 ratilfar says: Apparently the AP can't handle the truth. But then it takes heaping amounts of self-delusion and cowardice to twist the truth like that. If this is not tacit support for torture, I don't know what is. Fits the normal rules of changing history. Start moving the perpetrators up. I don't see such a problem with what AP did. I agree that waterboarding is torture. But I disagree with the premise of Sullivan's remarks. Our executive branch of government argued the fact that it was not torture. At least in theory we are a free people with a freely elected government. It is a reasonable presumption that our government's opinion should be considered at least the moral equivalent of what Sullivan called "any sane person." Thus "critics" is appropriate as AP should be reporting news not their opinions. The fact that the Bush administration tried to defend this form of torture does not lessen it's horror, but it is a fact. By using the word critics AP was only acknowledging ... Sorry tommy, but I don't buy it. Time to call as spade a spade. There is not space for debate. This government ordered and condoned waterboarding, waterboarding is torture therefore this goverment tortured. The public's culpability or acceptance of this does not excuse these acts or erase the truth of what they are. Nor should it serve to shield said goverment for its moral and legal failures/actions. To do so, as the AP has done in this case, is to be complicit in the crime. Should a reporter, upon coming to the scene of a brutal murder take the words of the accuse when he says "Well, only my critics think I murdered them, but I disagree" and give it as truth or as factual or pretend that what he has seen is nothing but murder? Should a reporter, upon coming to the scene of a brutal murder take theThe reporter of course should not give the accused's word as the truth but certainly should report what the accused claimed happened as part of the total story. The AP could have said that- waterboarding which the government claims is not torture instead of waterboarding which critics say is torture. To me it makes little difference. To me the fact that our government claims it is not torture is an important part of ... Seeing how the official title of the department is the Defense Department, changing the name would not do. As for torture, why not add an important fact, such as "experts in interrogation classify this as torture". I think the problem is that such reporting creates a "He Said/She Said"atmosphere where the truth is irrelevant only who the parties are. If you like to believe the goverment or the critics the you can happily disregards the facts. That is not reporting, that's stenography. As for torture, why not add an important fact, such as "experts in interrogation classify this as torture".That is even worse. It would imply that those who are not experts in interrogation (the great majority) do not classify it as torture. That is not reporting, that's stenography.Well said. Point taken. But......My concern with a one sided approach to news has always been it's use as propaganda. I'm going to be more skeptical of anyone with an obvious agenda to their reporting even if I agree with them. Why would I care what the people who don't know squat think? I see dueling agendas here. What I need are the facts to see through them and make up my own mind. If there are points of contention, then yes, by all means give them to me, but when they do not exist, please do not fabricate them. (Not you tommy, but the AP and the press in general) |
View the Top Clips from November 26, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
||||
