Said so in his Talking Points memo just a few minutes ago. He was super-pissed (and you could tell by his voice) that al-Jazeera was broadcasting the terrorists' video of Margaret Hassan, instead of helping to turn the terrorists in.

I'll post the T-Points transcript when it pops up on foxnews.com tomorrow, but in the meantime, I thought this would open up a dialogue on the role of al-Jazeera.

Well,

I think its safe to say that al-Jazeera has an agenda. It can also be said that nearly all media organizations in the world have an agenda of some sort.

It is a thin line. Report what is going on and, in a sense, advertise for the terrrorists. Or, fail to report what is going on and cover up the truth.

The answer lies in between, and neither al-Jazeera nor al-Arabia (not sure if this is right, but the US-sponsored news outlet in the Middle East) are providing that.

Well, O'Reilly's point is that you can report on it without showing a terrorist-sponsored video of it. He feels that helps motivates more terrorists. For a similar reason, he also refused to show the video of the Abu Grahib incident--even though others on Fox did.

I must say, it's a convincing argument.

If it is reported.....then I can agree.

But it should be at least reported.

I'll buy that.

Could you expand on that? I can't seem to link up the rationale

O'Reilly didn't want our enemies to use the video as propaganda, painting a broad stroke that this is systemic of all Americans.

I see. The thing is though, that pretending it's not happening is hardly the first step in solving the problem.

For me, not showing such videos runs along a similar rationale to not showing the caskets of fallen soldiers. It's propoganda by omission.

Interesting that O'Reilly wouldn't point to the Geneva Conventions to back up his claim that this shouldn't be shown. The GCs rationale is that it causes hurt and humiliation to the family members.

Well, O'Reilly has said before that since the terrorists have violated the GC, the US can do the same back to them, but that's another argument for another day. Anyhoo....

What O'Reilly did with Abu Grahib is described the incident in words, and had guests on to give their own verbal accounts. He still gave a report on it, but didn't show the pictures. Do you think that it is adequate enough?

The Associated Press is a terrorist organization too then, since they were running audio clips of her voice all day. She was pleading with Tony Blair to withdraw UK troops and that it might be her last hours alive.

If anyone didn't hear her, it is gut-wrenching. I hope her captors let her go. I mean, Jesus, she's been helping Iraqis for 30 fucking years.

If more people knew the shit that was going on over there, maybe they won't be "rah rah yay George Bush."

AAAAAGGGGHHHHHH!!!!! TELL ME HE DID NOT SAY THAT!!!!!


Goddammit. That kind of talk is what makes people misunderstand the "war on terror"

You have to be STATE to sign and ratify a treaty! a STATE. Pearl Jam cannot sign and ratify the GCs, because they're not a STATE any more than Al Qaeda are.

Yeesh.


(sorry... frustrated IHL student rant )




I guess I can live with that form of reporting, but I'm very suspicious of his motivations for doing so. It smells of sweeping under the rug. If his motivation was genuine concern for the hurt and humilation for the victims and victim's family, he'd have my attention, but I can't for the life of me see this as anything but: "we are Americans, we can do no wrong, and if we do, you don't have the right to judge us".

The news of the abductions need to be reported and should be.

The clips of the tapes can be utilized, but why give free advertisement to the terrorists by airing them in their entirety?

We know the senario already..."Blah Blah Blah US = Satan, Blah Blah Blah = release our brothers/sisters in arms, Blah Blah Blah beheading"

Report, but do not give them free air time to dispense hate.

They MUST report it though. We have a right to know what is going on.

What would you consider a proper usage of the tapes?

Most of the news we see in the US of the tapes consist of showing clips with the hostage bound and the terrorists talking behind him/her/them. The audio is not used and the reporter usually speaks over the film about who it is and who is responsible, etc.

They don't show the beheadings, nor do they play the entire tape/audio.

I think that might be a good way to handle reporting of the news while not giving them all of the airtime they would like (audio, demands, etc).

It might be even better to not mention who was responsible, just who the hostage was or if they were killed or not.

I just believe that it should still be reported, but we do not have do it their way.

Just watch CONTROL ROOM. Then let's hear you argue they are a terrorist orgranization. It's very fitting that FOX would name them such, I'm sure they'd think the same of FOX and all it's distortions and lies.

al Jazeera is to terrorists what Fox News is to Republicans. They claim no ties, but it's pretty obvious who they are supporting.

I wouldn't call al Jazeera anywhere near responsible for supporting it. Maybe reporting what we don't here in America. But that's not terrorism, that's respectful journalism.

Fox news shows the pretty pictures of cluster bombs being dropped from 10,000 feet on wedding parties with innocent people celebrating a rite of life and al-jazeera shows you from the ground what that pretty bomb did to the people who were in the wedding party. So what news station is pushing the agenda in what direction?

Bad people have weddings, too. I'm sure the guys "10,000 feet up" were just pissed they couldn't be there for the open bar.

Would rather Fox hide military discrepancies and not report on them?

The wedding was just a story I picked out of the blue. How about everytime they drop bombs in general and all the arm chair army nuts in the states think it looks cool like a video game and then al-jazeera sticks it in your face with their reporting. Sorry that tool O'riley can't realize what an idiot, biased American loving prick he really is. He is just as bad as al-jazeera except he is american and people lap the moron up. Just like the other side laps up al-jazeera. Americans just don't want some "other" source following up with some different truths to the stories that were only 1/3 of the truth anyhow.

I almost agree with you, but I don't think nationalism or patriotism qualifies one as an idiot. It's what he or she does with that sense of nationalism and patriotism that may march them in the direction of questionably intelligent.