US Journalists Working for Foreign Nets: Losers?

[Dink]

I think this needs its own thread.

Over in the Josh Wolf (http://www.b-roll.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16050) thread, Grip has descended into a diatribe against foreign journalists and US journalists working for foreign networks. He seems to believe that US journalists should only work for US employers, and that foreign journalists do not deserve the same rights as US journalists when working in this country. Here's a quote from the relevant post:

Journalim is supposed to be a noble proffession, not something that entittles you to a shiny badge. The Forefathers made sure there was freedom of the press because they saw it as a check and balance of power.

In a day and age when corporate and governement lines are becoming more and more blurred, in a day and age when terrorism and power struggles are constantly at our door, why should a reporter from Al Jazeer or some other third world nation share the same rights as an American reporter that is trying to inform Americans.

Or even worse, a sell out mercenary type that would rather sell out his craft to some foriegn interest, instead of making sure his efforts were a benefit to his country. What a loser.

I'm somewhat amused by this strange turn in his thoughts, since I worked for foreign and international networks for two years myself and was never aware that I was a "mercenary type" who was "selling out" simply because I wasn't serving an American audience. Is Grip as far out in left field as I think he is, or are there other folks out there who think foreign journalists and American journalists who work for foreign networks are scum?

[Brooklyn]

I think you remain the same person and the same proffessional no matter who you work for. As a proffessional you have the freedom to choose your employers and if someone chooses to work for a TV station or a producer from a different part of the world then that's his/her choice. It's true that media in some other countries is heavely controled by government and your work could be edited for propaganda or political agenda of that government, but this goes on everywhere in usa as well, just on a much smaller scale, a story is always presented in someones point of view. You as a proffessional have to keep your integraty when you shoot/edit but sometimes you can't always controll it because of people above you.

[Grip]

Hey way to thread jump, did I hurt your feelings
Do you need a tissue

So you had to create another thread so you could seek pity because you got spanked.

You can question someone's protection and freedom because of the size of the audience, but I can't question the audience location and validity of their affiliation in regards to American rights?

So you are saying that it's OK for some assigned public information officer from China or Iran to have full protection of the press in America(or someone working for them) and someone who blogs or works for a small newspaper(in American for Americans) should not have protection and rights unless they are voted in by your little club?

Or are you going to start rambling on about a dress code again.

I gather by this thread, that you don't like it when someone questions the validity of your work,,,aaaaaahhhhh poor baby, it's easy to do when it's someone else, but when it happens to you, I hear you crying wanting special attention.




(For people that missed that thread) I was playing devils advocate to Dinks egocentric rambling on how he was the only legitimate journalist in the universe.

And if you read the thread you will know that Dink thinks that sports reporters should cover an incomplete pass, and that journalism is a club that "we" vote you in, and it is not a profession.

Either way, I am done with this thread, and that one, because Dink is pathetic.

Unless there is someone that can come with some real logic, not Dinks childish semantics.

Someone get that child a shiny badge so he can shut up.

[pre-set]

Hmmmm, I'm sorta confused here....

Since when did Grip of all people come into possesion of such a "patriotic", Nationalistic point of view? I'd always imagined he would hold quite the opposite view of things.... namely, being in favor of anything... ANYTHING, that would help to damage or impede the United States.


I would've thought he'd say something like this:

Biased international media? "Sure, c'mon in. Here's your credentials, please be sure to blame America first, last and always in your stories. Remember, we on the Left are depending on you to make Amercia look bad to embarass the current Administration"...

Press from "enemy" nation-states? "Welcome to out country. Please feel free to roam about unmolested and surviel as many sensitive areas as you can. Then pass that information along to your intelligence agenices and militaries".....


If it hurts us (US) or makes our government (in particular the current Executive branch) look stupid, inept, evil or turns world opinion against us, then I'd expect people who think like Grip would be all in favor of it, ya know?

This makes no sense to me........... I mean, "the enemy of your enemy is your FRIEND", right Grip?