The long custom of reporting on conflict has, in many ways, formed the backbone of history. Three thousand years ago, someone was a war correspondent, his beat: the Battle of Kadesh, fought in Syria in 1275 BC

It is unconscionable that correspondents around the world are dying in an attempt to bring us the truth, that most essential ingredient of any democracy. It is time to unblock the flow of communication so that all journalists – whatever their circumstances – are free to speak the unvarnished, unbiased truth.

It is particularly necessary for us to know exactly what is going on in the Middle East. The fog of war has become impenetrable. .We must know what is being done in our name and who we are fighting. For example, the reports of life in Iran are diametrically opposed to that which I personally know about Iran. Do we want the United States of America to invade another country based on skewed intelligence? As long as journalists are considered targets, it will be impossible to really assess what is happening anywhere in this world.

No one is served by the truth being stifled. If a cause is just, it will welcome the light. Our goal is to present the United Nations with a resolution calling for an international agreement that journalists be considered neutral observers and, as such, off-limits.

We would like your input while this movement is in its infancy, to help shape it into something which is both non-partisan and effective.

At this moment, plans are for an announcement at our May 20th, 2006, party at the American Pavilion in Cannes, France. In order to involve the public, we will be holding an online auction whose proceeds will benefit the Daniel Pearl Foundation and the Committee for the Protection of Journalists. This auction will be hosted by the online auction of the London Times and we are hoping for auction items which will pay a fitting tribute to the lives and work of those we have lost.

Would leaders who intentionally squash journalists have to face an international tribunal at some point , with this new resolution? The whole idea of Bush wanting to bomb Al Jazeera makes my blood boil!

BTW, thanks for bringing this to our attention , Deborah I think of Jill Carroll at this time:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0113/carroll_update.html

I am rather hoping for an attitude change rather than a tribunal.

All people in governments, everywhere, suck, you know.

Will it be more a statement of principle (self regulation?) or a legal document that will give the UN the right to monitor the nations who sign (or don't sign) the agreement.

This may or may not be true.
Unfortunately, when you have more than 3 people in a group,
some form of government becomes a requirement.

Anarchy, or the lack of government, does not work!

I want to create a dialogue and a consensus.

Nice piece of propaganda. Government is only needed when one person wants to control the others. There is no need for it beyond that. The excuse that innocents are protected by government is a farse, because are they really protected or are they just exploited?

Now, I do think Truth is important and if Journalist must report on something, then they have to burden the responsiblity that comes with walking into war. Plain and Simple. The UN is useless a tool. Its main source of income (USA) doesnt even follow its "recommendations".

What you guys don't seem to get is that, unless journalists can report without fear, we only know what our government tells us. I would prefer to know what's going on.

As long as you have a president and administration that feel they are above the law,
what else do you expect from the media?


One thing about the media that has never changed since they cranked out news papers one page at a time.
News is a for profit business!
There is no law that says that those who sell us the news, have to tell the truth!

I agree.

The government prefers to keep us dumb enough already.

And BTW,
Has any one told the White House that their idea to criticize the media for over reporting only causes the media to report more, not less. That if the White House wishes for better, prettier, friendlier, more fluffy stories of bunnies and candy, and lollipops, and crap like that, then maybe the White House should rethink what they give the media to report on? That if the White House doesn't like the picture being painted, then maybe the White House should get new paints and paint a prettier, sweeter, friendlier picture.

I think we are all on the same page about that ... but we get muddled about how to do it. For instance, I totally agree to government regulation for environmental protection, worker's rights, and safety regulations on corporate America. But, journalism? That's a horse of a different color, how do we regulate journalism so that it is fair? With government? With self-regulation? Government regulation on journalism works when Dems are in power, and turns into McCarthyism scare when Repubs are in power. What is a citizen to do?
KEEP THE INTERNET FREE!

Personally , I think we gotta get the Democrat Congress in November (YES, I BELIEVE ! ) to abolish the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and go back to the Communications Act of 1934 which enshrined the
"Fairness Doctrine" into law for 62 years since the FDR Administration. That is how Edward R Murrow exposed Senator McCarthey and that is how Woodward & Bernstein exposed Nixon (even during the darkest Repub times of Watergate in Vietnam Era).

Amazing that White House can say this publicly .... how would they like it if the media put a muzzle on their freedom of expression? On second thought... , not such a bad idea

Thank goodness the White house isn't listening. (as if they ever)
The more they spin themselves into the hole of their making,
the greater the liberal rebound, across the board,
and the longer it will last, and the more fundamental will be the shift!


People have had enough!
Even the Republicans them selves are sick of this shit!