ThinkProgress.org: Right Wing Mocks Reporters In Egypt: Not "A Great Deal Of Sympathy For Those Who’ve Been Attacked"

[Larry]

It shouldn't be a debate. Anyone getting beaten up by a mob, or government thugs, regardless of political affiliation is horrible. A person is a complete jerk if they joke about something like this.

That being said, the OP was intentionally inflammatory (as usual, I might add), setting the stage for a stupid, immature mudslinging/flame war "debate." Pretty much par for the course in tailgate political threads...

So your position is that when

1) Someone does something which even you agree is dispicable.

2) Someone on ES points it out.

then your position is "well, of course the first guy did something wrong, but the guy who pointed it out, well, he's really gone too far"?

Have I got that right?

[visionary]

So your position is that when

1) Someone does something which even you agree is dispicable.

2) Someone on ES points it out.

then your position is "well, of course the first guy did something wrong, but the guy who pointed it out, well, he's really gone too far"?

Have I got that right?

I think she is complaining about the way it was brought up.

[Henry]

It shouldn't be a debate. Anyone getting beaten up by a mob, or government thugs, regardless of political affiliation is horrible. A person is a complete jerk if they joke about something like this.

That being said, the OP was intentionally inflammatory (as usual, I might add), setting the stage for a stupid, immature mudslinging/flame war "debate." Pretty much par for the course in tailgate political threads...

Well, I agree that the OP was unnecessarily inflammatory, but the world is what we make it. And so it this board. One can act like a mature adult or an obnoxious troll, and it has nothing to do with the way anyone else posts. You and I rarely see eye to eye on political issues, but I can recognize that you are someone who can maintain a sense of respect for both yourself and the people you debate, no matter how anyone else acts. It would be nice if there were a few more like you around here.

But that's not really the point. My point is that, however this discussion may have been raised, the notion that reporters are stupid for going into harm's way and therefore deserve beatings, is in my opinion absolutely asinine. One can either agree or not. It has nothing to do with the tone of the thread.

If someone wants to go after Bac for being trollish he should do it, but not by making that argument. Pick something that actually makes sense.

[Special K]

Well, I agree that the OP was unnecessarily inflammatory, but the world is what we make it. And so it this board.

Yes, I definitely agree with you on that. Just because someone does something inflammatory doesn't mean that should dictate another person's response. I'm not saying the absurd and troll-like responses were warranted in the least. I was just pointing out that here in the tailgate, when something is brought up in a rather inflammatory way, the responses will be predictable.

My point is that, however this discussion may have been raised, the notion that reporters are stupid for going into harm's way and therefore deserve beatings, is in my opinion absolutely asinine.

Well yes, of course.

---------- Post added February-5th-2011 at 02:14 PM ----------

So your position is that when

1) Someone does something which even you agree is dispicable.

2) Someone on ES points it out.

then your position is "well, of course the first guy did something wrong, but the guy who pointed it out, well, he's really gone too far"?

Have I got that right?

No Larry, you don't have that right.

[Baculus]

It shouldn't be a debate. Anyone getting beaten up by a mob, or government thugs, regardless of political affiliation is horrible. A person is a complete jerk if they joke about something like this.

That being said, the OP was intentionally inflammatory (as usual, I might add), setting the stage for a stupid, immature mudslinging/flame war "debate." Pretty much par for the course in tailgate political threads...

You got something right -- I was intentionally challenging the position of those people with whom I disagree. And I DO think some of these right-wingers show an authoritarian streak. Don't agree with me? Challenge my words and show me the reasoning to why you think I am wrong. But I am going to express my opinion when I think the other side of the aisle who are making REALLY inflammatory remarks are dead wrong on this.

---------- Post added February-5th-2011 at 10:32 PM ----------

If someone wants to go after Bac for being trollish he should do it, but not by making that argument. Pick something that actually makes sense.

If you think I am being trollish, I have been banned for less than what I have seen on this thread.

[Bang]

Wait.. wait.

If you guys are going to start fighting let me get out of here so no one has to offer me any shoulders to cry on.

I'm sure whichever one of you wins can fill me in later on the actual events that transpire.

~Biff

[Henry]

If you think I am being trollish, I have been banned for less than what I have seen on this thread.

For a far lefty I like ya, Bac.

You do occasionally get carried away, though. 'Right-wingers hate the press' is not your best moment.

[Jumbo]

If you think I am being trollish, I have been banned for less than what I have seen on this thread.

I like you ok for a far lefty too, and some would say you have been given a lot more rope than others have....but then everyone has opinions on everything around these here parts.:pfft:

Differences in purist policy forms and purist identified ideology (much of which changes with time and circumstance anyway) aside, there are a lot of right leaning folks who are perfectly reasonable people from a more moderate (or "middle/mixed") perspective, just as is true regarding the left. It's easy to forget that when our culture and our individual behavior directs the lion's share of attention to the lowest common denominator.

[Baculus]

For a far lefty I like ya, Bac.

You do occasionally get carried away, though. 'Right-wingers hate the press' is not your best moment.

:-D

I admit that when I made that post that I was very impassioned. I had gone to several high profile conservative websites and read some, at least to me, completely absurd opinions. Seeing this disregard, even support, for the violence against these reporters, all because they are seen as "lefties," or "terrorists sympathizers" (meaning the protesters), or "anti-American," especially since I have family and friends who work in journalism, truly hit a nerve. Hence my strong opinions.

Part of the problem is that the press has been demonized for a while among some conservatives, and the events in Egypt have brought out some of the worst opinions on the so-called "lame stream media" because of this.

[Zguy28]

Conservative here...I actually like Anderson Cooper's reporting and feel pretty bad for him getting beaten.

[thebluefood]

Conservative here...I actually like Anderson Cooper's reporting and feel pretty bad for him getting beaten.

I kind of swore off 24-Hours News in general a few years ago, but I do hear Cooper is actually a very good reporter. Do they have some of his reports on the CNN site?

[Baculus]

I like you ok for a far lefty too, and some would say you have been given a lot more rope than others have....but then everyone has opinions on everything around these here parts.:pfft:

Hmmm, I wonder who has said that? I have my suspicions. :-)

While I am certainly contentious in my views, I am willing to debate anyone on their points, or on mine, which can't always be said about others.

Differences in purist policy forms and purist identified ideology (much of which changes with time and circumstance anyway) aside, there are a lot of right leaning folks who are perfectly reasonable people from a more moderate (or "middle/mixed") perspective, just as is true regarding the left. It's easy to forget that when our culture and our individual behavior directs the lion's share of attention to the lowest common denominator.

Oh, I agree. By no means was I saying all right-wingers are dictator-supporting, media-hating authoritarians (though I probably should have used a qualifier in my original post, such as "some," to impress that point). As you said, ideology can change with "time and circumstance" -- as it is, I didn't have liberal positions on all matters (having a pretty much Ron Paul sort of libertarian view on things just a few years ago). You're also right in that, here on this thread, there have been a few moderate conservatives who have expressed opposition to the negative opinions against journalists. I noticed it, and I always appreciate their views. But this is why I tend to use "right-wing" instead of "conservative," because I don't think they are always one and the same. Conservatives can be nuanced in their P.O.V., while right-wingers are often obstinate ideologues.

My view tends to be more reactionary to this: I see something incredulous said by the other side, and I post in reaction to it.

But, hey, that is my .02 and I am sticking to it. :-)

[Veretax]

And there you have the reason for why they deserved to be assaulted. Because they aren't right-wing reporters.

Actually, if Bill O'reilly or Hannity were out grandstanding as reporters in the middle of a Union Riot, I'd call them idiots for that too. Its not really about right or left wing where egypt is concerned, but some in the media have this, I dunno what you call it, but at times it almost seems like a pseudo-god complex. THey just have to be at the center of the storm, and they seem unable to really factor how dangerous some situations really are.

[Burgold]

Actually, if Bill O'reilly or Hannity were out grandstanding as reporters in the middle of a Union Riot, I'd call them idiots for that too. Its not really about right or left wing where egypt is concerned, but some in the media have this, I dunno what you call it, but at times it almost seems like a pseudo-god complex. THey just have to be at the center of the storm, and they seem unable to really factor how dangerous some situations really are.

It really isn't a God-complex. It's just doing the gig and doing it in the way in which we can get the best feel and most accurate understanding of events. Again, it's the difference between listening to a CD and going to the concert. There's just something you miss if you aren't there... live whether in the way the FOX reporter was in that excellent report aREDSKIN linked or the way any other embedded reporter is.

Now, you can say it's a stupid risk to take... but then you have to say that for a fireman who goes into a building that's ablaze or a member of the Red Cross that goes into a warzone or even a teacher who decides to accept a job in a violent neighborhood. Accepting risk isn't always stupid.

[Dan T.]

From the article: Fox News has had at least three of its reporters harassed or beaten, yet Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade “sarcastically” praised the Egyptian government’s thuggery skills. “You got to hand it…to the forces out there that seem to be pro-Mubarak who are beating up every news source,” he said.

-

I seriously wonder whether Fox and Friends' Brian Kilmeade might suffer from mild mental retardation.

[Larry]

I seriously wonder whether Fox and Friends' Brian Kilmeade might suffer from mild mental retardation.

Careful. I hear Sarah Palin's trying to trademark that word.

[Veretax]

It really isn't a God-complex. It's just doing the gig and doing it in the way in which we can get the best feel and most accurate understanding of events. Again, it's the difference between listening to a CD and going to the concert. There's just something you miss if you aren't there... live whether in the way the FOX reporter was in that excellent report aREDSKIN linked or the way any other embedded reporter is.

Now, you can say it's a stupid risk to take... but then you have to say that for a fireman who goes into a building that's ablaze or a member of the Red Cross that goes into a warzone or even a teacher who decides to accept a job in a violent neighborhood. Accepting risk isn't always stupid.

I understand emergency personnel, soldiers, police and fire etc getting in harm's way. But We've seen massive protests in the Islamic world the last few months, I think if it was me, I would have tried to be careful, and make sure I had a way out if things blew out of proportion. Maybe the scout in me feels that is an unnecessary risk, who knows. Maybe what they need are UAVs for reporters LOL

[Larry]

Admiring all of the people who think that reporters can tell us what the protesters want, and what their reactions are to the latest announcements, and what their mood are like, without actually getting within a mile of them.

[Burgold]

I understand emergency personnel, soldiers, police and fire etc getting in harm's way. But We've seen massive protests in the Islamic world the last few months, I think if it was me, I would have tried to be careful, and make sure I had a way out if things blew out of proportion. Maybe the scout in me feels that is an unnecessary risk, who knows. Maybe what they need are UAVs for reporters LOL

No worries. On a pure risk basis, they do put themselves in harm's way, but to tell the story it comes with the job. There are just some jobs where part of the job is to be brave/foolish. Is a guy on the bomb squad stupid for wanting to get close to a bomb that's about to go off? Is a priest who tries to intercede in the violence of his community a fool or a high school teacher who tries to break up a fight between two angry kids that are as big or bigger than him (or her)?

What some call stupid others call duty, bravery, or foolishness. There probably is a mixture of all of the above. Is the man who dives into a frozen lake to save a drowning boy or dog stupid or brave? Is the paramedic who does mouth to mouth a fool for exposing himself to diseases? Was the Federal Judge who was killed a few weeks ago a fool for attending a political rally in Arizona when you know emotions can get ramped up at political events?

The line between bravery and duty and courage and stupidity is sometimes razor thin. In my view, what these guys do falls in the brave spectrum. More, I just think it's unhealthy to blame the victim who was trying to do his job and perform a service for us. Also, look at what happens in the world when there are newsmen and when there aren't. When there is silence and no one is watching all too often you get Rwanda.

[mardi gras skin]

The line between bravery and duty and courage and stupidity is sometimes razor thin. In my view, what these guys do falls in the brave spectrum. More, I just think it's unhealthy to blame the victim who was trying to do his job and perform a service for us. Also, look at what happens in the world when there are newsmen and when there aren't. When there is silence and no one is watching all too often you get Rwanda.

Just to be fair, Burg, if there were Christians out there trying to evangelize an angry pro-Mubarak mob, I would think their actions just as foolhardy as reporters wading into a pro-Mubarak crowd. And I have a high opinion of Christian missionaries and their benefits to disenfranchised people groups world wide.

[DRSmith]

Actually, if Bill O'reilly or Hannity were out grandstanding as reporters in the middle of a Union Riot, I'd call them idiots for that too. Its not really about right or left wing where egypt is concerned, but some in the media have this, I dunno what you call it, but at times it almost seems like a pseudo-god complex. THey just have to be at the center of the storm, and they seem unable to really factor how dangerous some situations really are.

For days the reporters seemed okay it was the secret police and the pro Mubarak people who seemed to be beating the reporters

Probably they see the media as the problem since it allowed the world to see that people were upset

[Burgold]

Just to be fair, Burg, if there were Christians out there trying to evangelize an angry pro-Mubarak mob, I would think their actions just as foolhardy as reporters wading into a pro-Mubarak crowd. And I have a high opinion of Christian missionaries and their benefits to disenfranchised people groups world wide.

I actually don't mind the description foolhardy... I think that quality is required by the job, but I think foolhardy is different than stupid. I do agree that they should try to take precautions, but if you read the FOX article or saw the Lester Holt interview on NBC, safe is relative. What is safe one moment is dangerous the next. The FOX guys barricaded themselves in a building and were afraid that people were knocking down doors. Strangely, sometimes you are safer in the crowd where there is witnesses and the cameras and other may make people pause. There's a history of that anyway.

At any rate, I think there is a legit argument to be made about how these guys should handle dangerous situations... but that is far different than mocking or sneering or laughing at injuries gotten in the line of duty (which I know you aren't doing, but were the actions that were the genesis of this article)

Edit: And actually, I think the Christian Missionary parallel is an interesting thought. Both could be viewed as provocative and receive hostile responses from the idigenous "barbarians"

[Larry]

For days the reporters seemed okay it was the secret police and the pro Mubarak people who seemed to be beating the reporters

Probably they see the media as the problem since it allowed the world to see that people were upset

And they're probably (partially) right.

Face it: If there were no video cameras covering the protest, then the odds of the protest lasting longer than 24 hours are . . . ?

[Bang]

And they're probably (partially) right.

Face it: If there were no video cameras covering the protest, then the odds of the protest lasting longer than 24 hours are . . . ?

In this case it's pretty good. These protesters aren't there to make the evening news.

However, they welcome the coverage because it allows them to communicate to the world and for the world to see what's happening.

The other guys, on the other hand.. they intimidate and arrest reporters because they don't want anyone to know what they'll do. Let's face it... When the press is successfully repressed in these cases, that's when people get their heads lopped off.

To attempt to silence the press is an affront to everything we as Americans and free people everywhere stand for. I think that the fact that is what the "pro Mubarak" thugs did shows what they're all about, and we as a people should reject it completely.

I said it before, and I'll reiterate.. "sympathy" is not a good word. Respect is a better one. These people, from all networks and agencies who are trying to get the story regardless of their own safety deserve our respect. They're working in the cause of freedom, and they wield a powerful weapon in these fights. Information.

~Bang

[Larry]

In this case it's pretty good. These protesters aren't there to make the evening news.

Perhaps you misunderstood my point.

"If there were no cameras covering that protest, then the odds of the protesters living longer than 24 hours are . . . ?"

Those cameras are interfering with the government. They're preventing the government from busting heads. (Which, in turn, is endangering the status quo. Which, in turn, is possibly threatening every soon-to-be-former secret policeman's job security and physical health.)