ABC interviews Beslan terrorist

[zenith-nadir]

What is the "right thing"?

In this specific case the "right thing" would be to not pimp a known terrorist with blood on his hands to sell your news program and inform the authorities as to his whereabouts to potentially save his future victims lives. It's not rocket science.

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.

As I said I draw the line at turning in KNOWN TERRORISTS with blood on their hands. That trumps using KNOWN TERRORISTS with blood on their hands to pimp my news program. Call me crazy.

 

[CFLarsen]

As I said I draw the line at turning in KNOWN TERRORISTS with blood on their hands. That trumps using KNOWN TERRORISTS with blood on their hands to pimp my news program. Call me crazy.

Why wouldn't you report a pedophile?

 

[zenith-nadir]

Why wouldn't you report a pedophile?

First of all there is no pedofile. The pedofile analogy is a hypothetical device you are using to introduce a slippery slope argument. Sorry, but I shall not be drawn into it.

Shamil Basayev is known terrorist who has a $10,000,000 bounty on his head and blood on his hands. He is a wanted man in every respect. Instead of discretely informing Russian officials of his whereabouts - when it became known - ABC chose to cash in on his "notoriety" via their nightline program. The Russians have every right to be pissed off.

It is my opinion that if Shamil Basayev strikes again and kills civilians then ABC is partially responsible for it knew - at a certain point in time - the whereabouts of Shamil Basayev.

I don't think journalists should be cops, or rat out every source. Yet at some point one must choose between "ratings for a television show" and the safety of innocent civilians. In this case Shamil Basayev is a clear and present danger and a potential threat to the Russian people. Common decency should dictate that it is more important to have him behind bars than on ABC Thursday nights at 11 pm.

 

[CFLarsen]

First of all there is no pedofile. The pedofile analogy is a hypothetical device you are using to introduce a slippery slope argument. Sorry, but I shall not be drawn into it.

I am comparing crimes: Terrorism to pedophilia. You want to report the first, but not the latter.

I think it's a fair question to ask why.

I don't think journalists should be cops, or rat out every source. Yet at some point one must choose between "ratings for a television show" and the safety of innocent civilians.

False dichotomy. There is also the duty to report events as they happen. Journalists are not (solely) reporting news for ratings.

 

[zenith-nadir]

I am comparing crimes: Terrorism to pedophilia. You want to report the first, but not the latter.

I disagree. You are comparing a hypothetical criminal to a known terrorist. Apples and oranges. I know Shamil Basayev is a terrorist who has a $10,000,000 bounty on his head and blood on his hands. I do not know the hypothetical pedofile's crime nor is that hypothetical pedofile guilty of the same crimes as Shamil Basayev. Therefore to be drawn into a debate that hypothetical pedofile = Shamil Basayev is nothing short of mental masturbation.

False dichotomy. There is also the duty to report events as they happen. Journalists are not (solely) reporting news for ratings.

There is a difference between "reporting events as they happen" and specifically making contact and organizing a meeting to interview a known terrorist - who by the way is a wanted man for many many murders.

 

[CFLarsen]

I disagree. You are comparing a hypothetical criminal to a known terrorist. Apples and oranges. I know Shamil Basayev is a terrorist who has a $10,000,000 bounty on his head and blood on his hands. I do not know the hypothetical pedofile's crime nor is that hypothetical pedofile guilty of the same crimes as Shamil Basayev. Therefore to be drawn into a debate that hypothetical pedofile = Shamil Basayev is nothing short of mental masturbation.

If you don't want to explain the difference, you don't want to explain the difference.

There is a difference between "reporting events as they happen" and specifically making contact and organizing a meeting to interview a known terrorist - who by the way is a wanted man for many many murders.

You don't consider it relevant to know what a terrorist thinks, feels, believes? Do you similarly think that journalists should not contact, say, the CEOs of WorldCom for an interview? Or Ronald Biggs, when he was at large?

That's hardly hypothetical.

 

[zenith-nadir]

If you don't want to explain the difference, you don't want to explain the difference.

I already explained the difference. One is a hypothetical the other is a clear and present danger to the Russian people.

You don't consider it relevant to know what a terrorist thinks, feels, believes?

Nope. I could care less what terrorists have to say or what terrorists stand for. Basayev's actions is enough evidence for me to decide that he is a danger to civilized society. Nor do I think an interview on ABC will make me understand Basayev or his "cause". Nor do I think Basayev will be truthful in an interview on ABC.

Do you similarly think that journalists should not contact, say, the CEOs of WorldCom for an interview? Or Ronald Biggs, when he was at large?

You are comparing apples and peaches now CEOs = Shamil Basayev & Train Robbers = Shamil Basayev.

 

[CFLarsen]

You are comparing apples and peaches now CEOs = Shamil Basayev & Train Robbers = Shamil Basayev.

No, I am comparing two kinds of KNOWN criminals. The reason you dismissed my first question was because you didn't want to compare a KNOWN criminal to a HYPOTHETICAL one.

So, I found KNOWN criminals to compare. You now dismiss that because you think it is "apples and peaches".

Do I spot a pattern here? A pattern of evasion?

 

[CBL4]

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.

I started to write "if that is the case, the interview should not be aired." But the more I think about it, the more I think this is still newsworthy. I would like to understand how bin Laden or Basayev think. However, terrorists should not a forum for their propanda and recruiting. Tough call.

On another note, I can guarantee that the Russian security forces are looking at the interview very carefully and checking the movements of the reporter. ABC could accidentally be helping lead to Basayev's arrest. Or it is possible that it is not so accidentally, if you want to look for a conspiracy theory.

CBL

 

[zenith-nadir]

Do I spot a pattern here? A pattern of evasion?

The only pattern I see is that I disagree with you. I feel ABC should not pander to terrorists for ratings, while it seems you do not. I also feel the Russians have every right to be angry at ABC considering Basayev is their Bin Laden. It's not rocket science.

Originally posted by CBL4
I would like to understand how bin Laden or Basayev think. However, terrorists should not a forum for their propanda and recruiting. Tough call.

You will never learn how Bin Laden or Basayev thinks from a television interview. If you want to "understand" them then I suggest you watch their actions .

 

[Grammatron]

I started to write "if that is the case, the interview should not be aired." But the more I think about it, the more I think this is still newsworthy. I would like to understand how bin Laden or Basayev think. However, terrorists should not a forum for their propanda and recruiting. Tough call.]

Now is it the "cause" that's newsworthy or Bin Laden?

In the current case I can understand how Chechnya its struggles and situation are newsworthy but the only reason Basayev is newsworthy is because he killing people left and right -- and children no less -- to get attention to it.

Frankly I think plindboe made a perfect post on this subject in that this is a "reward" for all of their action and a green light for more to follow to continue getting attention.

Not to say that Basayev's actions are to be ignored, no, they simply should be put in the proper context and certainly he should not be given a forum to voice his ideas.

 

[CFLarsen]

The only pattern I see is that I disagree with you.

That, and your odd refusal to explain which criminals you think it is OK for journalists to interview and which not.

I feel ABC should not pander to terrorists for ratings, while it seems you do not.

I say no such thing.

 

[Grammatron]

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.

This is far from what I meant. You need to brush up on your English once more, CFL.

The answer to my question would become apparent from a simple viewing of the program.

 

[Grammatron]

You don't consider it relevant to know what a terrorist thinks, feels, believes? Do you similarly think that journalists should not contact, say, the CEOs of WorldCom for an interview? Or Ronald Biggs, when he was at large?

That's hardly hypothetical.

I'll answer your pointless question that has little to do with this thread: The answer is no, I do not think there's any value in interview with them.

 

[Tmy]

Who are reporters to decide who is bad or good. In parts of the world GW Bush is considered just as evil. Do you think reporter from say Nth Korea who gets a Bush interview should try and stab him with a pen. (AS some people suggested Dant Rather shouldve done to Saddam).

Shoudl doctors not treat "bad" people.?

 

[Grammatron]

Who are reporters to decide who is bad or good. In parts of the world GW Bush is considered just as evil. Do you think reporter from say Nth Korea who gets a Bush interview should try and stab him with a pen. (AS some people suggested Dant Rather shouldve done to Saddam).

Shoudl doctors not treat "bad" people.?

Reporters don't live in a moral vacume, 300 children dead should get you on "bad" list in my book. But I'm biased like that.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Frankly I think plindboe made a perfect post on this subject in that this is a "reward" for all of their action and a green light for more to follow to continue getting attention.

Not to say that Basayev's actions are to be ignored, no, they simply should be put in the proper context and certainly he should not be given a forum to voice his ideas.

I agree with everything you say but I come to a different conclusion. News exposure does help feed terrorism but I would still prefer to have the exposure rather than the media or the government deciding that it is inappropriate.

I think the media should (not legally but morally) do this in such a manner that deprives them of their propaganda value.

CBL

 

[CBL4]

Who are reporters to decide who is bad or good. In parts of the world GW Bush is considered just as evil. Do you think reporter from say Nth Korea who gets a Bush interview should try and stab him with a pen. (AS some people suggested Dant Rather shouldve done to Saddam).

Good and bad is not a black and white. However, there are certain action that are so evil that they are indisputably bad that the media can and should take a stand - at least a verbal one.

Killing 300 children is wrong. The perpetrators of such an act are terrorists. There is no real debate about this among civilized people.

CBL

 

[zenith-nadir]

I think the media should (not legally but morally) do this in such a manner that deprives them of their propaganda value.

CBL

I cringe everytime AL Jazeera - and others - give airtime to play "statements" by al-Zawahri or Zarqawi's group. Their "statements" are no more than propoganda and sometimes coded instructions in my opinion.

 

[Tmy]

I agree the guy is scum. But will muting him really help? That footage probably revealed info on his wearabouts.

Plus showing evil is a good way to spur others to fight it. Wouldnt 911 have as much an affect on patriotsim with all the video footage??