Disclaimer: No Reporters Have Been Harmed By This Post
Tom Elia at The New Editor points to a really, really arrogant statement by Roger Ebert that actually speaks volumes about the mindset of the media.
Though I disagree with his political views, I like movie critic Roger Ebert, and respect his abilities as a movie reviewer.
However, this excerpt from a review of A Mighty Heart, a movie about the kidnapping of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, is simply ridiculous and speaks volumes about how many in the press seem to view their critics:
The Americans who complain about "negative" news are the ideological cousins of those who shoot at CNN crews. The news is the news, good or bad, and those who resent being informed of it are pitiful.
Which brings up the question: how, exactly, has Ebert made his living for all these years? Why it's by criticizing others! While I certainly derive no financial benefit from running this blog, Ebert has lived quite well off his complaints about movies and movie makers. But to point out what is perceived to be biased reporting in not akin to trying to shoot a journalist. Ebert appears to believe - as do many in the media - that by virtue of their position that they are above criticism - regardless of reason. If the news was, indeed, the news that would be one thing. Unfortunately, the "news" these days is increasingly the criticism and opinion of the reporter. Shining a light under the rock isn't intellectually akin to shooting a reporter. Demanding accurate coverage from the media should not even be necessary. But, sadly, it is.
By daveinboca, Friday, 22 June , 2007 @ 8:39 pm
This blubbery misfit Ebert simply has nothing left in his quiver except second-rate junk anyway. He sniffed at Team America: World Police a while back. Too pedestrian to this morbidly obese specimen of PC leftitude.
This truffle-snuffer roots endlessly for new ways to make himself look ridiculous; although if he looked in the mirror, he’d find he wouldn’t have to work that hard.
By Mwalimu Daudi, Friday, 22 June , 2007 @ 10:32 pm
Message for Robert Ebert:
Pardon me Mr. Ebert, but did not CNN air a video made by “insurgents” that showed snipers killing American soldiers? Where was your outrage then when CNN was glorifying the killers?
By Quilly Mammoth, Friday, 22 June , 2007 @ 10:52 pm
From the Committee to Protect Journalists:
By Nationality:
• Iraqi: 86
• European: 12
• Other Arab countries: 3
• United States: 2
• All other countries: 5
By Gender:
• Men: 98
• Women: 9
That’s a total of 107, most of which were Iraqi. Which is less than one half the total that Ebert gives. Moreover, the thought is that many of the Iraqi correspondents might have been moonlighting as PAOs for one faction or another. Thus they were targeted by an opposing side.
Want to see real menace to jounalists? Look at just teh otehr side of teh US’s southern border.
By Chris, Saturday, 23 June , 2007 @ 5:14 am
His review is pedestrian and baffling. He baldly claims that most Muslims disapprove of terrorism, based on what? The fact that he likes this movie? The fact that the director chose not to focus any attention on Pearl or his murderers?
Nowhere does he mention that Pearl was Jewish. He claims that the kidnappers are impotent because all they can do is snatch one guy from a taxi, completely missing the fact that the Pearl snuff video was the first of many such recruiting tools for al-Qaeda. Ebert seems to be barely aware of any of the context that this film is supposed to be examining.