successful in this, and some people don't get it, I don't see that as a reason to decide that it's impossible. Giving up is just as bad as agreeing with the fools; I for one would rather be a voice for responsibility and ethics in public life.

I don't think the black helicopter remark is any more productive than the "flag-waving turdhead" remark. My statement was not suggesting some kind of conspiracy. I also didn't judge that anything was "impossible" or suggest "giving up" as a response.

The point was a fairly specific response to JamesPh's statement, "Boys and girls, the press is not on our side." I felt it necessary to respond because I thought it was fair to assume that James was not simply expressing a tautology, but conveying a presupposition that we should have some kind of expectation that they WOULD be on "our side."

I also thought it was important to point out (as I've had pointed out to me on numerous occasions) that using the term "our side" usually involves a LOT of assumptions about "us" that may not be correct. Using "us" and "them" terminology may be instinctive and convenient, but it is very likely to give way to sloppy thinking about loyalty and alignment of interests.

Referring to "the press" as "the enemy" both oversimplifies the relationship and trivializes the term "enemy" in such a way that makes it difficult to meaningfully distinguish between those that actively desire and effectively work toward the death of Americans, and those who simply don't have "a dog in this fight."

I thought it was fair to assume that James was not simply expressing a tautology, but conveying a presupposition that we should have some kind of expectation that they WOULD be on "our side."

Yes I was stating an expectation that the U.S. press would be on the side of American soldiers and Marines rather than on the side of terrorists trying to kill them. I know, I know, terribly naive of me.

I also thought it was important to point out (as I've had pointed out to me on numerous occasions) that using the term "our side" usually involves a LOT of assumptions about "us" that may not be correct. Using "us" and "them" terminology may be instinctive and convenient, but it is very likely to give way to sloppy thinking about loyalty and alignment of interests.

Sometimes a duck is a duck and sometimes it is us and them. Again my use of the term "our side" was specific to these circumstances; The circumstances that have a terrorist sniper shooting at our kids. Sorry but I got no problem saying that is "our side." That is not sloppy thinking.

Referring to "the press" as "the enemy" both oversimplifies the relationship and trivializes the term "enemy" in such a way that makes it difficult to meaningfully distinguish between those that actively desire and effectively work toward the death of Americans, and those who simply don't have "a dog in this fight."

Nope it does not. The NT has made ever effort to undermine the morale of our (yes our) troops and undermine the war on terror.

yes I do have a "dog in this fight." My dog is the kids in uniform over there getting shot at b terrorists. That the Times does not have a "dog" in this fight is most revealing.

Sad.