Say Anything Blog

Journalists have sources in da guvvamint, business and elsewhere, why does it surprise you that they have links to terrorists also? Apparently terrorists are people, and people talk, have friends, stuff like that. Maybe a minority of Muslim journalists are sympathetic to the Islamic movements that want freedom from western capital and military interference. And maybe these Muslim journalists then have links to more moderate journalists. Do I need to draw a picture?

Why do priests that hear about crimes during confession not (often/always) report them to the police?

And how about gravity, bonkers eh?

Rob: The worst part of all this is that it gives terrorists the power to sell their soulless crap through the media.  If we cut off that access, they would be exposed as the soulless murderers they are; instead, we give them a voice for their lying PR campaign.  This confuses the lefties no end, of course.  They want to by sympathetic to the “poor and downtrodden” and to look the other way(like Durant) when their “victims” do messy things.  The willing accomplices in the MSM give the terrorists another venue in which to spread their lying propaganda.  Shame on them!

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Journalists have sources in da guvvamint, business and elsewhere, why does it surprise you that they have links to terrorists also?

Oh I don’t know, maybe because people in business and the government aren’t actively trying to bring down western culture?

Honestly, if a reporter has information about the whereabouts of terror group members don’t you think that information should be in the hands of the authorities rather than exploited for good headlines?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Honestly, if a reporter has information about the whereabouts of terror group members don’t you think that information should be in the hands of the authorities rather than exploited for good headlines?

What gets me is that you’d think that the capture would be a very good headline itself.  I’ve never understood why journalists don’t call the authorities and work out a mutual back-scratching agreement, wherein the journalist gives information to the authorities, and, in turn, receives an exclusive not only with the terrorist in question, but with some of the arresting/raiding authorities.

My only guess is that if they did that a few times, their sources would dry up, and they’d be forced to resort to actual investigative journalism, rather than having the terrorists/criminals call them up and just give them the information.

Robin: It would also hinder their ability to give the terrorists a voice in the MSM.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Journalists should have sources on both sides, should they not?  Take for instance the recent stayed execution of Elijah Page in South Dakota.  As a journalist covering the story, if I didn’t attempt to have Page himself as a source, would I be doing the story justice?  I don’t think so.  Elijah Page committed a horrible act and he deserves to never have human contact ever again, but that does not mean that his side should be eliminated from the story.  That would be irresponsible journalism.

Having a source in Al Qaeda is certainly troubling in the sense that the journalist is talking with an organization that is directly responsible for a lot of horrible atrocities.  But, that shouldn’t preclude a journalist from taking whatever information that organization is willing to offer.  The journalist now has a responsibilty to follow up on that information and attempt to get the complete story. 

And Rob, I think you are assuming that the journalist (or news organization) has a working relationship with Al-Qaeda.  If information is dropped on our doorstep… well, that’s a source, regardless of who it is they are a source.

And you don’t legitimize the terrorists by including their information into the story.  You just don’t.  You report the story with the information you have been able to acquire for all sources.

Journalists should have sources on both sides, should they not?

No, they shouldn’t.  We shouldn’t be giving their extremist views even the semblance of a venue.

Take for instance the recent stayed execution of Elijah Page in South Dakota.  As a journalist covering the story, if I didn’t attempt to have Page himself as a source, would I be doing the story justice?  I don’t think so.

If Elijah Page were on the loose and wanted for murdering people and you used him as a source rather than give your information on his whereabouts to authorities I’m pretty sure you’d be in prison.

And Rob, I think you are assuming that the journalist (or news organization) has a working relationship with Al-Qaeda.  If information is dropped on our doorstep… well, that’s a source, regardless of who it is they are a source.

From the article:

sources from both Al-Qaeda and the United States have confirmed its authenticity

It doesn’t sound to me like confirmation for the video was just “dropped on their doorstep.” Sounds to me like the reporter called someone up and said “Hey, is this real?”

And you don’t legitimize the terrorists by including their information into the story.  You just don’t.  You report the story with the information you have been able to acquire for all sources.

By having contact with a terrorist and not turning the information you learn over to authorities you grant them legitimacy.  Period.  There’s no way around that.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs: