Witty retort. You're about as bright as a 15 watt lightbulb - without the electricity.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

The US didn't kill all the women and children all over the world. But it has admitted that these 40 people in question died in an attack made by the US military. So no point making such exaggerations.

__________________

No, the US military admitted to killing a couple dozen men and a handful of women. They were on the ground for some time after the attack, going through it for intelligence. They saw no children.

If they did see children, do you think they would've taken the bodies in order to cover up their mistake?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Wouldn't this be more likely to mean that we shouldn't trust either of them?

Oh, yes. It absolutely is. I cooperated in covering a story once about - wait for it - a monthly rag in a retirement home in the pastoral surroundings of our Old Town. Their paper was facing certain operational difficulties, and might for the second time in a year be forced to go with a re- run of Gunda's legendary trips on the [roughly translated to low hills or perhaps hilly mews - it's very funny in Norwegian] or something similar on pages five through seven.

Well, this is apparently interesting enough for the local paper. So we're talking with the "editor" and his "assistant" for some time, drawing in the atmosphere of the place, and figuring out that this actually is not only about that their favorite writer has decided to spend his last years specializing in obituaries, but that their computer, a truly ancient one even compared to them, is the real problem. In fact, as the plot thickens, we realize that the commune(city council, really) is so cheap they can't even be bothered to spare one single computer that works so this rag can be published before the editor dies. Well, almost.

Now we had a choice as journalists. Should we print the facts? They are, let's face it, as exciting as watching resin harden. Besides, they can be fit in the header of the article. "Retirement home's Rag don't run - because City is cheap". And a big picture of disgruntled old guys around a computer(black screen). Regrettably, the message is not clear if this was to be printed. It could even be untrue. Add a few citings, and we could also be travelling into "inappropriate". And do we, or the readers for that matter, know how long ago it was they applied for support to their retirement home? Do the city or the state really have responsibility for their well being, should really our paper end up appealing for a new clause in the supportive measures old people should be granted, and should we really trust the old guys in the retirement home on this - the very people that would have everything to gain if our paper would indicate that they should have this computer? And did the editor(89) remember absolutely correct when he claimed he had appealed through "all appropriate channels"(dare we even ask for confirmation of this? Mean cursing, I tell you). Further obscuring was the fact that when I, who was mildly adept at fixing computers, insisted I could easily put their old computer right, was met with a stern look and told not to mind about it, even though I could pinpoint the exact problem. Could this be that this old fox tried to sabotage his old, but still working computer in order to have the city give him a newer one? Indeed, he seemed much too modern and too fond of digital watches for an old, venerable man, and rumour had it that he often would sit up late in the evenings playing "cabal"... And so on.

One solved this by avoiding anything that could be remotely connected to the computer conspiracy, and made the old men smile in front of their computer, rather than catching them in one of their frequent moments of deep thought or one of their cursing fits. The article was then filled with light language about all the good things the paper brought with it in the retirement home, and how much this simple thing did give them("life-quality" was used at least once). It was mentioned as a sidenote that they were now, regrettably, often facing difficulties with their computer - "editor" says the 'computer's too old, haha' (almost those words, I think).

I believe a brand new computer was dumped on their doorstep the very next day. So the government got the message, and the local paper didn't have to mention either that it had been called up by these angry old men twice a day for the last month in order to get their story printed.

I'm not sure, but I imagine most journalists in Iraq suffer from the exact same kind of problems(almost the same. At the least). What do you choose to cover, what do you choose to focus on, and how do you report it so people who do not see what you do will understand it? What do you do when you are unable to get enough info? Do you drop a good case because you can't seem to sustain it well enough, it being so sensational? Do you drop a case which will be akward and difficult for the readers? Finally, do you actually lie when you're avoiding to mention certain facts which will perhaps "emphasize" the more or less obviously wrong things? What about obscuring the right things? And do you personally in fact happen to see things in the right angle? Even in the pastoral mews, I can tell you this is a most serious issue. I expect it isn't a cakewalk in Iraq either.

Boring or not, leaving the guidelines of good journalism is what distinguishes tabloid "story telling" from serious and honest journalism.
Tabloid papers depende on sensationalism to sell their quota of papers, they always spice up the story, adding one or two ambiguous details that change the nature of the story.
At least that was what i learned during my journalism course, many years back.
If we wanted to hear someone telling us a tale or a short story, we would buy one of those pink press magazines. Serious journalists must remain focused on the facts, and abstein themselfs of personnal comments on the matter.
Of course it doesn´t mean that this is what happens in everyday journalism, far from it,but that´s because most editors only have eyes for a quick buck, and not integrity.
By definition, journalism is about reporting the facts as they appear. Sugarcoating the story is a personnal choice the colunist or editor makes, with the sales figures in mind.
A good example is this reporter named i believe Jason Blair, a reporter for the New York Times if i´m not mistaken, who was making up his stories as he went. He ended up going so deep that he was caught by his own web of lies, and couldn´t back down. When he was finally caught, they found out he had been forging depositions, making up stories, distorting facts, and all because he wanted to be famous. He had lost sight of what journalistic integrity was all about.
And he wasn´t alone. During the past 2 years i must have heard about half a dozen similar stories. High profile reporters, that turn out to be liars and deceivers. And we, the public, are the ones who have to pay for it.

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

I agree with that. Then again, should you accept every fact as it is presented? And should you present every fact as it is given? Often that means taking one of the side's position, or else you're effectively ridiculing the position you're covering.
A good point. And often it seems both case, style and facts are chosen in advance of the covered event to a certain degree. Still, look at this article about the crashed wedding:
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/...04/0521-01.htm

It doesn't mention the shooting in the air, they have not bothered to hear other than the general dismissives of any military leader told to justify some atrocity he may know little about. Instead they take the viewpoint of the surviving village eyewitnesses. But is it clearly biased or possibly untrue? It's also a short story being told to a certain degree, the grief of both villagers and reporter shines through the still very careful vocabulary, but could it have been written otherwise? Isn't this honesty of a sort as well? (Given, of course, that the reporter actually writes what he sees.)

Another thing is that if this reporter from the Guardian was one of the few ones on site, the summarizing and "factual" articles in other papers might have used this article as a draft, minus the embroidery. That's also happened before.

I didn't mention any children in my post, did I?

And the US military says there were no children, eyewitnesses say there were. People can decide which side to believe.

Anything is possible.

__________________

Top gifts this wedding season:
- Terrorist Manual - for the do-it-your-selfer; make your own bombs for getting rid of tree-stumps on your property or other unwanted visitors.
- Battery Packs - place these into a nice basket with the terrorist manual for festive, themed gift-giving.
- ID making equipment - for that discerning bride who never was happy with her ID photo. Change your photo to suit your mood or your outfit!
- Artillery Sighting Binoculars - for taking in the beautiful sunsets with your new spouse.
- Guns - who doesn't like guns? Show the wedding party you care enough to provide for their safety. AK-47s are very popular this year yet still in good supply, it won't be difficult for you to get one, or two, or twenty.

The chic wedding planner will insist that the wedding celebration have all the requisite accoutrements for happy guests:
- Plenty of Accomodations - make sure your guests have a place to rest if you plan on partying late into the night; beds for 300 should suffice.
- Adequate Medical Facilities - the days of having a simple first-aid box on hand are passe'. Today's modern bride will insist on a fully stocked emergency room, complete with an examining table and complete operating supplies - lest any of your wedding guests suffer major trauma during the celebrations.
- A change of clothes - it's surprising how many brides forget this, but ready-made, pre-packaged clothing is simply a must at today's modern wedding. How many times have you been at a wedding and spilled a drink, dribbled some kufta down your front, or simply wanted a fresh change of clothing? You should plan on stocking at least two sets of clothes for each guest.
- Anonymity - ask your guests to leave their identification at home. Wallets can get in the way when the party really kicks into gear. And who wants to stop a party just because someone's lost their wallet? Besides, if you get an ID Kit as a present, this will be a perfect time to use it.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Huh?

SwamP-ThinG wrote this:
"These are the facts, no matter from wich side you look at them:
-40 were dead, including many women and many children=fact"

To which I replied:
"So? There are dead women and children all over the world right now. Is that the fault of the US too?"

To which you replied:
"The US didn't kill all the women and children all over the world. But it has admitted that these 40 people in question died in an attack made by the US military. So no point making such exaggerations."

And you're asking me if you mentioned children in your post?

1) You did
2) If you're referencing the second part of your post ("40 people in question"), the prior discussion includes children, if you intended on excluding them then you should've stated so.
Yet SwamP-ThinG's post (the post I replied to, which prompted your reply) claims this as a fact. Are you helping me prove my point? If so, why not address your reply to SwamP-ThinG?
But they just left them there in order to bolster Iraqi claims that it was a wedding and to further inflame the Arab world?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Oh, I'm sorry, I did mention the word children in my post. But I didn't mention anything about the US military killing children. If I would've ment to say so, I would've clearly stated so. If me not specifically excluding things from my sentences confuses you then it's not my problem. Just read what I post, don't assume I mean things that are not written.

And the subject of the thread and the main discussion is about the whole incident, not just the children you and SwamP_ThinG are arguing about. All of the prior discussion don't include children.

__________________