Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (100326)	2/14/2005 9:00:25 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793646

I think your objection is beyond "nitpicking." Yes, I know. That people may consider adhering to the facts, fair representation, active listening, and the like "nitpicking" is part of why the problem is so difficult. It's bad enough when distortion is done inadvertently. When distortion becomes accepted, even normative, we have given up basic standards of the social contract. When distortion becomes accepted when "we" do it to "them" but, if "they" do it to "us," we are outraged, we're really in trouble. IMO, we're really in trouble. As with most systemic problems, you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem. When I was studying group facilitation for consensus decision making, one of the most important things I learned was that recorders must record the words of the person making the comments, not paraphrase. That shows respect for the individual and it is the only accurate way of making the initial capture. If, at a later point in the process comments need to be consolidated or paraphrased, you always ask the individual to approve the new language. It's the only way to maintain the integrity of the analysis. Even with the best of intentions, paraphrases are subject to distortion. As for the substance of this particular example, here's what the guy who originally reported Eason's comments said he said: "During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted." Here are some other comments made by Jordon on the subject courtesy of CQ. "Systematic" "murder" by the "US military" is not an accurate paraphrase of any of them. "In the 10 months between the arrival and the latest bloodshed, every U.S. media outlet - even ever-present CNN - has pulled out of Mogadishu. Why? The biggest reason: Reporters and camera crews became targets of Somalis' outrage about the hunt for warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid. Five journalists have been killed and dozens wounded. 'I can't count the number of times I've been shot at by both Somalis and U.S. troops," says Paul Watson, correspondent for the Toronto Star, from south Mogadishu. He took dramatic photographs of Somalis dragging the body of a U.S. soldier along Mogadishu's streets. ...'" "because we've seen something in both places that I thank God happens very rarely, and that is that in both places journalists are not only being killed but they're being targeted. There are combatants in both of these conflicts who are trying to kill journalists, and that is unusual and a very nightmarish situation." "It's a very dangerous place," said Eason Jordan, CNN executive vice president. "It's more dangerous for people who appear to be Westerners and most dangerous for television people, because they cannot operate in as low a profile way as print journalists."