Christiane Amanpour

[MegalosSkylaki]

She is the CNN jouralist who is reporting from Pakistan.
I don't recall if she had been in Afghanistan.
But she was in Bosnia/Serbis during that war.
For three years.
She said she wanted journalist to make a difference by telling the truth.

In an era of journalistic prostitution to the vagaries of the media industry and their advertisers, she has made a difference.

As have other wartime journalists and photojournalists.
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

They risk their comfort.
Their health.
Their lives.

Just one name Christiane Amanpour among many.

DOOOG

[Atomic Rooster]

Here's another name I've heard for Christiane Amanpour, War Slut!

[MegalosSkylaki]

Why?

[Atomic Rooster]

Explaining why the Arab world hates us, CNN's Amanpour spewed her bias in a live conversation with news blonde Paula Zahn:
"The issue of the United States' close alliance with Israel, the perception that the United States does not care as much about the suffering of Muslims in Palestine, in what they call Palestine, is a key reason for the anti-Americanism on the rise in the Middle East."

I wonder what her Jewish in-laws think.

Read the rest of the article HERE.

[MegalosSkylaki]

This was not intended as a reverie--or as a prelude to a flame-- but as an expression of respect for the courage and hardships endured by war-time journalists, for whom "friendly fire" is but one risk. And certainly, Ms. amanpour did--like others of her profession--place herself in harms way.

Yes, New York Post columnists Ms. Andrea Peyser has a right to her opinion --as does journalist Amanpour in her journalistic report of opinion of the United States in the Middle East in the quotation you later provide. That many Middle-Eastern Moslims dislike the United States for supporting the State of Isreal , which it has done since its recognition in 1947.

Does Peyser believe her New York City readership is so naively unaware of this, she would focus a column in 2001 and somehow take a journalist as a "slut" for simply reporting it? There was never any doubt as to the responsibility for September 11. Or the appropriate American response.

Your initial use of the epithet "slut" in regard to Journalist Amampour was cryptic in the extreme. Ms. Payser's use of same regarding a journalist seems strangly without anchor and only diminishes itself by imitating the very journalistic errors she decries.

This done so transparently as to make it unlikely it would be lost on her New York readers with some thought. Perhaps this is why Payser finds it necesssary to immediately turn to a more convenient target and somehow merge the two into one. And what in Heaven's name does she mean by a "news blonde"?Wouldn't this alone clue most people that less than Pulitzer Prize commentary is afoot?

I do not know the history or context of Ms. Peyser's remarks when viewed in their entirety, but her use Ms. Amanpour's report of criticism leveled toward the USA by some Moslems as a fulcrum for turning the focus of attention to that criticism is at the minimum unfortunate.

More seriously, this article would seem to divert attention from al-Queada and its Hosts, the Taliban, where it should properly be. My views on these and the appropriate American response are clear enough and need no quotation to support.

Reread Amanpour's out of context report--straightout and without Peyser's verbiage-- and we'll talk.

DOOOG

[ClubMed]

*

[MegalosSkylaki]

True enough.
Sadly, More like for hire than relativism.