Brian Wilson at Faux answered my email

He gave a smart ass answer. Here is his answer and below that is my original email.


BRIAN WILSION: I remember -- it was to live my life being second guessed by the audience.


MY EMAIL: In regards to the amount of time that was spent on reporting the story of the runaway bride, do you feel that was in bad taste? because as this story was taking up most media chatter, Ten US Troops died overthe weekend, Gas prices went up, Social Security problems contuines,A report came out that Bush had always intended to invade Iraq, moreAllegations against Bolton turned up, the Lies and corruption of theBush adminstration is reaching new heights.

I know all this, thanks to the likes of Internet Bloggers and the
Independent forgein media.

Isnt about time that the media stopped asking Bush softball questions
and started to do thier job. I mean what does he have to do for the
media to take a stand?

My last question is, Do you remember why you became a Journalist?

You should flame him, big time.

And see how long it goes.

I'm surprised much though... I'd send him a link to read these replies! ;)

comes naturally when you're the number one apologist for the bush regime. Perhaps if he did his job, if he can remember what it is, he wouldn't be second guessed by his "audience" (that's being too kind, I'm sure it was a spur of the moment decision to watch that claptrap).

I've never heard of this, obviously, self-inflated Bush apologist.

They know everything, and they look out for us, and if we just listen to what they say we'll be OK.

Truly unworthy to bear such a distinguished name.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

do not employ journalists.

the job descriptions of their on-air talent is to read what their corporate masters tell them to read. Other "drudges" are employed to write the dreck that gets read. Their job is wholly unrelated to informing or educating the public and has nothing at all to do with making the world a better place. Their job, their only job, is to keep the few hundred people who are watching at any given moment from changing stations in between commercials.

You might as well criticize their mailroom employees for not having cured cancer yet.

Oh. And he is an asshole.

Brillant question driver8!

Frank Davis from the Miami Herald also answered my email, he said by sending it, I might risk pissing off Journalists who do reporting on Bush, he also sent me this.

Fdavies@herald.com

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration's decision two years ago to reject Geneva Convention protections for combatants captured in the war on terrorism contributed to the abuses of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, several military law experts and former officers say.

Some lawyers close to the administration strongly disagree. They see the Iraq prison scandal as separate from how al Qaeda and Taliban combatants have been treated.

One possible consequence of the decision to deny Geneva rights to some detainees would be to put U.S. soldiers in jeopardy if captured in a future conflict, State Department officials and military lawyers have warned.

A focal point in the debate is a key memo from Alberto Gonzales, White House counsel, to President Bush in January 2002 summarizing the pros and cons of denying Geneva protections to detainees. It even anticipated possible negative consequences, such as "the widespread condemnation among our allies."

The memo also said the United States had not denied prisoner protections in any conflict since the conventions went into effect in 1949. Doing so "could undermine U.S. military culture, which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards of conduct in combat."

Secretary of State Colin Powell and military lawyers fought the policy, seeking POW status for all detainees. But President Bush decided that the urgent need for information from detainees overrode Geneva concerns in what he called "a new kind of war."

That policy led to the indefinite detention of hundreds of detainees at the Guantanamo prison camp in Cuba, and many others in Afghanistan. Some have been subjected to "stress and duress" techniques that may not adhere to Geneva rules.

In Iraq, military officers have said that while they tried to follow the Geneva Conventions, they were under pressure last fall to get better information from suspected insurgents. Some officers said interrogators began to use more coercive techniques used in Guantanamo and Afghanistan.

The abuses shown in shocking photos can't be separated from a series of administration decisions and statements downgrading the importance of international treaty protections for prisoners, some legal experts have concluded.

"What's clear from that memo is that from the start, the administration was looking for ways to skirt the rule of law, and now we're seeing some of the consequences," said Scott Silliman, a former top Air Force lawyer, Republican and head of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke University.


He noted that Gonzales' own memo even predicted that the policy could damage U.S. military standards for handling prisoners.


Silliman said he was "surprised that the key legal recommendation on the Geneva Conventions" came not from experienced military lawyers, but from a White House counsel.


Members of the judge advocate general (JAG) corps of each service were overruled or frozen out of key legal decisions in the war on terror and in Iraq, said Silliman and Jordan Paust, a law professor at the University of Houston.


Last year, when the Iraq war started, JAG lawyers complained vociferously when they were "cut out" of supervising interrogations - as they had done in previous conflicts, according to one former officer who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Silliman, who served in the first Gulf War, said JAG oversight of interrogations is a good way of preventing abuses and insuring the Geneva Conventions are followed.

Paust, who taught at the Army's JAG school in the 1970s, said the administration "made a plan to violate the law of war, and now we're seeing the end result of that policy."

I became a journalist so I could shamelessly kiss GOP ass.

you can think of. Responses like this should be everywhere. It only goes to prove how careless these people truly are.

Good for you in emailing these people. By this response, i bet they get a lot of emails like this.

Dear Mr. Wilson:

I'm so sorry you felt that I was second-guessing your news judgment. My apologies if you were offended. But if you would, could you please let me know what professional journalistic standards you and your network used to promote the story of one heretofore anonymous woman's disappearance and reappearance while overlooking the plethora of other newsworthy events happening this same weekend?

Because it seems to me (in my strictly non-professional, audience opinion) that there is a great deal more potential impact on your viewers from the stories I mentioned in my first email than the personal difficulties of one woman from Georgia. For example if you (or your son) is of a certain age, it might be of very vital personal importance whether the United States is bogged down in a war of such indefinite goals and aims with a serious shortage of troops to prosecute it.

Sincerely,
Your friendly neighborhood gratuitous

I know nothing of the runaway bride and don't care to.

What an ingrate. Typical corporate man, Bushie.

of him!

he works for Faux News.

Thanks to driver8 for his suggestion with the question to ask him.


Hello Brian, Thank you for replying to my message, the integrity in your reply is equal to that of the integrity of Fox news.

When I first started to watch your station down here in NewZealand, I couldn't figure out if it was suppose to be satire or not. I never knew that everything that is good is a direct result of the GOP and everything that is bad is a direct result of the Clintons.

I guess I worded my question to you wrong, what I meant to asked was,

"what made you decide NOT to be a journalist?

Take Care
Brett Dale