Debate About The Pearl Video Online
from the the-next-age-of-journalism dept
I didn't post anything about the debate last week concerning the FBI's attempt to suppress the online video of Daniel Pearl's murder. However, today, the Chicago Tribune has a very good article on the subject, where they argue that this is an example of how the web revolutionizes journalism. It's no longer a debate about whether a news organization decides to show the video - it's a question as to whether or not people decide to view it. Warning: I have not seen the video, nor do I intend to - but even the description alone in the article of the video is fairly gruesome.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
When someone sez "no can watchie"
The first thing I do is download and watch.
As for the Pearl video, I was not all that
impressed. I've seen for better and more
interesting snuff vids. Muslum extremeists need
to start spending more time a video editing camp
instead of military training camp.
What is interesitng is that his killers are known,
in custody and are going to get away with it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Daniel Pearl
A few months ago, while I was riding an SF Muni streetcar during rushour, reading the Wall Street Journal, a well dressed woman boarded the car and took the unoccupied seat next to mine.
A few miles later, she asked if I read the journal often. We had a friendly little conversation (a little odd to speak to total strangers on the MUNI, but she seemed nice enough). A few blocks before she got out she pulled out childhood pictures of her with her brother --- Daniel Pearl.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
Why do people need to see the video other than to satisfy their mental sickness?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment