ABC interviews Beslan terrorist

[zenith-nadir]

As for telling Russia where he is...It's not the press' job to take sides in a conflict, no matter how bad/evil/terrorist one side is. It's not their job to act as an agency for Mother Russia. They're there to get the story--which is exactly what they're doing.

In a post 9-11 world I feel that everyone has a duty to turn in known mass-murdering terrorists...call me crazy.

 

[Grammatron]

What is news? It's what happens that is of interest to the public. The second the free press starts deciding who gets air time based on their political views, we don't have a free press anymore.

Terrorists blowing up people is news. Knowing more about terrorists who blow up people is news.

Which do you think is the more frightening, an unknown terrorist (meaning you don't know how to spot him) or a known terrorist (whom you can spot)?

Know thy enemy, and know him well.

Sure News isn't simply raw facts printed in a column, it's also context and inevitably bias since it's written by a human.

I don't want to comment on the this since I have not seen the ABC piece, but presentation would certainly be important. More to the point I would like to know why the interviewed him? I certainly don't see any value in getting his side of the story on why he would want 300 children dead.

 

[CFLarsen]

If Deepthroat had the track record of Bin laden or Basayev I would say yes.

Then, you are erasing the boundaries between government and a free press. You now need to provide distinct and clear conditions on when a free press should cooperate with a government.

In a post 9-11 world I feel that everyone has a duty to turn in known mass-murdering terrorists...call me crazy.

As someone living in NYC during 9-11, I should probably be expected to agree with you. However, I see dire consequences in determining guilt without a fair trial.

Is Osama bin Laden responsible of 9-11? I don't think there is much doubt. Is it legally proven? Not yet. Bring Osama bin Laden to trial, and let justice be done.

 

[CFLarsen]

More to the point I would like to know why the interviewed him? I certainly don't see any value in getting his side of the story on why he would want 300 children dead.

Let us know what they said.

 

[Grammatron]

Let us know what they said.

I am not sure I understand you.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Is Osama bin Laden responsible of 9-11? I don't think there is much doubt. Is it legally proven? Not yet. Bring Osama bin Laden to trial, and let justice be done.

Bin Laden admitted he orchestrated 9-11 therefore if ABC knew where Bin Laden was I would expect them to inform the authorities. IMO by not doing so would make them an accomplice to his crimes.

Then, you are erasing the boundaries between government and a free press. You now need to provide distinct and clear conditions on when a free press should cooperate with a government.

When they have the location of a known international terrorist is my condition.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by cleon
So does interviewing Putin make one an accomplice to these things?

A fluff piece on Putin would probably make me consider someone an apologist for his actions and morally, but not legally, an accomplice. Ditto with Basayev.

However, Basayev is clearly a terrorist and his actions are illegal by any definition. Putins actions, while dispicable, are not necessarily illegal.

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing what's wrong with this. Why shouldn't Basayev be interviewed?

I agree with grammatron that it depends on context which none of us seems to have. Allowing him to celebrate his actions and recruit seems morally repugnant and perhaps criminal. Accurately defining his character would be OK.

He is a newsworthy man. But we should not aid his criminal endeavors.

Should the press help enforce the law? If there is a clear threat, yes. Should they betray their sources? Generally not but perhaps in this case.

CBL

 

[Freakshow]

When do they become agents of a government?

And when do they become agents of humanity?

This is one reason I could never be a journalist or lawyer. I don't buy into their high-and-mighty professional "ethics". Ethical is doing the right thing. What journalists and lawyers do is ANYTHING for money. I could never, for example, do my best to put someone back out on the street that I knew for a fact was guilty of multiple rapes. In my book, there is no definition of "ethical" that applies to doing so. Journalists do the same thing at times.

I've said it before on this board: despite being an athiest, I live my life (as best I can; nobody's perfect) by a strong set of moral principles.

I don't see the moral principle in saying "I know exactly where this mass-murderer is, but I'm not going to tell anyone, because of money and my career." That is sickeningly pathetic.

Journalists and lawyers like to pretend that they are on some high moral pedestal, above the fray, doing some special divine moral duty. But in reality, they are just whores.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Freakshow
I don't see the moral principle in saying "I know exactly where this mass-murderer is, but I'm not going to tell anyone, because of money and my career." That is sickeningly pathetic.

I half agree but there is more than money and careers at stake.

There is something to be said for furthering the spread of knowledge. If journalists keep to these principals, then interviews like this can happen. If they turn in murderers, then these interviews would quickly cease.

Is is better to have these interviews and keep the location secret or not to have the interviews? Handled properly, I would vote for the interviews.

CBL

 

[Grammatron]

I half agree but there is more than money and careers at stake.

There is something to be said for furthering the spread of knowledge. If journalists keep to these principals, then interviews like this can happen. If they turn in murderers, then these interviews would quickly cease.

Is is better to have these interviews and keep the location secret or not to have the interviews? Handled properly, I would vote for the interviews.

CBL

They're rarely interviews.

I forget who, but one of the jounralists who interviewed Bin Laden was saying what it was like and the actual "interview" was nothing more than a speech by Bin Laden.

 

[CFLarsen]

I am not sure I understand you.

Here:

More to the point I would like to know why the interviewed him?

So, what did they say when you asked them?

 

[CFLarsen]

Bin Laden admitted he orchestrated 9-11 therefore if ABC knew where Bin Laden was I would expect them to inform the authorities. IMO by not doing so would make them an accomplice to his crimes.

The task of the press is to report news. Not to play police and courts of law.

You want Rupert Murdoch to decide who goes to jail?

When they have the location of a known international terrorist is my condition.

What about having the location of a known pedophile?

 

[CFLarsen]

And when do they become agents of humanity?

This is one reason I could never be a journalist or lawyer. I don't buy into their high-and-mighty professional "ethics". Ethical is doing the right thing.

And what is that?

What journalists and lawyers do is ANYTHING for money. I could never, for example, do my best to put someone back out on the street that I knew for a fact was guilty of multiple rapes. In my book, there is no definition of "ethical" that applies to doing so. Journalists do the same thing at times.

I've said it before on this board: despite being an athiest, I live my life (as best I can; nobody's perfect) by a strong set of moral principles.

Why would there be a conflict between being an atheist and living a life by a strong set of moral principles?

I don't see the moral principle in saying "I know exactly where this mass-murderer is, but I'm not going to tell anyone, because of money and my career." That is sickeningly pathetic.

Journalists and lawyers like to pretend that they are on some high moral pedestal, above the fray, doing some special divine moral duty. But in reality, they are just whores.

If not journalists, who else should report the news?

 

[CFLarsen]

They're rarely interviews.

I forget who, but one of the jounralists who interviewed Bin Laden was saying what it was like and the actual "interview" was nothing more than a speech by Bin Laden.

Which is hugely demonstrative of just what kind of person he is. Does he want to pontificate, or is he prepared to answer the questions from the press?

 

[Freakshow]

And what is that?



Why would there be a conflict between being an atheist and living a life by a strong set of moral principles?



If not journalists, who else should report the news?

There isn't a conflict between being an athiest and having a strong moral set of principles. But some think there would be, and think that we athiests are just a bunch of wild loose cannons doing anything that comes to mind, whenever it comes to mind. I say it for their benefit.

I never said I didn't want journalists to not report the news. I just want them to be honest about their motives, that's all. Quit hiding behind all the BS. 'Fess up to the truth. Have some...um..."brass". Tell why you really do what you do. Quit with the pretentious phony "journalistic integrity" BS. Just be honest about it, at least.

 

[Grammatron]

Here:



So, what did they say when you asked them?

Where did I incinuate I would do so?

 

[zenith-nadir]

The task of the press is to report news. Not to play police and courts of law.

Informing the authorities about the location of a known terrorist with blood on his hands is hardly "playing police".

You want Rupert Murdoch to decide who goes to jail?

Once again, informing the authorities about the location of a known terrorist with blood on his hands is hardly deciding who goes to jail.

What about having the location of a known pedophile?

Ahhh, the old slippery slope argument. Sorry, but slippery slope arguments are 9 times out of 10 completely speculative and hypothetical. I guess I have some morals and ethics and if I knew the location of a known terrorist with blood on his hands - like Basayev - I would A) not use his interview to sell my news program and B) would inform the authorities about his location. Why would I do such a thing? TO SAVE THE LIVES of his future victims.

 

[CFLarsen]

Ethical is doing the right thing.

What is the "right thing"?

 

[CFLarsen]

Where did I incinuate I would do so?

If you want to know why they interviewed him, aren't they the logical choice when it comes to finding out?

That is, if you really are interested to find out.

 

[CFLarsen]

Informing the authorities about the location of a known terrorist with blood on his hands is hardly "playing police".

They are acting on a government's behalf. That is not their job.

Ahhh, the old slippery slope argument. Sorry, but slippery slope arguments are 9 times out of 10 completely speculative and hypothetical. I guess I have some morals and ethics and if I knew the location of a known terrorist with blood on his hands - like Basayev - I would A) not use his interview to sell my news program and B) would inform the authorities about his location. Why would I do such a thing? TO SAVE THE LIVES of his future victims.

It is definitely not a slippery slope argument. I am asking where you draw the line. Apparently, you will report Basajev, but you will not report a pedophile.