Chester -

Please check the News Hounds site.

I amended my posting at 12:10 AM EST to read:

"An unidentified man lifted a portion of the covering off her face while Geraldo rhapsodized about how brave the Iraqi people were and how he could not understand why people would kill this woman."

Just thought you'd want to keep it all accurate.

Sorry you don't understand the basic tenet of Christianity. Let me explain it to you.

DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU!

Do you honestly believe that Jesus would have used a dead body to make a point? Quite the opposite. He would have breathed life into it, raised it from the dead and returned that person to the bosom of his family as He did for Lazarus.

You missed my point.

The body of a human being is not a prop. Not in any religion I was ever raised in.

Geraldo's report was offensive.

And, oh, by the way, his words in the two different reports contradicted each other.

Where, pray tell, are the photos of the masses of ebullient Iraqi voters rushing in droves to vote in Western Baghdad? The most I've seen in any clip he ran is 25. Hardly an onslaught.

And Rita Cosby - sharp cookie that she is - caught him in his lie.

Marie Therese,

First, you were an expert on Islam. When I asked you detailed questions about that, you've now switched to Christianity.

Supposedly now, your point is that Geraldo exploited a dead woman. Perhaps Geraldo found himself next to a dead woman, perhaps he was nearby when the rounds were dropping. Either way, he found himself next to her and on camera and gave his thoughts. You disagree with his opinions, yet rather than address them, you cry exploitation. This is cowardice. When you try to say why it is exploitation, you use every possible reason why the war is bad, not why Geraldo's judgment is flawed.

I asked you no less than 18 questions in my post. You've addressed none of them. Try again.

------
Mr. Brockman,

You say that my site is: "A white-washing distortion site with lots of fog for the foolish, it invites one and all to face up to the facts of war, and, by golly, stop pointing out that our Prez is an idiot, because if you do, you hate our troops and country, you likely kiss Muslim terrorists in your dreams, and you should move to France."

Please show me some examples of white-washing on my site, with links to refute if available. Please show me where I ask people to stop pointing out that our Prez is an idiot. I am actually in the midst of running a series on conservative critiques of the war. Feel free to check it out. Please show me where I said anything about kissing Muslims in your dreams or moving to France. Poke around the site a bit before you critique it, you may find something that surprises you. I am on record in offering an analysis of the failure to plan adequately for the aftermath of the war.

The reason that I don't have a series entitled "Liberal Critiques of the War" by the way is because, like both of your responses to my post, they are intellectually incoherent.

All the best,

Give 'em hell Chester.

The left "... suffers fools gladly, seeing (themselves) as wise."
- St. Paul, 2 Corinthians, 11:19

Hi Chester,

The Lancet report sited by the Hewshound commentator is a thoroughly discredited bit of propaganda. The statistic used in the "study" claims somewhere between 9,000 and 98,000 excess Iraqi deaths since the invasion, as compared to a similar period prior to the invasion. That's a very wide margin, with very low statistical accuracy. And yet, illogically, the authors then claim "100,000 Iraqi civilians deaths caused by the US". The methods used to gather the data were not scientific, and the analyis & conclusions drawn from it are false, possibly outright fraudulent. I'll give just one example of the phoney data: of all the Iraqis interviewed in the study about deaths in their family, not one claimed a family member killed by a terrorist car-bombing. Isn't that a little bit suspect? And when reporting on deaths prior to the invasion, not one death was attributed to Saddam's security forces. Isn't that a little suspect, given that Saddam's thugs killed, on average, 4,300 Iraqis per month during the 25 years of his rule?

Finally, the peer vetting procedure for the Lancet report was dropped in order for it to be published as quickly as possible, just prior to the US election. In short, the report was pure BS.

The current most accurate independant estimates of Iraqi deaths range from 12,000 to 20,000. The vast majority of the deaths attributed to Coalition forces are of combatants, with some smaller percentage of civilians. On the other hand, the vast majority of deaths caused by the terrorists are of civilians, with a very small number of soldiers. That statistic is very revealing of the true nature of this conflict.

Just in case any leftist reader missed the significance, I'll spell it out for you: The terrorists, the very ones Michael Moore called "the Minutemen", are responsible for the vast majority of Iraqi civilian deaths. While the US soldiers are fighting to protect the Iraqi civilians.

What a great day to be a free person !

Hey Chester,

I hate to say it but my definition of insanity
is-repeating the same process and expecting different results. So why should we try to convince anyone on the left that yesterday
was a very positive day for all of us?
They are still getting over the 2000 US Presidential election !
Only a party absolutist, like these members of the "loyal" opposition whom you have engaged, would criticize a man for saying what we all felt at the same time. Senseless acts of violence, committed wantonly and without remorse, against civilians is terrorism. That women was murdered by terrorist. Once more she was murdered by the thugs and criminals who gave Iraq mass graves and WMD's (applied to their own people). The same people who have killed and maimed for the sake of promoting their vision for the future. A very simple connection to go from Saddam Loyalist or Islamist Journeyman to Terrorist. Not difficult at all.

But our left wing chicken eating friends cannot make that connection because if they do they can't apologize for it. And apologizing for being an American is what being against this war
(World War III) truly centers upon if you are a neosouthpaw. Oh yeah, like besides being against G. Dubya, on any issue. That goes without
saying.
I gave up a long time ago trying to figure out
how as a nation we survive, especially in times like this, when the loyal opposition is opposed to any policy, good or bad, simply because the executive branch is not run by their guy.
What would your respondent's verbally cavort about if John Kerry were the man in the White House?
I am not sure if this is the "Berlin Wall" of our early century. Need more time. But yesterday was surely something wonderfully extraordinary for any SANE person to witness, especially in that part of the world, I felt fortunate to see it on T.V. Not since 911 was I so absorbed by the reports and images (mostly positive on the 3 big three cable outlets too)that we saw all day.
Those jovial Iraqi voters, whooping it up and dancing in the streets as they voted was inspiring. Iraqi's now have a better idea of what a unified country can do in times of national urgency than the respondents to your recent posting will ever realize. (And I bet they all have benefited from advanced educations too.)

Lastly, the kids in the BDU's, Kevlar, hospitals and V.A. cemeteries are the ones who gave us this gift for the world. They are the ones who brought this "Iraqi Miracle" about. It is those wonderful kids who continue to stress, bleed and die for those days ahead, they are the people whose opinions really count. They are the ones I care about most. I think of them most.

So how do we do it with a country that is 50% divided ? I have no idea.
R
G13

"I asked you no less than 18 questions in my post. You've addressed none of them. Try again."

I'll have fun with this.

"(a) If you can catch either of them, you'll receive either $25 or $50 million US tax dollars. Have at it. My dollars to good use. Or if the public sector is more your style, feel free to join the Special Forces and have a go."

That's nice. I thought we already had a special forces that had been tasked to catch bin Laden "dead or alive."

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/bush.powell.terrorism/

(b) Assuming that we did, does that make shelling women ok? I fail to find a connection.

Nonsensical question. At what point was it implied that it was? What was stated is that using someone's dead body for shock value in TV news is reprehensible. If Geraldo had been her relative, if he'd introduced the owner of the hands who moved the covering as a relative of the woman's, then that would have been slightly different. But it didn't happen.

"(c) Please provide some links to these studies. I would very much like to review them."

I just stick with the IBC's numbers.

"If we did kill "100,000" as you claim, do you think we intended to? Do you think civilians were purposefully targeted? Do you think they were in this incident?"

Keep piling on the silly questions. If we were intending to kill civilians, Iraq would be a glass crater.

"(d) Was there clean water in the country before the war? Was there electricity? Didn't Mussolini make the trains run on time? Order is beautiful to you isn't it?"

"Yes," "yes," "yes," and "not if you define order as social controls enforced with firepower and torture." I take it you're a fan of cholera, dysentery, open-air sewage treatment, and candlelight?

"(e) Is the US to provide jobs to Iraqis?"

We've been BOMBING (I know you hate that word) Iraq for over ten years. Why not? It would be a nice change, even if we just started hiring Iraqis to build Iraq.

"If we did, would it then be bad for a terrorist to shell women? Or is it ok, so long as there are unemployed Iraqis out there?"

Your sophistry is funny. Why would that make a difference? What are you trying to obfuscate by drawing the question along such pathetically inhuman lines? What are you trying to imply about the person you're asking the question of?

"(f) 1-- about the bombing: You lefties love to use "bombing" as a substitute word for just about any military action. I think this goes back to good old Howard Zinn. He decries bombing Afghanistan, bombing Iraq, bombing Korea. Ever read though that in WWII he was -- guess what -- a bombardier in the Army Air Force? So he has no idea whatsoever of the precise nature or lack thereof of current munitions. Just a lot of guilt apparently. All beside the point."

Yet you spent a good deal of time talking about it. I suggest you look up Desert Fox. Bombing bombing bombing bombing. Neener.

" 2-- I'm pretty sure there is an "ancient Muslim law" against killing other Muslims. You're the expert though in Muslim clerical studies so please enlighten us as to how these yahoos are cleared hot for a ticket to paradise since they were smart enough to kill the woman whom Geraldo mourns. To you, one innocent death by the enemy is ok because of another innocent death inflicted by the US. But as we all know, two wrongs don't make a right."

You miss the point again, your statements have no tie to reality because the conditions you presuppose in making them do not exist, no-one is experiencing the feelings you are ascribingto them. Here's a factual question: How is his use in a news spot of a woman's dead body (who was killed wrongfully) not also wrong? Isn't that trying to make a right with two wrongs? Oops!

"The fact of the matter is that war is a dirty, ugly, gritty, bloody -- and especially -- morally taxing business. That's why Napoleon said, "The moral to the physical must exist in the ratio of three to one." He was talking about people like you, who see one thing go wrong and condemn it all. You have no sense of a larger picture. You think that all war is bad and therefore we should never participate in it. Unfortunately that only makes us slaves to anyone who is more ruthless than you. It won't take much of that before you will wish for the day when you could sit quietly at your computer and deride a reporter for expressing outrage at the death of an innocent.

Leave Geraldo alone."

Once again.

How did his using a dead woman's body do anything positive? What journalistic need was served?

Here's a more important question: Why hasn't he shown us the suffering of some of our wounded troops? Why are we looking at someone else's family, when the people we are, let's be honest, most concerned about is our own family? Or own kin and fellow citizens? How come he can show an Iraqi body and not an American one? Could it be the old adage that we're fascinated with other people's pain and suffering precisely because it's not ours?

Stop apologizing for this hack, you're making a fool out of yourself, both with your sophistry and your sophomoric little jabs.

Here is a link to the article on Slate, of all places, that debunks the Lancet's "100,000" article: http://www.slate.com/id/2108887.

I'd like to note that there are a lot of media stories about the losses our troops have suffered. Geraldo's was one of the only stories I've seen yet lamenting the horrible toll the terrorists are taking on their own people. And pointing out how pointless it is. Geraldo has been a hack in the past, no doubt about it. His reporing yesterday was great, regardless.

StealthBadger wrote:

"That's nice. I thought we already had a special forces that had been tasked to catch bin Laden "dead or alive."

===

Yet again, the clever chattering class stands on the sidelines, sniping with spittle, thinking themselves too valuable to join the fight.

Proud Father of a USMC Grunt LCPL

I've actually appreciated Geraldo's reports in that he so appreciates our troops! I really like that he is always pumping them and the rough jobs they do. In my house, when we are watching Geraldo work, we simply understand that He is always the news -- He is always dramatic. Watching him is like eating chicken ok? You eat the meat and through away the bones. I echo Chester. Leave Geraldo alone.
Kate

Yet again, the clever chattering class stands on the sidelines, sniping with spittle, thinking themselves too valuable to join the fight.

Proud Father of a USMC Grunt LCPL

========

Thank you for assuming the worst of me, proving (along with your command of alliteration, bravo) that you are uninterested in the debate, only in scoring points.

What I meant to point out was, that the best military in the world is out there looking for him, and hasn't found him. Personally, I'm more inclined to fault the political leadership for this than the military itself. It would only make sense.

And for the record, I'm medically ineligible to serve. I physically can't. But equally for the record: despite your literary talents, I suspect you didn't read the full text of my post if you assume I'm some kind of parasitic freak who feels I'm more valuable than those in the service. I suggest you read the end again. I may not be able to enlist, but at least I read and think before speaking.

Badger,

Time is short, so just this: Why do you not want Geraldo to draw attention to an Iraqi woman killed by terrorists, but then ask, "Why hasn't he shown us the suffering of some of our wounded troops? Why are we looking at someone else's family, when the people we are, let's be honest, most concerned about is our own family? Or own kin and fellow citizens? How come he can show an Iraqi body and not an American one?"

Though there may be restrictions on depicting the caskets of dead Americans, certainly there are none such rules against filming dead Americans in Iraq.

But this doesn't jive with your central argument: putting dead people on camera is exploitation.

If Geraldo filmed some dead Americans and said exactly what he did, substituting "GI" or whatever for "woman," would you condemn him as quickly as you have now?

Thanks for joining the debate here at The Adventures of Chester. I welcome it.

Geraldo is right! Deplurable

I read it all, albeit not as thoroughly as I just did.
Your final statement:
Here's a more important question: Why hasn't he shown us the suffering of some of our wounded troops? Why are we looking at someone else's family, when the people we are, let's be honest, most concerned about is our own family? Or own kin and fellow citizens? How come he can show an Iraqi body and not an American one? Could it be the old adage that we're fascinated with other people's pain and suffering precisely because it's not ours?
===

Mine:
Americans have little tolerance for media that intrudes on the privacy of our Marines, sailors, soldiers, and airmen. If we wish, we will share; if not, look out.
Geraldo learned his lesson regarding OPSEC and "hallowed ground" in Afghanistan, perhaps the Iraqis will teach him one now.

I've been around TV and news almost all of my life. I was a TV news producer for 13-years. Geraldo upsets most news people for a good reason - but first some background.

TV station managers and news consultants constantly lecture reporters and producers to tell stories from the viewpoint of human drama. Unfortunately, very few news people can recognize a story of human drama - instead, they resort to sensationalizing stories. Thus, the constant day-to-day stories about bombings instead of stories about people.

Geraldo really angers news people because he, unlike most of them, understands human drama, and he has the courage to find those stories and report them. The Iraqi woman killed as she tried to vote is exactly this kind of story.

I'm not sure I'm completely with you on that, surfatsixty.

What we are against are the exploitation of our dead. The honoring of our fallen is an entirely different story.

And Juan, I also disagree with your assertion that Geraldo understands human drama. He understands sentimentiality, which is different. If he'd understood human drama, then he would have tried to give us some of that woman's past, who she was, who would be left behind.

Instead, he gave us nothing.

By the way.

If we are so against others intruding in our privacy, why was it a good thing for Geraldo to intrude in hers and her family's?

And also, to make very clear what I mean about sentimentiality: It's easy to get a reaction from the body of a woman killed while going to vote. It's journalism to find out who that woman was, what she had said on the days before her death, and how she had shown her feelings on the previous days. And to get the family's permission to make that broacast, which we have no idea about either way because we don't know who they were.

THAT'S what I mean. That is why I object.

"Rivera, FOX and a whole chunk of the United States seem to forget that (a) we let both bin Laden and al Zarqawi get away (b) we tortured Arabs (c) Johns Hopkins and the Lancet showed that we are responsible for the death of 100,000 Iraqis (d) there's no reliable electricity and no clean water in that country (e) there are no jobs in Iraq (f) we bombed the hell out of the place and, most importantly..."

The Iraqi woman has nothing to do with these 6 points made by Newshound. We (that is US citizens) can argue forever about the veracity of his claims but its NOT relevant to her. It is NOT why she was killed. All she was doing was trying to vote for God's sake. She didn't bomb anybody, she didn't lie to anybody about WMD, she didn't turn off all the electricity. She just was trying to vote. If you (Newshound and fellow travelers) think she deserved to be blown up by an a**hole Jordanian/Sudanian/Baathist terrorist nutjob for our country's alleged transgressions then you really need some serious serious medicine.

"...by using a dead Arab woman on screen he is violating her humanity and, probably, violating an ancient Muslim law as well."

This is really the only truely arguable point because it involves the actual victim - the poor woman. We all know Geraldo - he is quite an opportunist and sensationalist and has often crossed the line of journalistic standards (he's not alone - Dan Rather comes to mind, so I understand Newshound's point. And I am not sure citing the actions of some lowlifes in regards to our dead in Somali or the poor guys murdered in Fallujah are good counterexamples to what Geraldo did. After all I don't want anyone stooping to their level of indecency - that's not the standard. OTOH is what Geraldo did that much different then the "exploitation" of other corpses to make a point? Famous examples - mass graves in Nazi Germany, Bosnia, and Iraq (!); or the little naked girl running away in horror from the napalm bomb in Vietnam, or the Viet Cong being executed by handgun by the South Vietnamese General. I think we all agree these are pictures trying to make a point. So whats the difference?

One much more relevant example I forgot to add. What about the election worker who was dragged out of his car and assasinated in front of the AP photographers in the middle of the street? To borrow StealthBadger's post:

"It's easy to get a reaction from the body of a [pollworker] killed while going to work. It's journalism to find out who that [pollworker] was, what [he] had said on the days before [his] death, and how [he] had shown [his] feelings on the previous days. And to get the family's permission to make that broacast, which we have no idea about either way because we don't know who they were.

THAT'S what I mean. That is why I object."

That picture was plastered on the front page of quite a few newspapers including the NYT. We all know what the message was - straight from the terrorists - vote, you bastards, and die; delivered to us courtesy the AP.

StealthBadger, no doubt you objected to that image too.

It's still a great day to be free and alive!

For all the Geraldo Phobes:
Last time I checked the only people taking exploitative advantge of killing and maiming in front of the camera was the side that liked to do it's killing live (victim included) for posting on a terrorist-nutcake website.

Geraldo gave us a better perspective on the risk the Iraqi people were taking and what guts it took to vote than any other news report of the day from Iraq. Who or whomever had their sensitivities rubbed intolerabley raw by Geraldo lamenting over the womans body must've been living in a sealed glass tube or on the island of ME since the insurgency went into full swing last April. If you are going to criticize Geraldo's motivations why do you not condemn the terror cowards?

The image of the woman in the back of the pick-up will remain with me for a long time. For sure it will be there the very next time I go to vote.

I wonder if she got to vote ? Anybody remember if it was included in the TV report ?

How we took so much for granted before 9-11.

G13

Stealth,

Have you gone back to your hole?

Thanks for stopping by if you did.

Come stir the pot sometime.

Wow! Be gone for 24 hours and a lot comes up! I'm on a time crunch, so I apologize in advance for errors in spelling and such. I'll check again later in the day once I'm no longer on the road.

"OTOH is what Geraldo did that much different then the "exploitation" of other corpses to make a point?"

Some of your examples are journalism, some not, usually a mixture of both. Let's take your examples individually. Understand I'm not a journalist, and don't have a lot of the training or experience to make these decisions, and you're touching on some borderline moments. I will say this much. Geraldo COULD have done it completely differently, and I wouldn't have objected. I think I got that across in the previous posts, even a good idea of how that would be possible.

"mass graves in Nazi Germany, Bosnia, and Iraq"

I would tend to say this falls on the side of journalism, for the simple reason of its scale. A mass grave is like a city smashed by an earthquake. It's no longer private. If you start zooming in on individual faces, even that would be appropriate because then you'd be changing the presentation from an undifferentiated mass of horror to a pile of human beings. No, I don't know where the line would be drawn as far as the number of bodies, and I would have to change careers to journalism before I'd be willing to tackle that question on a regular basis.

"or the little naked girl running away in horror from the napalm bomb in Vietnam"

You mean the little girl who was on fire running from the napalm bomb, I believe. The difference there is that is a horror, an outrage, that was in progress, that was happening. Bringing home to the American people what the civilian costs of the war were.

"or the Viet Cong being executed by handgun by the South Vietnamese General."

Now this is one that annoys me, because it's used by anti-war activists (Full Disclosure: I can be fairly called an anti-war activist, I don't believe in shooting people from another country who havent started shooting at people from your country first. If you want to debate that in e-mail, fine, but I'm not going to debate it in this discussion - it's off topic) when the person who is being shot, if I recall, was being executed after a _fair trial_. It was not an atrocity, and in fact was a quick, merciful death, but it's being used still to portray an arbitrary slaying. So no, I would not call the way it's used now journalism. I don't remember how it was shown in the original context.

"I think we all agree these are pictures trying to make a point. So whats the difference?"

The differences are 1. That Geraldo used the woman's body to emphasise his own sorrow. This is not a bad thing in and of itself, but it is not journalism. The viewer was being told how to feel about this (which is condescending, I know exactly what to feel at the death of innocent civilians).

2. That there is no event in progress being shown, so the only foci you can make of the picture are of the woman as a human being, or the corpse as an object. He chose the latter.

Now part of this is Geraldo's style I'm arguing with. I understand this, and in fact believe it emphasizes something I've believed for a long time. Geraldo isn't a journalist first. He brings information, but specializes in telling us how to feel about it - which again, is editorializing, not reporting.

"If you are going to criticize Geraldo's motivations why do you not condemn the terror cowards?"

Now this is the kind of thing that annoys me and makes me want to walk out of discussions. No-one, and I mean no-one, here or at Newshounds, has ever even considered not condemning the terrorists. To say it another way: Who do you think you are? A website (Newshounds) is created to express its own opinion of a particular corporation's news coverage, the coverage of a particular story is bitterly argued over, and when you find out about it you decide to equate that with turning a blind eye to zealots who blow up civilians??? Neither I nor the owners of Newshounds are inhuman. If you want to debate, fine. But if you want to set up a straw man argument to make yourself look good, then why are you even on the Internet? You can do that without a computer and save yourself the bill from your ISP.

"StealthBadger, no doubt you objected to that image too."

Dunno, haven't seen it. Possibly not, for two reasons: 1. That camera shot was only secondarily about the dead woman. The focus of the clip was Geraldo and Geraldo's sorrow. The woman was shown in the context of letting the viewer see what has torn his heart in two. Now this is what Geraldo is good at, he conveys the emotions he wishes to bring to his audience very, very well. Unfortunately, that isn't journalism, that's editorializing. It really was better when he had his own show, then he could do things like this without a problem. But doing so under the tagline "we report, you decide" is kinda.. welll.. sad.

2. They have a better chance of making it a "story" rather than something sensationalistic because the mechanics of publishing a newspaper story make it more likely that there will be time to get relevant information in before the temptation to run with what they have takes over. it would depend on whether the Times did just a photograph, or talked about the worker as a human being. Did they dig and find out who the person was, did they attach any humanity to the person? The question is, did they show this person as a dead body, or as a human being who this had been done to? In both cases, the story isn't "here's this dead person who was doing thus and such," the story is "Here is this person named ____, who was doing ____, wanted ____, and had come from ____, and whose life was ended in the pursuit of that (or in the pursuit of something else, you never know how these stories are going to go. Life is complicated that way).

"Have you gone back to your hole?"

Yup, I tend to spend the evenings rant-free, keeps the blood pressure down.

"Thanks for stopping by if you did."

No worries!

Correction on the execution photograph, and clarification. It wasn't a Viet Minh general, and it wasn't after a fair trial. The person being shot was a guerilla captured during the Tet offensive.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04264/382106.stm

The photograph itself presents us with a great deal of ambiguity, and the fact that a man in uniform is shooting a man in civilian clothes has led a lot of people to misinterpret what's going on. The moment is a stunning (meant in a literal sense, the mind sort of skips a beat or three the first time you see that photograph) one, but with out context, it's astounding the many different interpretations of the photograph that have popped up.

And as for the girl, I mean it was happening _right then_.

http://www.peace.ca/kimstory.htm

If Geraldo's brother had caught the moment of the blast, then all bets would be off - that's news. Horrifying news, but news.

Gotta vanish, have a good day, y'all!

Ugh. Must... tear.. myself... away...

Was sloppy in my response to the person who was dragged out of the car and cut and pasted a reply to another question in the middle of it.

Here is a cleaner version of the response.

Dunno, probably not, for two reasons. If the photographers were there and reported things as they happened, then that is reporting an event. If it's "look at this dead person and how awful I feel about it," then that's an opinion piece, and directly against "we report, you decide." *shrugs* Second, I don't know whether this comes into play or not, but it's worth mentioning: Television is a remarkably different medium that lends itself to reporting moments far better than newspapers, but lends itself to abuse much more easily as well. Newspapers have a better chance of making it a "story" rather than something sensationalistic because the mechanics of publishing a newspaper story make it more likely that there will be time to get relevant information in before the temptation to run with what they have takes over. it would depend on whether the Times did just a photograph, or talked about the worker as a human being. Did they dig and find out who the person was, did they attach any humanity to the person? The question is, did they show this person as a dead body, or as a human being who this had been done to? In both cases, the story isn't "here's this dead person who was doing thus and such," the story is "Here is this person named ____, who was doing ____, wanted ____, and had come from ____, and whose life was ended in the pursuit of that (or in the pursuit of something else, you never know how these stories are going to go. Life is complicated that way).

Okay. Sorry about that.

I think I have one more long response in me before the subject is thoroughly beaten down.

Stealthbadger (if you're still around):

Good post. I don't necessarily agree with your final conclusions but you argue your points well.

You stated this: "You mean the little girl who was on fire running from the napalm bomb, I believe. The difference there is that is a horror, an outrage, that was in progress, that was happening. Bringing home to the American people what the civilian costs of the war were."

I don't see that interpretation as being too much different than what Geraldo was saying. Yes the picture "spoke for itself" but we all know what the message was! It was pretty easy to keep that message unspoken. The picture tells us nothing about the girl (and I am not sure its necessary). The death of the woman had just happened and the attacks of insurgents are ongoing. Was the little girl's family asked for permission? BTW I have no problem with the publishing of the photo.

I do agree that Geraldo is more of an editorialist than he is a journalist. But the point he made hasn't been made by many journalists - the actions of insurgents have defined them - they are nihilists, in love with their own violence. Should he have made that point using the body of a dead woman? Thats a tough judgement call - I tend to lean towards using it - if only to provide balance and context.

Now one real bone to pick. You talked about setting up a "strawman". Newshound did just that - they went from talking about Geraldo's broadcast to pointing out what can only be interpreted as 6 justifications for the actions of insurgents. You participated in arguing those points in your first post (though you probably didn't intend to argue them as justifications). As I pointed out the veracity of these claims are totally irrelevant because the subject of Geraldo's broadcast was a woman who had nothing to do with it . That was a very big strawman they erected and you tried to reinforce. We ALL need to avoid tactics of misdirection.

All this Geraldo-talk is ridiculous. I could but won't name many other reporters on TV who are questionable during their best reports! President Bush recently reminded us that our remote controls with on & off buttons work really well if we need to self-sensor. We have all seen countless dead like the woman in the pick up -- all very, very sad -- during this war. It's one of the definitions of war isn't it? So if it's too troubling for you, just turn it off for a while and go hug somebody you love. PS -- and Americans do not torture Arabs. Give me a break. I would rather have a pair of underwear on my head and still HAVE my head....

PeterArgus:

Real quick. I think using the term "justification" may be off from what the intent was. Explanation, yes. But not justification. Finding out why things are happening is the more likely goal (I know it's mine, and I believe very strongly that it's the dominant feeling over at NH, though I am not affiliated with them and can not authoritatively speak for them), not apologizing for the people who do them.

What I was characterizing as setting up a straw man is the indirect accusation of those criticizing Geraldo either being a cheerleader for fanatical killers, or implicitly approving of them through our silence. What you are saying we did that is the same is criticizing Geraldo's post, then expressing outrage at the war in general (which is journalism slipping into editorializing - kinda the definition of what blogs do).

The former is an ad hominem attack against people who disagree with you.

The second is putting a specific (Geraldo's segment) into the context of the respective speaker's opinion of the Iraq war.

See the difference?

Check out the Big Brain on Badger!
Wow little ol me annoyed the verbose Badger to the point of ALMOST walking out of a discussion?
I think I have accomplished my mission.
Hell, I have reached the end of the internet. And me being such a rookie on this blogger stuff.

And thanks for the clarification (condemnations against terrorist are implied by you rather than stated)I was really concerned about you, for a second. Too bad I had to ask you the question to trigger your statement. But I am sure it's always in the back of your mind.
How about the OTHER question? I will repeat it for you
Do you think the woman in the back of the P/U ever got the chance to vote?
Think of that next time you go into a voting booth.
And as far as me moving on or getting off this site, to suit you ? You have got to be kidding. Well, oddly enough I was thinking of moving on until you mentioned how my commentary annoyed you. Pay dirt !
Like peas and carrots now bro! YE-HA.
So is it tough wearing two left shoes all the time?

I can't believe you're all still going at it. I'm so proud. Badger, just for the record, I've decided not to comment on any more lefty blogs because it takes too much time from the posts I've got planned here at TAOC. But by all means keep it up. This is quite an interesting thread . . .

Badger, if you keep your language clean you might even make it as the "house lefty" here.

Yes Newshounds leave Geraldo Rivera alone, he has changed so much since 9-11 and for another thing why dont you guys go on over to Iraq and dont you dare cry when you see childrens shoes left on the side of the street , because thats all thats left after those bastards got through blowing the hell out of them. The soldiers and yes even Geraldo have seen thing that they should never have had to see. He's doing a great job.... and so is Fox...