Sleeping with the Enemy; New York Times

**voivod** · 07.19.06, 08:06 AM

Looks like the New York Times has decided to go with neutrality over objectivity—essentially severing ties with their own country in the service of what they believe is a higher journalistic good: Pulitzer Prizes.

Writes Times assistant managing editor for photography Michele McNally of a photo taken by NYT photographer Joao Silva showing an al-Sadr army sniper in the act of firing on US troops, “Right there with the Mahdi army. Incredible courage.”

Incredible courage? Seems to me that actual “incredible courage” would have entailed, say, Joao Silva getting word to US troops, or bumrushing the sniper and beating him unconscious with a heavy telephoto lens.

Image:
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/200...DESHOW_21.html

**ZORBA5150** · 07.19.06, 08:15 AM

This isn't surprising. The Times lost all or most of its credibility years ago, and has always been anti-gov't, anti-US, and pro liberalism.

**chefcraig** · 07.19.06, 08:33 AM

Uhh...people sent to cover the war are called "war corispondents" or merely "journalists". People sent to fight wars are called "soldiers".

For some reason, I do not recall people pissing on Edward R. Murrow or Dan Rather for not picking up rifles during WWII or VietNam while in the respective countries (Europe and Asia).

What is with this "new patriotism", this new variation on "My Country-Right Or Wrong", that confuses political dissent with being un-American? Furthermore, how is snapping a picture of the enemy showing dissent in the first place?

The guy was a fucking camera-man , doing his job.

**seenbad** · 07.19.06, 09:19 AM

I don't know Chef. I think I need to disagree with you on that one. In that situation I think I'd rather see somebody be an American first, journalist second. If the dude is taking aim on an American life through that scope, I'm afraid I'd have to do something about it and I'd expect others to do the same. I don't see that picture being that important.

**stratogibson** · 07.19.06, 09:33 AM

Jesus would have killed that sniper. Go USA!

**steve mcqueen** · 07.19.06, 02:30 PM

I have a few thoughts on this:

1.) I don't think any of us could honestly say what we would of or could of done in that situation.....being in a shot up room, behind enemy lines, with a guy with a really big gun....with a really big bayonette....I would like to say that I would have "bummed rushed him and beat up to death with my camera" but we were not there....I would like to say that I wouldn't have shit my pants....but........

2.) Was he really aiming at US positions??.....alot of these photos are staged....especially in wartime......the famous flag raising over Iwo Jima comes to mind.....whos to say this photographer didnt just say to this clown. "hey Abdul, point your gun though that window....and I'll put your picture in the NY Times!!"

3.) Since when is being liberal anti-US???

**ZORBA5150** · 07.19.06, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by steve mcqueen

I have a few thoughts on this:

1.) I don't think any of us could honestly say what we would of or could of done in that situation.....being in a shot up room, behind enemy lines, with a guy with a really big gun....with a really big bayonette....I would like to say that I would have "bummed rushed him and beat up to death with my camera" but we were not there....I would like to say that I wouldn't have shit my pants....but........

2.) Was he really aiming at US positions??.....alot of these photos are staged....especially in wartime......the famous flag raising over Iwo Jima comes to mind.....whos to say this photographer didnt just say to this clown. "hey Abdul, point your gun though that window....and I'll put your picture in the NY Times!!"

3.) Since when is being liberal anti-US???

I didn't say liberal= anti-US. I said the Times is both anti-US and pro liberal.

**steve mcqueen** · 07.19.06, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by ZORBA5150

I didn't say liberal= anti-US. I said the Times is both anti-US and pro liberal.

I'm sorry.....I just woke up

...read it wrong

Thank you for straighting me out

**Buschman** · 07.20.06, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by steve mcqueen

I have a few thoughts on this:

1.) I don't think any of us could honestly say what we would of or could of done in that situation.....being in a shot up room, behind enemy lines, with a guy with a really big gun....with a really big bayonette....I would like to say that I would have "bummed rushed him and beat up to death with my camera" but we were not there....I would like to say that I wouldn't have shit my pants....but........

2.) Was he really aiming at US positions??.....alot of these photos are staged....especially in wartime......the famous flag raising over Iwo Jima comes to mind.....whos to say this photographer didnt just say to this clown. "hey Abdul, point your gun though that window....and I'll put your picture in the NY Times!!"

3.) Since when is being liberal anti-US???

Just to point something out that has nothing to do with the thread topic... the raising of the flag on Iwo wasn't staged. They were replacing the original flag that a superior wanted for his collection. The photographer (Rosenthal) took several shots and this was picked out by his editors as the best one. The guys raising the the flag were just there helping their buddies with the task at hand.

You are probably wondering how I know so much, I just finished the book Flags of Our Fathers by James Bradley (son of John Bradley - one of the flag raisers). I would recommend this book to anyone that likes to read about factual war history. It goes through every one of the flagraisers from birth to death. It's a long book, but I couldn't stop reading it.

Thought I would just clarify a misconception...

Buschman

**Axxman300** · 07.20.06, 08:34 PM

For some reason, I do not recall people pissing on Edward R. Murrow or Dan Rather for not picking up rifles during WWII or VietNam while in the respective countries (Europe and Asia).

Murrow was based in London, durring WWII there were many stories that he chose NOT to report because he knew it would hurt morale back home, possibly undermining the war effort. Murrow did this because he wanted the United States to win. He was also too old to serve in the military. I don't see Murrow sneaking behind enemy lines to shot footage of Germans killing our guys at Normandy, if he had he would have grabbed a gun and started shooting krauts. Plain and simple.

2.) Was he really aiming at US positions??.....alot of these photos are staged....especially in wartime......the famous flag raising over Iwo Jima comes to mind.....whos to say this photographer didnt just say to this clown. "hey Abdul, point your gun though that window....and I'll put your picture in the NY Times!!"

With the NY Times, there is a 50% chance of this being true.

Look, I'm a military historian. Pictures like this will be priceless in the future and if it's taken by a foriegn photographer then I'm okay with it. If it's an American then I do. Your job doesn't come before the lives of your fellow Americans. This is personal too, back in 1989 I survived the Loma Prietta earthquake and I will never forget the Today Show broadcasting live from San Francisco. They set up in an intersection in front of a collapsed townhouse in the backround. They did the show that way for a week. They argued that they were raising awareness, what they were really doing was taking up hotel rooms that the newly homeless could have used, eating food and drinking water that was needed elsewhere. They didn't offer to help anybody. Nobody grabbed a shovel or a broom, picked up tools to help. This was inhuman, an act of pure ego on the part of NBC. They didn't need to send the entire cast of TODAY to San Francisco, all they needed to do was send a reporter, maybe not even that because San Francisco had a kick-ass NBC affiliate.

I've never forgiven NBC for this and I've never watched TODAY since.

I have a friend named Orville Meyers, he's a photographer with the Monterey Herald. He's the kind of guy who's given first aid at car wrecks before the Paramedics arrive, only then does he get pictures. He sets the standard for photogs everywhere.

My gripe with the Times is technical, they suck. In my research for my book I found their coverage of Central America abysmal and one-sided. Their coverage of "Just Cause" dropped of the front pages in four days and there is almost nothing to be found about it after 11 days. Their coverage of the LA Riots also lacked a number of things (facts, insight) so I don't see why anybody cares about the NY Times. You're not getting much news, in fact the LA Times is a 100% better.

So there you go.

**strungout** · 07.21.06, 06:51 AM

He's defending his country from imperialism. Can't say I blame him. Good for the NYT doing their job, and not letting ego-fueled nationalism distract them.

If China invaded where you live, and you were defending your house, you wouldn't want some Chinese journalist taking you out.

**ZORBA5150** · 07.21.06, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by strungout

He's defending his country from imperialism. Can't say I blame him. Good for the NYT doing their job, and not letting ego-fueled nationalism distract them.

If China invaded where you live, and you were defending your house, you wouldn't want some Chinese journalist taking you out.

you really believe that imperialism shit? The US does not rule Iraq, its government does.

**sisca** · 07.21.06, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by chefcraig

The guy was a fucking camera-man , doing his job.

the fucking cameraman was a fucking American taking pictures of him trying to kill....Americans. personally, i couldnt just stand by and watch. he would have had whatever sharp object i could find sticking out of the side of his head. then, AND ONLY THEN , would i start taking pictures. Americans stand up for Americans in a time of war, i dont give a shit what your job title is.

**chefcraig** · 07.21.06, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by sisca

the fucking cameraman was a fucking American taking pictures of him trying to kill....Americans. personally, i couldnt just stand by and watch. he would have had whatever sharp object i could find sticking out of the side of his head. then, AND ONLY THEN , would i start taking pictures. Americans stand up for Americans in a time of war, i dont give a shit what your job title is.

I agree...yet one only is afforded the view offered by the photo. Who is to say how many people were in the room? How many rifles were pointed at the cameraman as he snapped the shot?

Instead, we have folk offering the rather self-serving statements of "what they'd do" in that situation. The fact is, bravado and tough-guy bullshit aside, everyone feels compassion for their fellow Americans in peril, anywhere. The problem in this case is, unless one is actually inside the situation, one can't (and shouldn't) judge the person dealing with it.