In America, they came first for the journalists, but I wasn't a reporter...

Fang-Face writes "Now here's a disturbing trend toward totalitarianism in the "Good" Ol' U.S. of A. Reporters without borders has
an article about the mistreatment of foreign journalists at L.A. International. It seems that in 2003, twelve journalists were detained at and then summarily deported from LAX. Why should this ring alarm bells? LAX is the only American airport where security officials are engaging in this behaviour, as the total number of journalists detained and then deported by American "Homeland Security" forces was thirteen for 2003. And those officials seem to be doing it on a hit or miss basis. Some journalists entering the U.S. were seen to be allowed through immigration without any problems. The procedures your bully boys used also seem to be highly questionable.

For those of you who think RSF is too left-wing to be a credible source, there is an Associated Press report at First Amendment Center which is much more U.S. friendly. For those who think rationally, feel free to compare the two. And while you're at it, you might ask yourself how long it's going to be before they start coming for the librarians. . . ."

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Why should a reporter get special treatment?

From the article:

"Reporters Without Borders says freelance reporter Elena Lappin was interrogated, handcuffed and taken to a detention center after she could not produce a press visa. The group alleges 12 other foreign journalists, including six French nationals, were treated similarly by LAX officials last year."

Why should we let someone into this country without proper identification? Just because they say they're a reporter? These people have responsibilities as well as rights. They should be responsible enough to be able to identify who they are and not play the "Do You Know Who I Am?!" card.

I'm glad you are starting to understand....

For those of you who think RSF is too left-wing to be a credible source,

Kudos to you fang-face. I'm glad you are starting to understand the importance of evaluating information on the internet. You know: credibility, accuracy, reasonableness and support (there are different variations of this but these are the essential elements).

Re:I'm glad you are starting to understand....

No, no, pchuck, you've got that wrong. My problem is not with evaluating information on the internet, my problem is with fools who think that information is invalid because the source does not conform to their prejudices.

Well of course...

"my problem is with fools who think that information is invalid because the source does not conform to their prejudices"

It is like the moderation points used here at LISNews. Each of us automatically add or subtract points to information we come across because of the source its coming from. Those points can increase or decrease depending on the consistency of the behavior. That is natural human behavior. Its only a problem if you are not scoring with any type of flexibility. Thomas Friedman would be a good example for me, I give him high negatives pre-9/11, high positives post-9/11 and right now he's hovering around zero. Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I don't but I'm willing to give him my ear for now.

Re:I'm glad you are starting to understand....

Come on fang-face, if I post stuff from kooky right-wing sites or I post stuff from the Final Call, then people shouldn't be so gullible and think that it is based in truth.

When evaluating information, prejudice is a good and necessary thing.

I certainly don't expect everything to be completely objective but I also feel that things should be credible and even-handed.

Re:Well of course...

Each of us automatically add or subtract points to information we come across because of the source its coming from.

I don't. While I take content into consideration, I do not moderate based on the content itself so much as how it is presented. I can and have moderated positively, comments with which I did not agree and which had been posted by persons I don't get along with. And if I can't make up my mind about a message, I don't moderate it at all. Certainly I have my prejudices, and I feel those prejudices most keenly with messages over which I can't make up my mind, but I don't moderate unless I've got a reason to. And it takes some effort to post a message that I'll moderate down.

Re:Well of course...

I was using the LISNews method as an example. I don't electronically moderate a post by who writes it but in my mind I do.

Protecting us from them

RSF is French!! They don't even talk like us! Lucky they just got detained and should count their blessings!A patriot

prejudicial

I rate on how they cite their sources, how precse their language/statements are, and how much rhetoric they try to slide in. The more noise, and the less information, the less weight I'll give something.Now awhile back, we had a right-wing post that had some factoids and some people. With a little investigation, it was easy to disprove things - like the psychologist they'd dug up for a pornography & internet argument had died pre-1950s. But that was a good article precisely because you *could* go looking for the underpinnings of the argument.-- Ender, Duke_of_URL

Syndicate content