Article

2004-11-08 Iraq-Jordan

The AP shills for the enemy (disgusting)

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by AzCat 2004-11-08 16:27|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 AP shills for the enemy, AP hires the enemy, AP is the enemy...what the hell's the difference?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-08 8:38:47 PM|| 2004-11-08 8:38:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Was that shills or shells?

Posted by Cheaderhead 2004-11-08 9:34:52 PM|| 2004-11-08 9:34:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#3
Shills? Disgusting?

It's journalism. It's excellent photographs of war scenes, with objective captions.
.

Posted by Thinens Angomotch9553 2004-11-08 9:45:41 PM|| 2004-11-08 9:45:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 "insurgents" not the proper caption. Terrorists is.

These are car bombers, theives, kidnappers, murderers (beahdings) and criminals.

They are not insurgents any more than Tim McVeigh was in the US.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-11-08 9:51:13 PM|| 2004-11-08 9:51:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Thinens--

What do we learn from these photos that we don't already know? Didn't you know that in battle buildings get busted and people get killed and injured? So one naturally asks, what is the point of showing such pictures? And lots of folks (including me) think it's pure anti-war propoganda.

Posted by Wuzzalib 2004-11-08 9:58:20 PM|| 2004-11-08 9:58:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 We did just fine in WW II without AP photographers tagging along with the Axis powers as they killed Allied troops. Tomorrow's headling (watch for it): US Troops Murder AP Photographer!!

Posted by AzCat 2004-11-08 9:58:47 PM|| 2004-11-08 9:58:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#7
#3 was me.

World War Two was 60 years ago. Now we're in an age when a photographer in a place like Fallujah can transmit his photographs out to the world. He and the person who wrote the captions are doing their jobs well. Your attributions of their motives are merely your opinions, not shared by most others.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-08 10:14:14 PM|| 2004-11-08 10:14:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Mike, what's Evian spelled backwards?

Posted by Rafael 2004-11-08 10:20:50 PM|| 2004-11-08 10:20:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#9
Re #5 (Wazzalib): What do we learn from these photos that we don't already know? .... i'ts pure anti-war propaganda.

Do you apply such reasoning to photos taken by photographers in other places and situations in Iraq? What do you learn from a photograph of a car bombing that you don't already know? Is a photograph of a car bombing pure propaganda?

Would you say you are objective or subjective in your thinking about photographs from Iraq?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-08 10:20:51 PM|| 2004-11-08 10:20:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 I'd say you were always eager to ascribe the best possible motives to anti-american people who don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, UN-boy. That makes you suspect in my book. provide evidence, references, footnotes and links to prove otherwise - I'll review your exculpatory evidence at my leisure, later. Ciao, ~~Kofi's bitch~~ Mikey

Posted by Frank G 2004-11-08 10:24:36 PM|| 2004-11-08 10:24:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#11
Re #4 (OldSpook): "insurgents" not the proper caption. Terrorists is. These are car bombers, theives, kidnappers, murderers (beahdings) and criminals.

Some are terrorists, etc. Some aren't.

Would you seriously prefer to live in an environment where all the journalism would be written with the tendentious vocabulary you're calling for? Would you be happy if AP had annotated these particular photographs with captions calling the subjects "terrorists, car bombers, theives, kidnappers, murderers and criminals"? Would that be better journalism, in your honest opinion?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-08 10:29:21 PM|| 2004-11-08 10:29:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#12
Re #10 (Frank G): you were always eager to ascribe the best possible motives to anti-american people who don't deserve the benefit of the doubt

Somebody has to be the adult.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-08 10:31:07 PM|| 2004-11-08 10:31:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#13
Re #8 (Rafael): what's Evian spelled backwards?

What's Msilanruojotohp spelled backwards?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-08 10:34:15 PM|| 2004-11-08 10:34:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Mike - Those photos were very obviously selected to support anti-war sentiment, you have to be very willfully blind to deny that.

Posted by AzCat 2004-11-08 10:42:02 PM|| 2004-11-08 10:42:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Mike, some of your arguments are adult. but you are unusually pendantic for an adult.

If the AP is an American news agency then they have some obligation to at least attempt to spread what is the truth in this situation . . . these are terrorists, murderers and criminals. Instead, because they cannot be seen as being judgmental they attempt to side with the 'moderates' as much as possible.

Bad news. There is no moderation in war. As an American you can support those who strive to defend you with their blood or you can shut up and not cover the situation at all.

It is stupefying to watch how you, Mike Sylwester, attempt to be an apoligist for those who would destroy us from within, simply because they have lost power. You are a representative, if unawares, of all those who would have us be accepting of that which will kill us, or enslave us, in the end (pick your poison, there are many).

Posted by Jame Retief 2004-11-08 10:42:57 PM|| 2004-11-08 10:42:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Mike: actions have consequences. Words mean things, and all those guards at Trblinca were just doing their jobs too. Theses images and along with their captions should be viewed in the greater context of the AP consistently showing their bias in favor of the Islamo-fascists as well as their anti-Bush sentiments.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2004-11-08 10:49:50 PM|| 2004-11-08 10:49:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#17
Re #14 (AzCat): Those photos were very obviously selected to support anti-war sentiment.

I perceive a photojournalist in Fallujah making and transmitting extraordinary photographs of scenes in a city where a large battle is beginning. He personally might be against the USA's actions, but I can't judge that simply from the photographs. A very pro-USA photographer in the same situation might take and transmit the very same photographs.

AP's captions are objective, unless you insist that all the people in the photographs be labeled as terrorists, etc.

It seems that the person here who desires propagandistic journalism the most is you, AzCat.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-08 10:54:24 PM|| 2004-11-08 10:54:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#18
Re #16 (Rex Mundi): those guards at Trblinca were just doing their jobs too

Whatever.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-08 10:56:20 PM|| 2004-11-08 10:56:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 So here's a sample of "photojournalism":

A boy recovers in a Fallujah hospital after a U.S. airstrike in Fallujah, Iraq Saturday, Nov. 6, 2004, which killed his father and wounded his brother, according to hospital officials. U.S. jets pounded Fallujah early Saturday in the heaviest airstrikes in six months, including five 500-pound bombs dropped on insurgent targets

This is next to a photo of a wounded boy. What does the last sentence in the caption have to do with the boy's injuries other than to imply it was caused by a 500-pound US bomb? How does the photojourno it was five bombs? Is he implying that this boy is an insurgent and that the big bad US is attacking kids?

Posted by Rafael 2004-11-08 10:57:29 PM|| 2004-11-08 10:57:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 That should be..."How does the photojourno know it was five bombs?"

Posted by Rafael 2004-11-08 10:58:57 PM|| 2004-11-08 10:58:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#21
Re #15 (Jame Retief): If the AP is an American news agency then they have some obligation to at least attempt to spread what is the truth in this situation

That's what AP is doing with these photographs and with other photographs too. Would you be happier if AP didn't show photographs like these? Do you believe that ignorance is bliss?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-08 11:02:14 PM|| 2004-11-08 11:02:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#22
Re #19 (Rafael)
Please suggest a better caption. We'll compare AP's caption with yours.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-08 11:03:44 PM|| 2004-11-08 11:03:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Ok here it is:

A boy recovers in a Fallujah hospital after a U.S. airstrike in Fallujah, Iraq Saturday, Nov. 6, 2004, which killed his father and wounded his brother, according to hospital officials.

I can give him the benefit of the doubt that it was a US airstrike causing the injuries, and not an RPG falling randomly from the sky.

Posted by Rafael 2004-11-08 11:14:12 PM|| 2004-11-08 11:14:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 An even better caption:

A boy recovers in a hospital in Fallujah, Iraq Saturday, Nov. 6, 2004.

All the rest is nothing but propaganda for the other side.

Posted by AzCat 2004-11-08 11:34:20 PM|| 2004-11-08 11:34:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Two quick points:
1. This sort of photojournalism is one of the reasons that the hospital was one of the first places taken in the attack.
2. Expect to see heart-wrenching headlines in the near future about the death of an AP photojournalist who stood a little too close to his subject. (with luck they might even be accompanied by the photo of the 500 pounder just before it explodes)

Posted by RWV 2004-11-09 12:03:08 AM|| 2004-11-09 12:03:08 AM|| Front Page Top

01:47 tipper
01:47 tipper
21:39 tipper
16:30 Assalickum Salamisuckin
16:30 Assalickum Salamisuckin
15:04 Crerert Ebbeting3481
21:40 tipper
21:40 tipper
21:39 tipper
00:10 Kalle (kafir forever)
00:03 RWV
23:56 Pappy
23:50 Old Patriot
23:39 Pappy
23:38 badanov
23:38 Zenster
23:38 Kalle (kafir forever)
23:34 AzCat
23:32 Zenster
23:15 Uleque Ulolurong1864
23:14 Rafael
23:07 SC88
23:03 Mike Sylwester
23:03 Zenster