Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

DHS Spokesman Dismisses Criticism of Journalist Database

posted by mrpg on Sunday April 08 2018, @07:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the nobody-think-of-the-airplanes dept.

takyon writes:

An agency that owns a number of black helicopters has derided "conspiracy theorists" who have spoken out against the DHS's plans to monitor journalists:

A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Friday pushed back against a report warning of the agency's plan to compile a list of media professionals and influencers as part of a "media monitoring" effort.

The plan outlined in a FedBizOpps.gov posting by DHS this week says the agency will create a database of "any and all media coverage" related to the agency or specific events, with a list of more than 290,000 global news sources searchable by location and individual reporters.

[...] Responding to a tweet from the Committee to Protect Journalists, which shared the Forbes report, DHS spokesman Tyler Houlton suggested that critics who cited the department's news tracking plan as a supposed attack on the press were "conspiracy theorists." "Despite what some reporters may suggest, this is nothing more than the standard practice of monitoring current events in the media," Houlton tweeted. "Any suggestion otherwise is fit for tin foil hat wearing, black helicopter conspiracy theorists."

Also at CNN and CBS.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
DHS Spokesman Dismisses Criticism of Journalist Database | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 40 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 09 2018, @03:33AM (4 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 09 2018, @03:33AM (#664172) Journal

    Have you bothered to read any evaluations or commentary that isn't just hateful of the US and it's military? The wikipedia page is rather neutral, try it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike [wikipedia.org] Even Wikileaks admits that there were armed men among those shot at.

    If your only interest is to demonize US troops, then PLEASE, don't read the wiki page. If however, you are interested in understanding WTF happened, the wiki isn't a bad place to start.

    I do have to laugh at an idiot comment from the Washington Post. They claim that it is unclear whether the journalists were killed by US fire or by Iriaq insurgents. Even the most ignorant people watching that video can see that they were killed by US fire.

    The wiki page does pose a decent question - what are the rules for "embedded" reporters. Among other comments,

    In an interview on NPR on April 6, the day after the Collateral Murder video release, David Finkel pointed out that the Reuters reporters were not embedded with anyone, but working independently. He also gave his view of the context of the killings:

            the Reuters guys walked into the hottest spot of a very hot morning. There had been running gun battles. There had been a lot of RPG, grenade fire and so on, and they were doing what journalists do. They heard about something, they came to it and they just wanted—from everything I've learned since, they were just there to get that side of the story.[75]

    The Rueters reporters weren't "officially" embedded, apparently - but they did, in fact, actually accompany insurgent troops. That's "embedded" in my mind. Especially after Rueters had talked about embedding reporters in Iraq to capture the other side of the story.

    You, Mr. AC, have something of a duty to read that wiki article, in it's entirety. Unless you make some attempt to understand the issues, you are unfit to discuss the issues. Read it. Read it all. Don't skip the parts that differ from your pre-existing opinion.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @03:44AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @03:44AM (#664177)

    "The wikipedia page is rather neutral"

    No, it's not, not even close. It's a tendentious apologia filled with nonsense, you even noticed some of it

    "They claim that it is unclear whether the journalists were killed by US fire or by Iriaq insurgents. Even the most ignorant people watching that video can see that they were killed by US fire."

    Exactly.

    I've read all the apologia, and clearly you have as well. It's all bullshit, propaganda after the fact to justify the indefensible.

    And you clearly know that, even if you aren't quite ready to admit it to yourself.

    When I was a school child I found it incomprehensible, unfathomable, that a modern, well educated country with lots of good people like Germany could become a criminal regime like the third reich. I bet you did too. Look around you. This is how it happens. What you're doing right now, clinging to lies because the truth is too horrible to face. That's how good people allow it to happen.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 09 2018, @05:05AM (2 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 09 2018, @05:05AM (#664205) Journal

      You almost make sense. As I've already mentioned, the invasion of Iraq was unjustified. But, your blind spot is the military personnel. Given that the US declared war, and that the military is bound to obey the orders of it's civilian commanders, the military had to go. Given the situation on the ground that day, the airmen made decisions that were correct and proper. The military personnel cannot be accused of murder, because no murder was committed.

      Now, if you want to discuss Bush/Cheney and the political machine that put the military into Iraq, you'll find that I am far less defensive of my country. If you want to discuss how our nation is moving in the direction of the Third Reich, you'll find that I am very unforgiving of my country. Throughout this discussion, I have only attempted to help you understand that once the bullets have begun to fly, no one, except maybe God, really knows what the hell is going on.

      If you care to understand better what combat really is, there are some fiction authors who are veterans, who have written some amazingly accurate stories. I can recommend David Drake, and his series 'Hammer's Slammers'. Futuristic sci-fi combat, which does a damned good job of portraying the PEOPLE who live through impossible situations. I also recommend Tom Kratman. Jerry Pournell's 'There will be War' series is highly recommended, and if you read that, you will be exposed to many other authors well worth reading.

      I also recommend Rudyard Kipling's poetry. Maybe you'll learn not to blame those who wear the widow's rags, those who take the king's coin. They are just men, put into impossible situations, who make mistakes because they are less than gods.