Hotel Chain locks out CNN

[Alex+R 0]

Uh, I don't know, maybe CNN got the video anonymously?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Erekose, everything that is written or spoken is subject to each individuals interpretation.

Sure, but perhaps you will agree that it is extremely suspect to interpret something without actually seeing it, and assuming someone else's opinion for your own.

I saw the dam report it showed a camera behind the shooters shoulder blowing away a U.S. soldier.Then handed off to CNN. Not Reuters, Not AP, Not Fox, Not BBC,Not CBS,Not NBC, Want More? Why didnt CNN turn the guy in to the military that gave them the video? Maybe to get more tape at a later time? or maybe CNN has a terrorist confidentiality clause? NOW go PARSE that. Break out the hair splitter.

I'm not disputing the interpretation of the report, because (again) I haven't seen it - I'm suggesting that if you want to have an exchange of opinions of ideas (i.e. a debate or a discussion) pertaining to the standard of news reporting as it pertains to a specific piece of journalism it would help to use the actual source, and not a second-hand article about disgruntled hoteliers.

What point exactly are you trying to make?

I'll help you out. Here is the CNN transcript page for Anderson Cooper 360.

help yourself

Uh, I don't know, maybe CNN got the video anonymously?

That was my thought.

Edited November 17, 2006 by erekose

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I haven't seen the report either, so I don't know how to judge it but I do know that Fox News is getting a lot of mileage out of it. They have done several stories critical of CNN -- even if the original video was offensive, so is trying to leverage it for competitive advantage

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I haven't seen the report either, so I don't know how to judge it but I do know that Fox News is getting a lot of mileage out of it. They have done several stories critical of CNN -- even if the original video was offensive, so is trying to leverage it for competitive advantage

Which just emphasises the need to go back the source and form your own opinion from the transcript which is freely available on www.cnn.com.

Otherwise all people are doing is buying into hype.

[Alex+R 0]

This is the report?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfOy_ul5VWw

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is the report?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfOy_ul5VWw

Thank you for posting it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is the report?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfOy_ul5VWw

Thank you for posting it.

Its certainly guilty of sensationalism - though I don't see as much of a problem with the use of the footage specifically as with how the reporter uses it to ask leading questions of the soldier he interviews off camera.

[kaydee457 13]

This is the report?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfOy_ul5VWw

Thank you for posting it.

Its certainly guilty of sensationalism - though I don't see as much of a problem with the use of the footage specifically as with how the reporter uses it to ask leading questions of the soldier he interviews off camera.

So, you did not know of the video's content, context, nor who/whom made the subject video, their intent or any other pertinent details whatsoever but you felt obliged to make your presence and (cloaked) opinion known.

You've done no more than disrupt this thread from start to finish having no substantive input other than you wanted to rebuke the premise that a video, one that you never saw, nor had read anything about, had been aired on CNN. You’re naïve, or possibly stupid enough, I don’t know, to believe that such things do not happen. The insurgents didn’t increase the ferocity of their attacks immediately before the elections. I wish I lived in your delusional world!

And now you're pompous enough to declare its content acceptable, given the probative questions asked by the reporter?

Do you wear a tin hat?

[mrc 0]

Dennis Cunningham, a retired factory worker from northern Missouri staying at the hotel for several weeks while his wife undergoes brain surgery, said he supported Thompson's decision.

"I agree with him. I think it was inappropriate,"Cunningham said."We don't need to see things like that over here."

Isn't that the real reason you're offended?

I have NO IDEA how this aids terrorism. What a croc. There's a hotel chain I won't be visiting. EVER.

given that you probably would avoid most of the states those hotels are in anyways, it's a hollow threat

or are you protesting for your right to watch american servicemen being shot on tv?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is the report?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfOy_ul5VWw

Thank you for posting it.

Its certainly guilty of sensationalism - though I don't see as much of a problem with the use of the footage specifically as with how the reporter uses it to ask leading questions of the soldier he interviews off camera.

So, you did not know of the video's content, context, nor who/whom made the subject video, their intent or any other pertinent details whatsoever but you felt obliged to make your presence and (cloaked) opinion known.

You've done no more than disrupt this thread from start to finish having no substantive input other than you wanted to rebuke the premise that a video, one that you never saw, nor had read anything about, had been aired on CNN. You’re naïve, or possibly stupid enough, I don’t know, to believe that such things do not happen. The insurgents didn’t increase the ferocity of their attacks immediately before the elections. I wish I lived in your delusional world!

And now you're pompous enough to declare its content acceptable, given the probative questions asked by the reporter?

Do you wear a tin hat?

"Disruptive". I see. Is that your "mantra of the moment"?

Better take a look at your own post history before you make a claim like that about someone else. And I'm fairly sure a lot of people will agree with me there. Considering of course, that you've peppered almost all of your posts in this thread with personal attacks. I don't believe I have, but please prove me wrong.

BTW - my point was that YOU hadn't seen the video, and were rendering an opinion based on second hand sources. I made no secret of not having seen it - I said that in order to actually discuss the quality of the reporting, it would help to have seen the thing itself in order to comment with any authority about it - otherwise its mere speculation.

And no, I don't think its a particularly good report - . As I said I don't see a problem with the footage itself - just with the way the journalist asks leading questions of a soldier he is interviewing. That is distortive and senationalist.

Not sure quite what else you want me to say. Which I think is actually what this is about - what 'you' want other people to say - Mr "Defender of Liberty". Best wipe the spittle off your lip, and do something about that 'crazy eye'.

[kaydee457 13]

This is the report?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfOy_ul5VWw

Thank you for posting it.

Its certainly guilty of sensationalism - though I don't see as much of a problem with the use of the footage specifically as with how the reporter uses it to ask leading questions of the soldier he interviews off camera.

So, you did not know of the video's content, context, nor who/whom made the subject video, their intent or any other pertinent details whatsoever but you felt obliged to make your presence and (cloaked) opinion known.

You've done no more than disrupt this thread from start to finish having no substantive input other than you wanted to rebuke the premise that a video, one that you never saw, nor had read anything about, had been aired on CNN. You’re naïve, or possibly stupid enough, I don’t know, to believe that such things do not happen. The insurgents didn’t increase the ferocity of their attacks immediately before the elections. I wish I lived in your delusional world!

And now you're pompous enough to declare its content acceptable, given the probative questions asked by the reporter?

Do you wear a tin hat?

"Disruptive". I see. Is that your "mantra of the moment"?

Better take a look at your own post history before you make a claim like that about someone else. And I'm fairly sure a lot of people will agree with me there. Considering of course, that you've peppered almost all of your posts in this thread with personal attacks. I don't believe I have, but please prove me wrong.

BTW - my point was that YOU hadn't seen the video, and were rendering an opinion based on second hand sources. I made no secret of not having seen it - I said that in order to actually discuss the quality of the reporting, it would help to have seen the thing itself in order to comment with any authority about it - otherwise its mere speculation.

And no, I don't think its a particularly good report - . As I said I don't see a problem with the footage itself - just with the way the journalist asks leading questions of a soldier he is interviewing. That is distortive and senationalist.

Not sure quite what else you want me to say. Which I think is actually what this is about - what 'you' want other people to say - Mr "Defender of Liberty". Best wipe the spittle off your lip, and do something about that 'crazy eye'.

Frankly, I simply want you to come down off that high horse you seem to believe you ride.

The premise of the thread is that CNN, or any western news organization, is aiding the enemy by airing such an obvious propagandist video.

We do not wish to air beheadings and we certainly don’t want to see Americans, or British soldiers for that matter, gunned down on camera for the sake of furthering their military aspirations.

It’s a simple concept, prop- a- ganda. It’s bad for a responsible network to air prop-a- ganda. Get it?

It’s not rocket science here.

They (the enemy) record, on video, the assassination of a U.S. soldier as they commit the crime.

What is it that you’ve argued incessantly throughout this thread? Is this a Disney video? Perhaps they’ll submit it for best foreign film at Cann next year?

What’s hard to understand here?

You’re simply one those nits that argues for the sake of arguing…..Get over it already!

[GaryC 7]

Lets see what a solder thinks about the video. It might give you a little better perspective.

October 29, 2006

CNN Sniper Video

I recently received the following email from the father of a 3/3 Marine that we had served with in Salerno last year. This young Marine along with the entire 3/3 battalion left Afghanistan and after a short break were deployed to Iraq. After 7 months in the An Bar province, they were relieved by the 2/3 Marines and have recently redeployed to their home station in Hawaii.

Recently CNN showed an insurgent video of the sniper killing of an American soldier in Iraq. The decision by CNN to air the film on national television was beyond bad judgement. Our anger turned to outrage when we found out the victim was 2nd Lt. Joshua Booth from 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marines. Not only are his pregnant wife, child, and parents forced to come to terms with the death of this twenty-three year old Marine, but they now know his final moments and violent death has been gratuitously aired for the world to witness. Bobbye and I know the video could easily have been of Daniel or any number of Marines we have come to know, since the killing took place in Haditha, Iraq.

I found CNN's explanation proved to be bland and devoid of substance. There are any number of guesses as to why CNN chose to air the insurgent video; however, in my judgement, none are of overriding value. I am further distressed the video has not been discussed and editorialized to any degree in the mainstream press.

I cannot imagine the WWII press airing footage sent to them by Nazi Germany or the Imperial Japanese Army depicting the killing of American soldiers in Europe or Marines on Iwo Jima. I've always believed the media's support for the troops never went much beyond ratings and their financial bottom line. 2nd Lieutenant Booth's killing, now aired on a world stage, reinforces my opinion.

I would ask everyone to consider making a conscious decision to boycott CNN in protest and avail yourselves of another national news source. Further, I would ask you to forward this email to friends and relatives for their consideration.

I have watched this bit of "journalism" when it was aired on CNN International last week and I have to say that it was disturbing at best. Of course it was preceded with all the warnings as to the graphic nature of what was about to be aired and a brief description of the decision process used in producing it. I found both to be lacking. The warnings took on the enticing nature of promotion and the justification was a weak attempt towards public service alluding to the emerging threat of a "new" shift in insurgent tactics in utilizing snipers.

I certainly share this father's outrage but I find CNN's motivations to be a bit different. Maybe it was a function of watching this piece on the international channel rather than with the domestic newscasters but I found the pandering to an anti-U.S. policy sentiment to be blatant and the timing of its release during the run-up to the mid-term elections less than coincidental.

I have to wonder if no other major news outlet aired these video pieces because they didn't have them or because they didn't find them news worthy. If they didn't have them, it leads to the question of how CNN came to possess these insurgent created items and why they would choose CNN to give them to. If everyone had them but only CNN showed them, it baffles me why many will continue to chastise Fox News for a pro-administration bias but proudly hail the credibility of what is fast becoming an American based Al-Jazeera.

My heart and utmost gratitude go out to the Booth family. To the 2/3; Semper Fi and come home safe. Those who truly care know all the good things that you are doing.

http://bdelapla.typepad.com/firepowerforwa...ently_rece.html

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is the report?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfOy_ul5VWw

Thank you for posting it.

Its certainly guilty of sensationalism - though I don't see as much of a problem with the use of the footage specifically as with how the reporter uses it to ask leading questions of the soldier he interviews off camera.

So, you did not know of the video's content, context, nor who/whom made the subject video, their intent or any other pertinent details whatsoever but you felt obliged to make your presence and (cloaked) opinion known.

You've done no more than disrupt this thread from start to finish having no substantive input other than you wanted to rebuke the premise that a video, one that you never saw, nor had read anything about, had been aired on CNN. You’re naïve, or possibly stupid enough, I don’t know, to believe that such things do not happen. The insurgents didn’t increase the ferocity of their attacks immediately before the elections. I wish I lived in your delusional world!

And now you're pompous enough to declare its content acceptable, given the probative questions asked by the reporter?

Do you wear a tin hat?

"Disruptive". I see. Is that your "mantra of the moment"?

Better take a look at your own post history before you make a claim like that about someone else. And I'm fairly sure a lot of people will agree with me there. Considering of course, that you've peppered almost all of your posts in this thread with personal attacks. I don't believe I have, but please prove me wrong.

BTW - my point was that YOU hadn't seen the video, and were rendering an opinion based on second hand sources. I made no secret of not having seen it - I said that in order to actually discuss the quality of the reporting, it would help to have seen the thing itself in order to comment with any authority about it - otherwise its mere speculation.

And no, I don't think its a particularly good report - . As I said I don't see a problem with the footage itself - just with the way the journalist asks leading questions of a soldier he is interviewing. That is distortive and senationalist.

Not sure quite what else you want me to say. Which I think is actually what this is about - what 'you' want other people to say - Mr "Defender of Liberty". Best wipe the spittle off your lip, and do something about that 'crazy eye'.

Frankly, I simply want you to come down off that high horse you seem to believe you ride.

The premise of the thread is that CNN, or any western news organization, is aiding the enemy by airing such an obvious propagandist video.

We do not wish to air beheadings and we certainly don’t want to see Americans, or British soldiers for that matter, gunned down on camera for the sake of furthering their military aspirations.

It’s a simple concept, prop- a- ganda. It’s bad for a responsible network to air prop-a- ganda. Get it?

It’s not rocket science here.

They (the enemy) record, on video, the assassination of a U.S. soldier as they commit the crime.

What is it that you’ve argued incessantly throughout this thread? Is this a Disney video? Perhaps they’ll submit it for best foreign film at Cann next year?

What’s hard to understand here?

You’re simply one those nits that argues for the sake of arguing…..Get over it already!

I don't know how I can make it any clearer. You hadn't seen the video - you posted and cited a second hand source as your basis for decrying the actual material that you had not seen. You then added that you reached your interpretation based in part on the interpretation of another news network.

Its like if I were to tell you a movie is $hit, but not actually having watched it myself. Would you take my word for it.

In my view, having seen the report, I don't see anything wrong specifically with the footage - but in the presentation of it, which in one particular segment distorts the entire report.

As I said - I find it hard to see what purpose you started this thread when you don't want anything approaching a civilised discussion about the 'actual material'.

That said - the material is available for everyone to view and comment on. So what exactly is your argument?

[GaryC 7]

Uh, I don't know, maybe CNN got the video anonymously?

CNN said it obtained the video through contacts with the Islamic Army of Iraq, a Sunni-led insurgent group that has carried out numerous suicide bombings and kidnappings.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/i...9-1n21tape.html

It seems that CNN has contacts with the insurgents. I wonder if withholding these contact would amount to "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"?

[garya505 2]

Uh, I don't know, maybe CNN got the video anonymously?

CNN said it obtained the video through contacts with the Islamic Army of Iraq, a Sunni-led insurgent group that has carried out numerous suicide bombings and kidnappings.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/i...9-1n21tape.html

It seems that CNN has contacts with the insurgents. I wonder if withholding these contact would amount to "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"?

I wonder about that too.