fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Pro Digital Corner | Join Upload & Sell
1      
2
       3       end
   

Archive 2008 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?

  
 
RDKirk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?


With all due respect, I don't think you get it. The military prefers embeds over independent journalists, because embeds soon gain a certain stake in the military's cause. They relate more with the troops they're covering and tend to be far less critical.

I would say they become more intelligently critical. They become aware, for instance, of the "fog of war"--the uncertainty of combat operations when viewed from the POV of the participants that make tragic incidents more understandable. At the same time, that awareness makes actual atrocities even more credibly deplorable.

Edited on Mar 03, 2008 at 07:58 PM
Mar 03, 2008 at 07:44 PM
Beauchamp
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?


RDKirk wrote:
I would say they become more intelligently critical. They become aware, for instance, of the "fog of war"--the uncertainty of combat operations when viewed from the POV of the participants that make tragic incidents more understandable. At the same time, that awareness makes actual atrocities even more credibly deplorable.

Fair enough RD. I think that can be the case. Nor do I roundly condemn embedded reporting. However, I believe the media as a whole relies on the reporting of a relatively few syndicated embeds more than it should. I also understand that referring to "the media" as a whole is generally idiotic, but sometimes you need to speak in generalities to make your point.

I would still re-iterate that it is a definite policy of western militaries to make independent reporting harder, so as to convince media organizations that the only way (the cheapest) is to embed or to rely on the reporting of syndicated embeds.

/but hey, I'm just feeling verbose because of the two mid-terms I wrote today. It's nice to write something that isn't regurgitated learning...
Mar 03, 2008 at 09:02 PM
andrew81
Offline
• • • •
[X]
p.2 #3 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?


hyunk702 wrote:
The problem with photojournalism (my profession) that I see is the ambiguity in the rules.

A good rule for myself is to always strive to speak the truth. Regardless of what goes on around me... if im speaking the truth through my images then im fine. This includes never becoming the story. Just as you would never pose a person for a shot, you wouldn't want to change the story by becomming it. Does that make sense?

If the reporter refused to give the CIA Operations Officer the sat phone, would he be putting people in harms way? It's up to...Show more →
I to am a photojournalist of sorts. I work for FairFax media and see both sides. Rarely do they send us on jobs where we are free to capture whatever we want. The journos have half written the story already and they have an angle on it and the pic is meant to meet that angle. If not we get hauled over the coals by the pic editor and editor.
This is NOT true journalism. Its commercial! this is why i refused to let them put photojournalist on my business cards. Rather I wanted photographer as 95% of our shots are set up and posed and arraged.
My question though, is if you are seeking the 'truth' who's truth are you getting? Your truth is a lot different to someone on the other side. Which begs the next question, do you believe what you capture is THE truth. Or just an accurate representation of what went on.
Truth is very ambiguous in my opnion and one isnt human if one isnt drawn towards one thing or another.

Interesting topic, much better than the "what should I get? an 85 1.2 or a 300f4?" questions on the other forums
Mar 04, 2008 at 03:22 AM
RDKirk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?


I would still re-iterate that it is a definite policy of western militaries to make independent reporting harder, so as to convince media organizations that the only way (the cheapest) is to embed or to rely on the reporting of syndicated embeds.

I don't know what "make it harder" could mean to you. What is the US Army doing to make it harder for a western photojournalist to hang out with local Iraqis?

In a war like that in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's not the US Army that makes being an independent reporter harder--ask Daniel Pearl. It's just darned dangerous to be an independent reporter--especially a Western one--in most current wars.

I listened to a journalist last week who is working independently, although he's had some close calls and depends on the fact that he's built up friendships with Iraqi officials over the last 10 years. He emphasized that fact--not only would his access be impossible, but he would be long dead if not for Iraqi officials he befriended a decade ago (Notice: Depending on Iraqi officials also means he can't really be totally objective).

And that is probably the essential point. In this day and age, a journalist can't just drop out of New York City into a village and start taking pictures of the locals, or he'll end up dead quite quickly. It takes years to work out the necessary relationships, because these wars are occurring in places where relationships are the currency of survival. It's going to take a lot of gruelling, time-consuming effort to be independent.

But that's not the "western militaries'" doing.


Mar 04, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Craig Gillette
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?


The "west" is held to higher standards. The western militaries hold themselves to higher standards as well. I'd venture to say they do a better job of policing themselves than journalists do.


Mar 04, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Beauchamp
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?


RDKirk wrote:
...

And that is probably the essential point. In this day and age, a journalist can't just drop out of New York City into a village and start taking pictures of the locals, or he'll end up dead quite quickly. It takes years to work out the necessary relationships, because these wars are occurring in places where relationships are the currency of survival. It's going to take a lot of gruelling, time-consuming effort to be independent.

But that's not the "western militaries'" doing.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Yes, modern war zones are dangerous. Yes, Islamic militants have targeted Western journalists.

However, there have been definite incidents of intimidation by the U.S. military in Iraq, especially early in the war. This has included killing journalists. Ask those present at the Palestine hotel attack. Often these incidents have been chalked up to individual accidents, but taken together it is very arguable that they form a deliberate policy. You don't think so; I do. Oh well. We disagree.

From the Guardian:
"Very many non-embedded journalists have complained about being refused entry to Iraq from Kuwait, threatened with withdrawal of accreditation and being held and interrogated for several hours. One group of non-embedded journalists was held in secret for two days and roughed up by US military police."

Menard's comments echoed those of other bodies that campaign on behalf of press freedom, including the International Federation of Journalists, which has also accused the US military of targeting non-embedded journalists and called for an inquiry into the death of the three cameramen who died yesterday.

-- www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/apr/09/pressandpublishing.iraqandthemedia

I suppose it would be a whole other can of worms to remind you that it was the U.S. military (and the Coalition Provisional Authority) that destroyed all vestiges of law and order in Iraq? The main reason the country became as destabilized as it has is the complete breakdown of society fallowing the 2003 invasion. Who disbanded the police? Who allowed cultural sites and infrastructure to be looted and destroyed?

The inability of reporters to travel safely there has nothing to do with inherent anti-Western sentiment. It's a response to very deliberate U.S. policies.

/Either way, I'm not looking for an argument. I come here to learn about photography. Sorry for making this a little too political.
//damn html

Edited on Mar 05, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Mar 05, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Craig Gillette
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?


He's probably a tiny bit right. If the US had just kept feeding Hussein's dictatorship and war machine and ignored his development and use of CW against his neighbors and internal dissident populations, ignored the pecadillos of his kids, ignored the payments to survivors of suicide bombers, ignored the invasion of Kuwait, SCUD missiles launched against Israel, ignored his running retirement facilities for the likes of Abbu Abbas, they'd still have a western democracy and free press and everything in Iraq.

Of course that might also mean the US would have acquiesced to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, ignored the regime in Iran, and probably had to allow the destruction of Israel but why quibble.
Mar 05, 2008 at 08:30 PM
butchM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?


Very interesting thread.

Before it takes a nose dive into a political debate, I'll throw in my two cents.

I was a full-time PJ for 24 years. MY view is ... a true "journalist" has no agenda, no bias, no axe to grind. The job is to report the facts of what has occurred as it happened. No more. No less. To do otherwise is a total betrayal of the public trust. Regardless of the nation of origin, race, political views or religious beliefs of the journalist in question. Even more despicable is to not publish a story because it would hinder the desired outcome of either the journalist or their employer. In my opinion there are VERY few, wearing the journalist hat these days that work by these guidelines. All too often the reporting is slanted to achieve the desired results of management or the particular journalist for monetary gain, personal acclaim or both.

I was recently a guest instructor in a journalism class at a local college. From what I saw while spending a week working with those students, their professors spend far too little time and effort teaching ethics and far too much time on how to promote a particular point of view. Very sad, if you ask me.

These modern journalists may very well feel they are doing the right thing by offering what they think their readers/viewers want to see or hear, however, there is no substitute for the actual truth.
Mar 05, 2008 at 09:46 PM
RDKirk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?


However, there have been definite incidents of intimidation by the U.S. military in Iraq, especially early in the war. This has included killing journalists. Ask those present at the Palestine hotel attack.

Have you ever been in a strange large city before. I'm asking that seriously--have you ever been in a metropolitan area of several million people that you've spent little or no time in before?

Now, imagine one day last week, someone showed you the entrance of a hotel and told you journalists were located in that hotel.

Now imagine this week that you're in that large city a mile--a dozen city blocks--away from that hotel. Do you see the entrance you saw in the picture? No, you see some anonymous upper stories rising above the nearer building. You have no idea what that building is from here. It's not a mosque--no muezzin tower.

You don't even know exactly where you are, in terms of the city layout. Street name? What street name? You haven't seen a street sign for the last ten miles, and none of them are in English anyway.

But you're being bombarded by mortar rounds, and at any second one of those rounds might be the "golden beebee" that kills you. You can't see the mortar position itself--it's down in an alley or sidestreet out of your line of sight (which is why mortars exist). But you know there must be a "spotter" who is relaying your position to the mortar crew. And you know the spotter is somewhere high, has a telescope or good set of binoculars--and he's got a direct line of sight on you.

And those mortar rounds are falling closer each second. You have maybe two or three seconds left to live.

So you're scanning rooftops and windows through your own scope. There--on that balcony about a mile away. There is a glint of sunlight. Yes, someone has a scope on a tripod trained directly at you.

And another round shakes your vehicle--closer, that time. The next one you won't hear at all--it will be the one that kills you. You're looking him right in the lens.

There is the spotter. Take aim and take him out. Quick.

This is the kind of war an embedded reporter knows something about.

Edited on Mar 06, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Mar 06, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Steady Hand
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?


RDKirk wrote:
Have you ever been in a strange large city before. I'm asking that seriously--have you ever been in a metropolitan area of several million people that you've spent little or no time in before?

Now, imagine one day last week, someone showed you the entrance of a hotel and told you journalists were located in that hotel.

Now imagine this week that you're in that large city a mile--a dozen city blocks--away from that hotel. Do you see the entrance you saw in the picture? No, you see some anonymous upper stories rising above the nearer building. You have no idea what...Show more →

Very well put RD. This thread just keeps on getting more and more interesting to read.


Mar 06, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Beauchamp
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?


Craig Gillette wrote:
He's probably a tiny bit right. If the US had just kept feeding Hussein's dictatorship and war machine and ignored his development and use of CW against his neighbors and internal dissident populations, ignored the pecadillos of his kids, ignored the payments to survivors of suicide bombers, ignored the invasion of Kuwait, SCUD missiles launched against Israel, ignored his running retirement facilities for the likes of Abbu Abbas, they'd still have a western democracy and free press and everything in Iraq.

Of course that might also mean the US would have acquiesced to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, ignored the...Show more →

Wow. Got anything to say that isn't a strawman argument?
Mar 07, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Beauchamp
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?


RDKirk wrote:
Have you ever been in a strange large city before. I'm asking that seriously--have you ever been in a metropolitan area of several million people that you've spent little or no time in before?

Now, imagine one day last week, someone showed you the entrance of a hotel and told you journalists were located in that hotel.

...

And another round shakes your vehicle--closer, that time. The next one you won't hear at all--it will be the one that kills you. You're looking him right in the lens.

There is the spotter. Take aim and take him out. Quick.

This is the kind of war...Show more →

Nice narrative RD. And good point, if your point is that mistakes happen in war. I don't disagree with that. Just don't tell me you have to be embedded to understand the fog of war.

I shouldn't have insinuated that the Palestine hotel incident was intentional. But the war sure was foggy, considering the U.S. "accidentally" attacked "all the main western and Arab media headquarters in the space of just one day".

I will certainly concede that most of the journalists killed in Iraq each year are killed by insurgents. They're also overwhelmingly Iraqi, not Western.

Very few embedded journalists have been killed, comparatively.

All of that said, non-embedded journalists have complained of all sorts of intimidating treatment:

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=5619

Also, an interesting read about the Palestine hotel incident: http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2003/palestine_hotel/palestine_hotel.html

I don't think embedded reporting is inherently bad. It has its place, but it also has limitations. I would think we could all agree on that.

Edited on Mar 07, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Mar 07, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Brett Socia
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?


Well if you're going to put as a debate of embeded vs non-embeded journalists, then look at if from their point of view. They are planning and carrying out missions that are directly related to the success of the "greater mission". You know that the journalists that you have "embeded" within your troops have (more then likely) signed some agreement saying that they would not report on names, locations, and other specifics about his groups movements (look what happened to that tool Geraldo after he was drawing a map in the sand, his dumbass was taken out of the theater of operations real quick).

Then up comes some outsider whom you have never met, and you know is not an embeded journalist. With the known actiona of the insurgents (this is really only in the context of the Iraq war) posing as "civilians" or people surrendering only to pull out their AK-47 or be a suicide bomber, or other things of that ilk. Would you not pull this individual aside and ask them a few questions. I sure as hell would. It's more than likely being done to protect the safety of those on base, or those troops on the ground.

If a few hours of your time as an outside/freelance journalist were taken up by being asked a few questions, and you have nothing to hide, and that interrogation saved the lives of the hundreds or thousands under my command...well I am sorry for the inconvenience but you're going to be out a few hours of your day until I am satisfied with what I am hearing and then sending you on your way....more than likely, that way is as far away from me and my troops as I can get you.

Alright but now to the actual topic at hand...

In both the book and the HBO movie "Live From Baghdad" it was said that they should never under any circumstances become "the story". As a journalist do you have the "greater mission" to report an unbiased, and factual story, and you're there to report what is happening, so you're not really supposed to be the one "making" the news.

However, if I am reporting for my bosses and I am there as a "guest" of the military leaders, by all means Mr. CIA guy, you need to make a phone call, you must dial 9 to get an outside line, will be the only words out of my mouth.

Did I start to persue an education and eventual career in journalism to be in a conflict zone, no. Would I go to a conflict zone if asked or had the opportunity, yes. Would I do whatever I could to not be a part of the story, or make the story a story in the first place, yes.

I guess what the overall opinion should be, is that if you're on the outside looking in on the situation, or looking at the situation after it has happened, and have never been in the situation. Who are you to be the one judging what someone else has done when they were there, and knows/knew all of the circumstances surrounding the event. It's awfully easy to be one to judge, but would you feel the same way you do now, if you have been through that situation?
Mar 07, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Craig Gillette
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?


Strawman? No. You're looking to make excuses for the most brutal and heinous kinds of behaviors. That's unacceptable. The left made excuses for the killing fields in Cambodia, for the atrocities in China as Mao consolidated power or with the Great Leap Forward, ignored the genocide in the USSR under Stalin. Before World War II, some groups did try to fight the coming of the fascists and their allies in Europe, especially in Spain. But too many decided that if they'd just let Hitler remilitarize the Rhineland, he'd be happy. The League of Nations turned away from Haile Selassie and Ethiopia. Chamberlain helped dismantle Czechoslovakia to appease Hitler.

After World War II, most of Europe did not collapse into anarchy.

Besides, we all know what the real problem is. The United States has not abandoned Israel. And even if we did, Iran and Iraq would still be fighting internally and fighting each other. The fundamentalists would still be trying to convert the infidels or the apostates. And you'd still be making excuses.
Mar 07, 2008 at 09:12 PM
zoetmb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?


eporters need to remember the Pledge of Allegiance. It is a pledge by an American citizen to the flag of the United States. It is not a pledge to a journalism style that seeks to be completely aloof from being an American first of all, then a reporter.

The NY Times announced a major scoop several months and revealed how the US was financing the war against insurgents. The Times and our enemies loved it!

A North Vietnamese general, in his recently-released autobiography, said that the American media changed the course of the war by reporting on the American bombing in the...Show more →

What biography is that? I find it incredibly hard to believe that the government of North Vietnam was "ready to surrender". The U.S. was losing the war. We had weak support even among the South Vietnamese who hated their corrupt government. Didn't Eisenhower state in his autobiography that we had the CIA assassinate Diem because he would have won an election fairly? So much for democracy.

Also, why do you have a problem with the media reporting the bombing of the North and the negative reaction to it by the American people? The bombing of the North happened. The American people were entitled to know that since it was American boys who were dying there and American taxpayers who were funding the war. The American people were certainly entitled to form an opinion about that bombing and the war. And they were certainly entitled to petition their leaders to end it. And that's aside from the fact that it was an undeclared war. So everything that happened was about truth but for some strange reason I don't understand, you seem to think the truth was bad.

Furthermore, when someone pledges allegiance to the United States of America, they are not pledging to support government policies of the day. They're pledging to support the basis for democracy in this country which is backed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And that includes freedom of the press.

Besides, it wasn't bombing the North or the invasion of Cambodia or anything of the sort that turned America against the war. What turned America against the war was having the national guard kill students at Kent State after Nixon invaded Cambodia and a growing lack of belief in the "domino theory" and that Vietnam mattered.

And I think history has shown us that Vietnam didn't matter. Communism didn't expand after Vietnam - it eventually fell. All that happened when the war ended was that people stopped dying - both Americans and Vietnamese.

And the media should be congratulated for bringing the reality of that war into our living rooms so that we knew what the war was really about.

Unfortunately, we didn't seem to learn a damned thing from the experience.






Edited on Mar 07, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Mar 07, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Craig Gillette
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?


You've obviously got a worse memory than the general. Except I think he's wrong on purpose - or misquoted. Kent State was in May of 1970, before Nixon was re-elected and before the second set of bombings began, before NV went to the table and agreed to terms that essentially only the US observed and before the killing fields, etc. Where a lot of people that mattered did die. That occurred after the US congress decided to abrogate the US obligations. It took a long time for allies to trust us after that.

And whtehr they will admit to it or not, none of the smart Democrats will allow the party to get tagged again as peace at any price defeatists or the ones who surrendered Iraq.
Mar 08, 2008 at 02:58 AM
RDKirk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?


Besides, it wasn't bombing the North or the invasion of Cambodia or anything of the sort that turned America against the war. What turned America against the war was having the national guard kill students at Kent State after Nixon invaded Cambodia and a growing lack of belief in the "domino theory" and that Vietnam mattered.

What turned America against the war--and started the campus protests that led to the Kent State incident--was dropping the college draft deferment shortly after the Tet Offensive. When it was just poor kids getting drafted, the US was annoyed with the course of the war (about the level public concern is now with the Iraq war) but content to let it drag on.

When they started drafting rich kids (at the same time people realized the war was not going to end soon), the fit hit the shan because not all of them could flee to the National Guard. That was the only reason college kids started protesting in significant numbers. Otherwise college kids were largely apathetic.

And I think history has shown us that Vietnam didn't matter. Communism didn't expand after Vietnam - it eventually fell.

First, the so-called "Domino Theory" was not a political theory per se. It was mentioned once briefly in a speech by Eisenhower--it was never pushed as a government policy instrument. More importantly, it was never intended to be applied literally as to geographically contiguous states.

Rather, the US was alarmed at the string of successes of the Soviet Union's COMINTERN ("Communism International") in the Third World in the 50s. The states where COMINTERN was succeeding were not geographically contiguous (Africa, Asia, and Latin America), but the successes created a momentum where one success seemed to lead directly to another, and the US government chose Viet Nam as the place to cut that string of successes.

The important thing to know is that our war in Vietnam was notabout Vietnam, it was about the Soviet Union. We were in Vietnam up to our waists, but the Soviet Union was in Vietnam up to their ankles--but could afford it less. They were also mired in Vietnam, and it broke their COMINTERN string of successes. So to that extent, our Vietnam policy actually worked to achieve its original goal.

All that happened when the war ended was that people stopped dying - both Americans and Vietnamese.

I think you'd have a hard time convincing the Montanards and a numer of other groups that the killing in Vietnam stopped when the US left--unless you're pinning "when the war ended" to the point killing actually stopped...which was a significant number of years after the US left.

I think you've also forgotten that very soon after the North Vietnamese army consolidated Vietnam, it did sweep westward through Laos, Cambodia, and to the border of Thailand. Had the US not kept the Communists busy for a decade, it would have been a much weaker Thailand facing a much stronger Vietnamese army on its border.


Edited by RDKirk on Mar 09, 2008 at 06:36 AM GMT

Edited on Mar 08, 2008 at 07:36 PM
Mar 08, 2008 at 07:27 PM
RDKirk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?


The left made excuses for the killing fields in Cambodia, for the atrocities in China as Mao consolidated power or with the Great Leap Forward, ignored the genocide in the USSR under Stalin. Before World War II, some groups did try to fight the coming of the fascists and their allies in Europe, especially in Spain. But too many decided that if they'd just let Hitler remilitarize the Rhineland, he'd be happy. The League of Nations turned away from Haile Selassie and Ethiopia. Chamberlain helped dismantle Czechoslovakia to appease Hitler.

Which "left" are you talking about? Go back through those years, please, and attempt to trace "the left" as any particular American political party that promoted any of the actions you quoted.
Mar 08, 2008 at 07:31 PM
Craig Gillette
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?


The left isn't a party any more than the right is a party. Nor did I suggest it was solely an American political party set of positions or characteristics. One could look to the US before, through and since World War II and see patterns of liberalism/conservatism and they aren't defining characteristics of either party. Likewise if one could differentiate between the general ideas of pacifism and being hawkish, it would be hard to draw distinct party line boundaries between these general positions. As with interventionist or isolationist tendencies.

If one takes "anti-communism" as a defining right characteristic, some of the anti-communists tyrants played that card successfully, so successfully that a variety of legitimate nationalist movements went over or were readily co-opted by communists. Isolationism (which isn't necesarily left or right) shielded or tolerated many of these "right wing" abuses, and in the depression years, certainly kept the US and other countries from dealing effectively with fascism or Stalinism.


Mar 09, 2008 at 02:42 AM
RDKirk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?


The left isn't a party any more than the right is a party. Nor did I suggest it was solely an American political party set of positions or characteristics. One could look to the US before, through and since World War II and see patterns of liberalism/conservatism and they aren't defining characteristics of either party. Likewise if one could differentiate between the general ideas of pacifism and being hawkish, it would be hard to draw distinct party line boundaries between these general positions. As with interventionist or isolationist tendencies.

If one takes "anti-communism" as a defining right characteristic, some of the anti-communists...Show more →

So you're saying that "the Left" isn't a label that can be applied to a party, and you've effectively explained why it can't even be applied to a particular public policy.

If it can't be applied either to a group or an action, then it's an essentially meaningless term, used only as an ad hominem argument.

Edited on Mar 09, 2008 at 09:55 AM
Mar 09, 2008 at 09:53 AM
1      
2
       3       end
FM Forums | Pro Digital Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account
Reset passwordNo account? Register