thank you!! i just want to say that @jeremyscahill took a selfie with a (murdered) dead body which no & i mean no journalist does - no one ... he is a very sick capitalist fascist he has done more than this but i wont go on & on On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Juan wrote:

On Sat, 04 Apr 2015 22:29:06 -0700 Seth wrote:

...

It's about damn time ;)

http://chronicle.su/2015/03/07/greenwald-scahill-step-down-from-the-intercep...

...

is this some kind of stupid 'joke' ?

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

Speaking about facts checking: intrigued by these allegations I looked up wiki on Omydiar, and his network association is said to have partnered with the CIA, which is not generally all about "philanthropy", although this claim lack any reference. Would someone know why is the Agency mentioned there? Aside from that, financed projects include "mobile intelligence" for prospectors and deploying banks onto mobile phones to make sure everyone even in Africa pays his fees to the landlords. They even dare to say it's cheaper than cash. I wonder how that is. Anyway... Wild allegations are very entertaining, but seriously what's the real meaning of this about Tor? Because no technical evidence suggest it is "backdoored" (whatever that would mean, this is a trendy word, makes the one who says it sound so l33t in journalism circles). On the other hand, Tor devs are more and more often prone on reminding that traffic analysis/correlation is not part of their threat model. The problem is that it is nowadays a definitely proven capability of adversaries. I really can't help thinking this is a deliberate desire of keeping Tor at government's reach because the eternal argument they oppose do not stand. They say that randomized wait times at each relay would make the traffic too slow. But I remember using Tor 8 years ago when it took forever to load a Web page, and still did I use it in spite of this major extra effort, because anonymous surfing was such a blast. Today the network is fast enough to be able to swap 25% speed for a massive increase of anonymity. The other solution, randomized length of packets with dummy padding discarded at each relay would impact even less on responsiveness. I honestly can't see why they legitimately refuse to implement this. They seem to think that the need to observe both ends is too hard. Did they hear about the BGP routing attack that targeted Iceland? Funny how the Silk Road server was found a month later in... Oh shit, Iceland. When you claim to protect activists with government money, you'd better not show dubious intentions if people trust are what you depend on. Because that's why Tor was opened at first. The government officials needed to hide among civilian traffic. They do need the people to run nodes. Le 6 avril 2015 15:04:21 CEST, xezha a écrit :

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

I think I may have to leave this list.

Can you really not tell the difference between a real article and something made up/joke/propaganda? Please be a little more critical and back up for claims before slandering someones name. Even 5 minutes of research with google will demonstrate that you are the only source of ANY claims about Jeremy Scahills unethical journalism. You seem to have a screw loose.

Xe

...

thank you!!

i just want to say that @jeremyscahill took a selfie with a (murdered) dead body which no & i mean no journalist does - no one ... he is a very sick capitalist fascist

he has done more than this but i wont go on & on

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Juan mailto:juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 04 Apr 2015 22:29:06 -0700 Seth mailto:list@sysfu.com> wrote:

> It's about damn time ;) > > http://chronicle.su/2015/03/07/greenwald-scahill-step-down-from-the-intercep... > >

is this some kind of stupid 'joke' ?

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com mailto:carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet

7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not

On 06/04/15 02:35, Cari Machet wrote: the

...

intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVIoRQAAoJEBxZWCa0ilYttJAP/2XY5i+2lpUYspwBR/Rw/2et cQkzvtScdeyfjBXubS9LZAuKol9OcKaFj4vww1E2unnoImuHrLfAKsZZs/Ty3yib 2YC1XWgsFtUAEOg7pHFLxxY+N/8XQplAB8vvm1V8+GMllwESmGspPPZxXc7yL4Vw Ks4VIaF+gZlgFAr4jqjN2W8/67PVYYjVWLxibxmPIyl1SfMjnUh2v7qL779dpyC/ c3eEb8oT2pGuK8rJzyVLUCtnghSeRHsSR08EFhaCLJGSuUmir6hEXhWBV4VOKudH 1tMy/RR7ldOBv5ICMdpZ5wNItSzLjg5+Iib2jODdwirvSfI/8Mo6LGFPsufZn0Nr Oq7Nwjafb4w87OqW4R4vFepOqlQA1/G6XNxKVCSoU/cP10A8YHf2KQ5IEvkYa7UC wyKTmFWFaSa6vdqtv9XDJfXVozOjg/JVOI62mrVphXyBKWa9UEvobTSvyZ/EfcFk /QGoOE3knIFQaYyRhtbXIeHw+BGp2+fGxKUW0nIgmPsJvJw3Zt9/WI5iXCYoD5M4 Ivo5nNcYPchSL9gI6Rv0TIcNxPhahjnklav19enEYI2zZfqmwxHlYUiJjsoZU0J/ XseAUt/Z6cVzksWi5/9RLTBLx7pNeDX4TJOeq0JwB6sGL99EH7p1/812ksr3fAF2 2Xd2B4E6TkgyoDHlZ2cW =Gsmo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

its not a 'claim' watch his film that was up for an academy award

there is a scene in mogadishu where he is in the morgue there is a dead body and him in the scene he is standing right next to it - the

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 06/04/15 12:59 PM, Cari Machet wrote: person was hit by a drone strike

no journalist gets filmed with dead bodies it is unethical it never

happens

perhaps if you were a journalist in the field you would understand

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Alexis Wattel mailto:alexiswattel@gmail.com> wrote:

Speaking about facts checking: intrigued by these allegations I looked up wiki on Omydiar, and his network association is said to have

Absolutely. The first thing any good journalist should think when he's investigating drone strikes and is permitted to witness the examination of a body of a victim is "shit, don't film me here, where I am! So gauche!" partnered with the CIA, which is not generally all about "philanthropy", although this claim lack any reference.

Would someone know why is the Agency mentioned there?

Aside from that, financed projects include "mobile intelligence"

for prospectors and deploying banks onto mobile phones to make sure everyone even in Africa pays his fees to the landlords. They even dare to say it's cheaper than cash. I wonder how that is.

Anyway... Wild allegations are very entertaining, but seriously

what's the real meaning of this about Tor?

Because no technical evidence suggest it is "backdoored" (whatever

that would mean, this is a trendy word, makes the one who says it sound so l33t in journalism circles).

On the other hand, Tor devs are more and more often prone on

reminding that traffic analysis/correlation is not part of their threat model. The problem is that it is nowadays a definitely proven capability of adversaries.

I really can't help thinking this is a deliberate desire of

keeping Tor at government's reach because the eternal argument they oppose do not stand. They say that randomized wait times at each relay would make the traffic too slow. But I remember using Tor 8 years ago when it took forever to load a Web page, and still did I use it in spite of this major extra effort, because anonymous surfing was such a blast.

Today the network is fast enough to be able to swap 25% speed for

a massive increase of anonymity.

The other solution, randomized length of packets with dummy

padding discarded at each relay would impact even less on responsiveness.

I honestly can't see why they legitimately refuse to implement this. They seem to think that the need to observe both ends is too hard.

Did they hear about the BGP routing attack that targeted Iceland? Funny how the Silk Road server was found a month later in... Oh shit, Iceland.

When you claim to protect activists with government money, you'd

better not show dubious intentions if people trust are what you depend on. Because that's why Tor was opened at first. The government officials needed to hide among civilian traffic. They do need the people to run nodes.

Le 6 avril 2015 15:04:21 CEST, xezha

mailto:xezha@riseup.net> a écrit :

I think I may have to leave this list.

Can you really not tell the difference between a real article and

something made up/joke/propaganda?

Please be a little more critical and back up for claims before slandering someones name. Even 5 minutes of research with google will demonstrate that you are the only source of ANY claims about Jeremy Scahills unethical journalism. You seem to have a screw loose.

Xe

On 06/04/15 02:35, Cari Machet wrote:

...

thank you!!

...

i just want to say that @jeremyscahill took a selfie with a (murdered) dead body which no & i mean no journalist does - no one ... he is a very sick capitalist fascist

...

he has done more than this but i wont go on & on

...

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Juan mailto:juan.g71@gmail.com mailto:juan.g71@gmail.com mailto:juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Sat, 04 Apr 2015 22:29:06 -0700 Seth mailto:list@sysfu.com

mailto:list@sysfu.com mailto:list@sysfu.com> wrote:

...

> It's about damn time ;) > >

http://chronicle.su/2015/03/07/greenwald-scahill-step-down-from-the-intercep...

...

> >

...

is this some kind of stupid 'joke' ?

...

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 tel:646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com mailto:carimachet@gmail.com mailto:carimachet@gmail.com mailto:carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 tel:%2B49%20152%2011779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 tel:%2B354%20894%208650 Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet

...

7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187

...

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com mailto:carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet

7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVIs7MAAoJELSH/HSoRBscScYH/i1n6ZzH77ZMwxNtHVFgX8kb LCE18yEIlrh4fPPUyMC+JHOjR56jWJr6YTnr4XI359k+pVpOUujXd/LZq9655ws2 RS3Hs8dxhuYm4S3EdpIssEeN0wu5Z0+zOeoO2IE3VR2lO4sxe9tKRCjV5sSLUxGm rIPc7BaknrGQjQoTtufJYVodT63uvKZ7r3OqMx/bwOIU60edcQrLjKAFaGeJ/Ges aqrhd+QUE7DvpiRPv6BKfsOpcZT+isk2FyMmp/1muTQ/k+huZ85HwP7Ytc+DnKpj d6lr06iQWaXFQD926cMsJIInsOQA6Sc2prig/MfF0XKTuzP5w7TQIhFojhf01Bk= =9tv1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

scahill was being filmed in the fucking morgue not at the site of the drone strike - the persons body was on a slab for fuck sake ambulance chasing times 1 trillion you humans can give him every fucking award that exists in your arsenal... i wont line up On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Mirimir wrote:

On 04/06/2015 12:22 PM, Bethany wrote:

...

On 06/04/15 12:59 PM, Cari Machet wrote:

...

its not a 'claim' watch his film that was up for an academy award

...

there is a scene in mogadishu where he is in the morgue there is a dead body and him in the scene he is standing right next to it - the person was hit by a drone strike

...

no journalist gets filmed with dead bodies it is unethical it never happens

...

perhaps if you were a journalist in the field you would understand

Absolutely. The first thing any good journalist should think when he's investigating drone strikes and is permitted to witness the examination of a body of a victim is "shit, don't film me here, where I am! So

gauche!"

You're being ironic, I trust.

I rather think that "Dirty Wars" should have shown lots of remains, and sequences of people looking for little burned bits scattered about. Maybe the film did feature too much of Scahill. He's no Michael Moore. But a scene showing Obama receiving some gift made from a victim's femur would have been priceless :)

<SNIP>

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

mirimir - you prove you know what was in the mind of the filmmaker and then prove that the overriding factor in any documentary is absolutely what was in the mind of the filmmaker could it possible be that the story matters more than the filmmaker - ya think maybe ? maybe possibly ? plus your 'proposiition' is not evidence - its no excuse for him exploiting a dead body anyway people when you are an ethical journalist you are careful not to exploit images of children, people that are unconscious etc as they do not have a say in the image content - if this is breeched it is possible they are being exploited but to then place oneself in the frame is just beyond all of that even - that is totally unethical On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Mirimir wrote:

On 04/06/2015 02:45 PM, Cari Machet wrote:

...

scahill was being filmed in the fucking morgue not at the site of the drone strike - the persons body was on a slab for fuck sake

ambulance chasing times 1 trillion

The point, which you seem to miss, was to make it real for the audience. It would have been better to shoot footage at the site of the drone strike, of course. But I presume that the crew didn't arrive in time for that. Anyway, by putting Scahill in the shot, they emphasize that he was there, and actually saw the victims. That could be CGIed, and so the audience still needs to trust him.

...

you humans can give him every fucking award that exists in your arsenal... i wont line up

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Mirimir wrote:

...

On 04/06/2015 12:22 PM, Bethany wrote:

...

On 06/04/15 12:59 PM, Cari Machet wrote:

...

its not a 'claim' watch his film that was up for an academy award

...

there is a scene in mogadishu where he is in the morgue there is a dead body and him in the scene he is standing right next to it - the person was hit by a drone strike

...

no journalist gets filmed with dead bodies it is unethical it never happens

...

perhaps if you were a journalist in the field you would understand

Absolutely. The first thing any good journalist should think when he's investigating drone strikes and is permitted to witness the examination of a body of a victim is "shit, don't film me here, where I am! So

gauche!"

You're being ironic, I trust.

I rather think that "Dirty Wars" should have shown lots of remains, and sequences of people looking for little burned bits scattered about. Maybe the film did feature too much of Scahill. He's no Michael Moore. But a scene showing Obama receiving some gift made from a victim's femur would have been priceless :)

<SNIP>

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

mirimir - heres some fucked up people (laura poitras) talkin about the shit https://youtu.be/KzZfOOvwAMM?t=22m44s i found that area of the report its at 22:44 the link should take you there even laura at least thinks about when to film / when not to btw she talked snowden into filming in hong kong - was it ethical for her to do it as he was under incredible duress?? i dont know .... i question her and glenns role and wikileaks role in him being now trapped in russia but maybe its the best place for him i dont know ... but i still get to question the ethics of their role... there are other places he could have gone my problem with laura as with jeremy is that they are too capitalistic and therein breech ethics On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Mirimir wrote:

...

mirimir - you prove you know what was in the mind of the filmmaker and

On 04/06/2015 04:01 PM, Cari Machet wrote: then

...

prove that the overriding factor in any documentary is absolutely what was in the mind of the filmmaker

I prove nothing. I have opinions.

...

could it possible be that the story matters more than the filmmaker - ya think maybe ? maybe possibly ?

What matters most, to me, is that he made the documentary. And in that context, it seems odd to focus on his artistic (even moral) choices in how to make it.

...

plus your 'proposiition' is not evidence - its no excuse for him exploiting a dead body anyway

You say "exploiting", and I say "making it real".

...

people when you are an ethical journalist you are careful not to exploit images of children, people that are unconscious etc as they do not have a say in the image content - if this is breeched it is possible they are being exploited but to then place oneself in the frame is just beyond all of that even - that is totally unethical

So you say. Do you have cites for that?

...

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Mirimir wrote:

...

On 04/06/2015 02:45 PM, Cari Machet wrote:

...

scahill was being filmed in the fucking morgue not at the site of the drone strike - the persons body was on a slab for fuck sake

ambulance chasing times 1 trillion

The point, which you seem to miss, was to make it real for the audience. It would have been better to shoot footage at the site of the drone strike, of course. But I presume that the crew didn't arrive in time for that. Anyway, by putting Scahill in the shot, they emphasize that he was there, and actually saw the victims. That could be CGIed, and so the audience still needs to trust him.

...

you humans can give him every fucking award that exists in your arsenal... i wont line up

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Mirimir wrote:

...

On 04/06/2015 12:22 PM, Bethany wrote:

...

On 06/04/15 12:59 PM, Cari Machet wrote: > its not a 'claim' watch his film that was up for an academy award

> there is a scene in mogadishu where he is in the morgue there is a dead body and him in the scene he is standing right next to it - the person was hit by a drone strike

> no journalist gets filmed with dead bodies it is unethical it never happens

> perhaps if you were a journalist in the field you would understand

Absolutely. The first thing any good journalist should think when

he's

...

investigating drone strikes and is permitted to witness the examination of a body of a victim is "shit, don't film me here, where I am! So gauche!"

You're being ironic, I trust.

I rather think that "Dirty Wars" should have shown lots of remains, and sequences of people looking for little burned bits scattered about. Maybe the film did feature too much of Scahill. He's no Michael Moore. But a scene showing Obama receiving some gift made from a victim's femur would have been priceless :)

<SNIP>

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

On 04/06/2015 05:02 PM, Cari Machet wrote:

my problem with laura as with jeremy is that they are too capitalistic...

Wait what? The ONLY reference I find in a google search for "Cari Machet Journalist" is one lonely piece you apparently didn't even write for NBCNews, a Cattlepist(sic) 'news' source. Your problem is you fail to capitalize the names and you speak of them as if you know them when you undoubtedly don't. The latter marks you as a nutcase in my estimation. I truly believe, as the alt-news syndicated journalist https://archive.org/details/tth_090220 I wrote copy, archived, and researched for once said: What you know about Journalism Cari, "could be written on the head of a pin by a spastic stone-cutter." Personally, I think you're an attention-whoring troll, but I COULD be wrong about that and you're just the plain vanilla variety.

On 4/8/15, Cari Machet wrote:

oh great another person that thinks they know everything because they punched some letters into a search engine

Look (at least some of) the folks around here have a second brain cell, some even have third.

i worked at indymedia in new york city democracy now and pbs > wnet in the field in the middle east so... and other weird journo watchdoggie things on immi in iceland and on documentaries but besides that i am an activist and but also cover that in different places

You say you are a journalist, you say you are an activist, you say you worked in the middle east, you say all sorts of things. To me (TM) you're blowing your trumpet excessively. Once is ok, but to keep blowing your own trumpet, over and over again - as in, repeatedly - you know, more than once, carries implications; the exact implications will vary by listener and are likely -not- what you want arising within your reader's' minds. You also keep 'pushing' your journalistic 'cred' rather than spend that small effort to push the SHIFT key to capitalise your sentences and names - that's disrespectful or at least lazy. Some of us make the effort for you, yet you fail to return that courtesy. And a bloody small courtesy it is four a journalist.

frankly i have no clue why you are making such a big deal out of all of this

Ah ... who's making the big deal? Hmm... Listen I don't hold anything against you, I don't know you and I've been assuming ever since I first saw your emails on this list that you are posting with a fake name. I do know it's hard to see oneself - in the hindsight of reading my own emails after the fact I have embarrassed myself too many times, so I empathise with your plight.

- maybe ask yourself ... you take cheap base shots at people that are boring and have no place in advanced thinking debate

Pottle, meet ket :/ Given your loud self proclamations I suggest raising -your- tone. I would appreciate that. Secondly consider letting your work do the speaking for you. We have these little things called hyperlinks, which look somewhat like this: http://my.domain/some-intro-page.html - such a link in your email footer would allow those who would bother to verify about you for themselves without your dismal trumpet practice getting in the way. That's a win win, especially for you. Thirdly show a little respect to the people you write about (in email) and press the SHIFT key at the same time as you type the first letter of each name you type. Fourthly if your intention is to demonstrate consideration to your readers then also press that SHIFT key simultaneously to pressing the first letter of the first word of each sentence (these are usually the ones coming after a period). Fifthly raise your own tone; those with that second or third brain cell I spoke of can see black kettles for what they are - screeching about that from the stove top is not becoming for a so called 'journalist'. Not in the slightest. Did I mention anything about dignity? Well it's about your own behaviour not what others say. Problem with said screeching is sometimes 'you' mistake a beautiful silver carafe temporarily placed on the stove next to you, for a nasty black kettle; others see the silver carafe and cover their ears from the "BLACK KETTLE! BLACK KETTLE!" screeching; you start looking distinctly pot like and rather black. By the way that's not a good look - I can vouch for this from painful first hand experience :P A single rule for self which may work for you (or not, I dunno) is 'assume good intent'. When someone challenges self, perhaps self needs a challenge. When someone calls self a black kettle perhaps a little polishing of self is needed, a rib extraction, that sort of thing. And if your assumption is wrong and bad intent is coming atcha, then at least you've taken that polishing your act opportunity and look a little shinier to onlookers. THAT's what some call a win win situation :D Good luck fellow human, Zenaan

The question is. "Is Cari having a rational conversation with other posters or is it soapboxing?" Let's see: On 04/07/2015 04:59 PM, Cari Machet wrote:

i decided no to really read this after you stated i was blowing my own horn - you dont know me at all i didnt come to the table saying i worked at this or that place and i know blah blah i didnt even want to say i have worked at all the places mostly because it might come across as arrogant but i have worked in all the places i stated and i can actually prove that so ... and someone was point blank questioning wether i am even a journo so... i think you need to take the personal attack thing down a notch this argument isnt about me and thats another reason i didnt want to say where i have worked but frankly anyone that is bringing up what i bring up would have to know something ...maybe ya think?

here is a graph for you to analyse your debate functionality which i think is incredibly low

On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Zenaan Harkness mailto:zen@freedbms.net> wrote:

On 4/8/15, Cari Machet mailto:carimachet@gmail.com> wrote: > oh great another person that thinks they know everything because they > punched some letters into a search engine

Look (at least some of) the folks around here have a second brain cell, some even have third.

> i worked at indymedia in new york city democracy now and pbs > wnet in the > field in the middle east so... and other weird journo watchdoggie things on > immi in iceland and on documentaries but besides that i am an activist and > but also cover that in different places

You say you are a journalist, you say you are an activist, you say you worked in the middle east, you say all sorts of things.

To me (TM) you're blowing your trumpet excessively. Once is ok, but to keep blowing your own trumpet, over and over again - as in, repeatedly - you know, more than once, carries implications; the exact implications will vary by listener and are likely -not- what you want arising within your reader's' minds.

You also keep 'pushing' your journalistic 'cred' rather than spend that small effort to push the SHIFT key to capitalise your sentences and names - that's disrespectful or at least lazy. Some of us make the effort for you, yet you fail to return that courtesy. And a bloody small courtesy it is four a journalist.

> frankly i have no clue why you are making such a big deal > out of all of this

Ah ... who's making the big deal? Hmm...

Listen I don't hold anything against you, I don't know you and I've been assuming ever since I first saw your emails on this list that you are posting with a fake name. I do know it's hard to see oneself - in the hindsight of reading my own emails after the fact I have embarrassed myself too many times, so I empathise with your plight.

> - maybe ask yourself ... you take cheap base shots at people that > are boring and have no place in advanced thinking debate

Pottle, meet ket :/

Given your loud self proclamations I suggest raising -your- tone. I would appreciate that.

Secondly consider letting your work do the speaking for you. We have these little things called hyperlinks, which look somewhat like this: http://my.domain/some-intro-page.html - such a link in your email footer would allow those who would bother to verify about you for themselves without your dismal trumpet practice getting in the way. That's a win win, especially for you.

Thirdly show a little respect to the people you write about (in email) and press the SHIFT key at the same time as you type the first letter of each name you type.

Fourthly if your intention is to demonstrate consideration to your readers then also press that SHIFT key simultaneously to pressing the first letter of the first word of each sentence (these are usually the ones coming after a period).

Fifthly raise your own tone; those with that second or third brain cell I spoke of can see black kettles for what they are - screeching about that from the stove top is not becoming for a so called 'journalist'. Not in the slightest. Did I mention anything about dignity? Well it's about your own behaviour not what others say. Problem with said screeching is sometimes 'you' mistake a beautiful silver carafe temporarily placed on the stove next to you, for a nasty black kettle; others see the silver carafe and cover their ears from the "BLACK KETTLE! BLACK KETTLE!" screeching; you start looking distinctly pot like and rather black.

By the way that's not a good look - I can vouch for this from painful first hand experience :P

A single rule for self which may work for you (or not, I dunno) is 'assume good intent'. When someone challenges self, perhaps self needs a challenge. When someone calls self a black kettle perhaps a little polishing of self is needed, a rib extraction, that sort of thing. And if your assumption is wrong and bad intent is coming atcha, then at least you've taken that polishing your act opportunity and look a little shinier to onlookers.

THAT's what some call a win win situation :D

Good luck fellow human, Zenaan

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com mailto:carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet

7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

Link to chart, Are we having a rational discussion: http://www.jamespegram.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/discussion-flow-chart.... On 04/07/2015 04:59 PM, Cari Machet wrote:

i decided no to really read this after you stated i was blowing my own horn - you dont know me at all i didnt come to the table saying i worked at this or that place and i know blah blah i didnt even want to say i have worked at all the places mostly because it might come across as arrogant but i have worked in all the places i stated and i can actually prove that so ... and someone was point blank questioning wether i am even a journo so... i think you need to take the personal attack thing down a notch this argument isnt about me and thats another reason i didnt want to say where i have worked but frankly anyone that is bringing up what i bring up would have to know something ...maybe ya think?

here is a graph for you to analyse your debate functionality which i think is incredibly low

On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Zenaan Harkness mailto:zen@freedbms.net> wrote:

On 4/8/15, Cari Machet mailto:carimachet@gmail.com> wrote: > oh great another person that thinks they know everything because they > punched some letters into a search engine

Look (at least some of) the folks around here have a second brain cell, some even have third.

> i worked at indymedia in new york city democracy now and pbs > wnet in the > field in the middle east so... and other weird journo watchdoggie things on > immi in iceland and on documentaries but besides that i am an activist and > but also cover that in different places

You say you are a journalist, you say you are an activist, you say you worked in the middle east, you say all sorts of things.

To me (TM) you're blowing your trumpet excessively. Once is ok, but to keep blowing your own trumpet, over and over again - as in, repeatedly - you know, more than once, carries implications; the exact implications will vary by listener and are likely -not- what you want arising within your reader's' minds.

You also keep 'pushing' your journalistic 'cred' rather than spend that small effort to push the SHIFT key to capitalise your sentences and names - that's disrespectful or at least lazy. Some of us make the effort for you, yet you fail to return that courtesy. And a bloody small courtesy it is four a journalist.

> frankly i have no clue why you are making such a big deal > out of all of this

Ah ... who's making the big deal? Hmm...

Listen I don't hold anything against you, I don't know you and I've been assuming ever since I first saw your emails on this list that you are posting with a fake name. I do know it's hard to see oneself - in the hindsight of reading my own emails after the fact I have embarrassed myself too many times, so I empathise with your plight.

> - maybe ask yourself ... you take cheap base shots at people that > are boring and have no place in advanced thinking debate

Pottle, meet ket :/

Given your loud self proclamations I suggest raising -your- tone. I would appreciate that.

Secondly consider letting your work do the speaking for you. We have these little things called hyperlinks, which look somewhat like this: http://my.domain/some-intro-page.html - such a link in your email footer would allow those who would bother to verify about you for themselves without your dismal trumpet practice getting in the way. That's a win win, especially for you.

Thirdly show a little respect to the people you write about (in email) and press the SHIFT key at the same time as you type the first letter of each name you type.

Fourthly if your intention is to demonstrate consideration to your readers then also press that SHIFT key simultaneously to pressing the first letter of the first word of each sentence (these are usually the ones coming after a period).

Fifthly raise your own tone; those with that second or third brain cell I spoke of can see black kettles for what they are - screeching about that from the stove top is not becoming for a so called 'journalist'. Not in the slightest. Did I mention anything about dignity? Well it's about your own behaviour not what others say. Problem with said screeching is sometimes 'you' mistake a beautiful silver carafe temporarily placed on the stove next to you, for a nasty black kettle; others see the silver carafe and cover their ears from the "BLACK KETTLE! BLACK KETTLE!" screeching; you start looking distinctly pot like and rather black.

By the way that's not a good look - I can vouch for this from painful first hand experience :P

A single rule for self which may work for you (or not, I dunno) is 'assume good intent'. When someone challenges self, perhaps self needs a challenge. When someone calls self a black kettle perhaps a little polishing of self is needed, a rib extraction, that sort of thing. And if your assumption is wrong and bad intent is coming atcha, then at least you've taken that polishing your act opportunity and look a little shinier to onlookers.

THAT's what some call a win win situation :D

Good luck fellow human, Zenaan

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com mailto:carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet

7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

Cari Machet:

mirimir - you prove you know what was in the mind of the filmmaker and then prove that the overriding factor in any documentary is absolutely what was in the mind of the filmmaker

could it possible be that the story matters more than the filmmaker - ya think maybe ? maybe possibly ?

plus your 'proposiition' is not evidence - its no excuse for him exploiting a dead body anyway

people when you are an ethical journalist you are careful not to exploit images of children, people that are unconscious etc as they do not have a say in the image content - if this is breeched it is possible they are being exploited but to then place oneself in the frame is just beyond all of that even - that is totally unethical

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Mirimir wrote:

...

On 04/06/2015 02:45 PM, Cari Machet wrote:

...

scahill was being filmed in the fucking morgue not at the site of the drone strike - the persons body was on a slab for fuck sake

ambulance chasing times 1 trillion

The point, which you seem to miss, was to make it real for the audience. It would have been better to shoot footage at the site of the drone strike, of course. But I presume that the crew didn't arrive in time for that. Anyway, by putting Scahill in the shot, they emphasize that he was there, and actually saw the victims. That could be CGIed, and so the audience still needs to trust him.

...

you humans can give him every fucking award that exists in your arsenal... i wont line up

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Mirimir wrote:

...

On 04/06/2015 12:22 PM, Bethany wrote:

...

On 06/04/15 12:59 PM, Cari Machet wrote:

...

its not a 'claim' watch his film that was up for an academy award

...

there is a scene in mogadishu where he is in the morgue there is a dead body and him in the scene he is standing right next to it - the person was hit by a drone strike

...

no journalist gets filmed with dead bodies it is unethical it never happens

...

perhaps if you were a journalist in the field you would understand

Absolutely. The first thing any good journalist should think when he's investigating drone strikes and is permitted to witness the examination of a body of a victim is "shit, don't film me here, where I am! So

gauche!"

You're being ironic, I trust.

I rather think that "Dirty Wars" should have shown lots of remains, and sequences of people looking for little burned bits scattered about. Maybe the film did feature too much of Scahill. He's no Michael Moore. But a scene showing Obama receiving some gift made from a victim's femur would have been priceless :)

<SNIP>

Pictures of children, unconscious people, even--GASP--the dead can be perfectly ethical. Indeed, in my view a journalist usually has the *duty* to show their audience what they see, no matter how heart-wrenching or gruesome. Not to show the uncomfortable truth is the true breach of journalistic ethics. Should we censor thousands upon thousands of hours of war footage because the dead soldiers and civilians didn't get a say in it? Or does the public interest outweigh that concern? It's a balancing act, and depends on the broader context. Putting yourself in a shot is different territory, but can be ethical in some cases. One of those cases, in my opinion, is in a documentary showing the journalist's journey. This can be, and in the case of Dirty Wars in my opinion is, as illuminating as the 'ground truth' itself. It gives a context to the images which is otherwise missing and very difficult to understand on anything more than an abstract, cerebral level. Andrew

i dont remember ever a journalist putting themselves in a shot like that i dont see how jeremy's head in that shot gives ANY context that brings it out of the abstract cerebral place - that it isnt actually in in the first place - dead bodies in mogadishu or the moon are not abstract or just floaty... not in my head at least not in my gut either or my big toe jeremy is from wisconsin i think is that what you think brings context? please you will have to bring more to the table than that... i am not swallowing listen i am all for showing a lot of stuff truelly really i am... but if you are on the ground as a journo you run across things that are just not ok to even film - its just like that i have other things as i originally posted that make all of this much worse for me > jeremy attacked mona eltahawy on twitter over her media 'junkets' in new york regarding the revolution in egypt he was really fucked up in doing it and i was like after that questioning his ethics then i saw this scene and i was like wtf i do not think he is ethical and for other reasons as well so... things pile up ya know and then you have to acknowledge them or you are a part of it in a way On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:32 AM, Andrew wrote:

...

mirimir - you prove you know what was in the mind of the filmmaker and

Cari Machet: then

...

prove that the overriding factor in any documentary is absolutely what was in the mind of the filmmaker

could it possible be that the story matters more than the filmmaker - ya think maybe ? maybe possibly ?

plus your 'proposiition' is not evidence - its no excuse for him exploiting a dead body anyway

people when you are an ethical journalist you are careful not to exploit images of children, people that are unconscious etc as they do not have a say in the image content - if this is breeched it is possible they are being exploited but to then place oneself in the frame is just beyond all of that even - that is totally unethical

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Mirimir wrote:

...

On 04/06/2015 02:45 PM, Cari Machet wrote:

...

scahill was being filmed in the fucking morgue not at the site of the drone strike - the persons body was on a slab for fuck sake

ambulance chasing times 1 trillion

The point, which you seem to miss, was to make it real for the audience. It would have been better to shoot footage at the site of the drone strike, of course. But I presume that the crew didn't arrive in time for that. Anyway, by putting Scahill in the shot, they emphasize that he was there, and actually saw the victims. That could be CGIed, and so the audience still needs to trust him.

...

you humans can give him every fucking award that exists in your arsenal... i wont line up

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Mirimir wrote:

...

On 04/06/2015 12:22 PM, Bethany wrote:

...

On 06/04/15 12:59 PM, Cari Machet wrote: > its not a 'claim' watch his film that was up for an academy award

> there is a scene in mogadishu where he is in the morgue there is a dead body and him in the scene he is standing right next to it - the person was hit by a drone strike

> no journalist gets filmed with dead bodies it is unethical it never happens

> perhaps if you were a journalist in the field you would understand

Absolutely. The first thing any good journalist should think when

he's

...

investigating drone strikes and is permitted to witness the examination of a body of a victim is "shit, don't film me here, where I am! So gauche!"

You're being ironic, I trust.

I rather think that "Dirty Wars" should have shown lots of remains, and sequences of people looking for little burned bits scattered about. Maybe the film did feature too much of Scahill. He's no Michael Moore. But a scene showing Obama receiving some gift made from a victim's femur would have been priceless :)

<SNIP>

Pictures of children, unconscious people, even--GASP--the dead can be perfectly ethical. Indeed, in my view a journalist usually has the *duty* to show their audience what they see, no matter how heart-wrenching or gruesome. Not to show the uncomfortable truth is the true breach of journalistic ethics.

Should we censor thousands upon thousands of hours of war footage because the dead soldiers and civilians didn't get a say in it? Or does the public interest outweigh that concern? It's a balancing act, and depends on the broader context.

Putting yourself in a shot is different territory, but can be ethical in some cases. One of those cases, in my opinion, is in a documentary showing the journalist's journey. This can be, and in the case of Dirty Wars in my opinion is, as illuminating as the 'ground truth' itself. It gives a context to the images which is otherwise missing and very difficult to understand on anything more than an abstract, cerebral level.

Andrew

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

...

(sic) nazi's

And Godwin ends the thread! Wondered how long it would take. Cari doesn't disappoint (well, at least not in that regard...) Troll on! -S ---------- On April 6, 2015 2:28:57 PM Cari Machet wrote:

bethany you are obviously NOT a journalist... its called exploitation

i dont remember the images of the baby at hiroshima or the girl burned naked running in vietnam having the journalists fat head in the frame

guess who gets their picture took with dead bodies? smiling american soldiers have in afghanistan and nazi's - i am sure you can look those images up for yourself i wont be a party to it

just because you dont understand ethics doesnt mean they dont exist

being filmed with dead bodies is absolutely a breech of journalistic ethics

++++++++++++++++++

thanks alexis for your analysis of tor i heartily agree with your conclusion

look into a blow up of @emptywheel had regarding her protections of @pierre when the whole ukranian thing was revealed she has to do a lot of dancing to dodge the bullets coming her way ...

when i get time later i will look it up for you

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Bethany wrote:

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

...

its not a 'claim' watch his film that was up for an academy award

there is a scene in mogadishu where he is in the morgue there is a dead

On 06/04/15 12:59 PM, Cari Machet wrote: body and him in the scene he is standing right next to it - the person was hit by a drone strike

...

no journalist gets filmed with dead bodies it is unethical it never

happens

...

perhaps if you were a journalist in the field you would understand

Absolutely. The first thing any good journalist should think when he's investigating drone strikes and is permitted to witness the examination of a body of a victim is "shit, don't film me here, where I am! So gauche!"

...

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Alexis Wattel mailto:alexiswattel@gmail.com > wrote:

Speaking about facts checking: intrigued by these allegations I looked up wiki on Omydiar, and his network association is said to have partnered with the CIA, which is not generally all about "philanthropy", although this claim lack any reference.

Would someone know why is the Agency mentioned there?

Aside from that, financed projects include "mobile intelligence" for prospectors and deploying banks onto mobile phones to make sure everyone even in Africa pays his fees to the landlords. They even dare to say it's cheaper than cash. I wonder how that is.

Anyway... Wild allegations are very entertaining, but seriously what's the real meaning of this about Tor? Because no technical evidence suggest it is "backdoored" (whatever that would mean, this is a trendy word, makes the one who says it sound so l33t in journalism circles).

On the other hand, Tor devs are more and more often prone on reminding that traffic analysis/correlation is not part of their threat model. The problem is that it is nowadays a definitely proven capability of adversaries.

I really can't help thinking this is a deliberate desire of keeping Tor at government's reach because the eternal argument they oppose do not stand. They say that randomized wait times at each relay would make the traffic too slow. But I remember using Tor 8 years ago when it took forever to load a Web page, and still did I use it in spite of this major extra effort, because anonymous surfing was such a blast. Today the network is fast enough to be able to swap 25% speed for a massive increase of anonymity. The other solution, randomized length of packets with dummy padding discarded at each relay would impact even less on responsiveness.

I honestly can't see why they legitimately refuse to implement this. They seem to think that the need to observe both ends is too hard. Did they hear about the BGP routing attack that targeted Iceland? Funny how the Silk Road server was found a month later in... Oh shit, Iceland.

When you claim to protect activists with government money, you'd better not show dubious intentions if people trust are what you depend on. Because that's why Tor was opened at first. The government officials needed to hide among civilian traffic. They do need the people to run nodes.

Le 6 avril 2015 15:04:21 CEST, xezha mailto:xezha@riseup.net > a écrit :

I think I may have to leave this list.

Can you really not tell the difference between a real article and something made up/joke/propaganda? Please be a little more critical and back up for claims before slandering someones name. Even 5 minutes of research with google will demonstrate that you are the only source of ANY claims about Jeremy Scahills unethical journalism. You seem to have a screw loose.

Xe

On 06/04/15 02:35, Cari Machet wrote:

...

thank you!!

...

i just want to say that @jeremyscahill took a selfie with a (murdered) dead body which no & i mean no journalist does - no one ... he is a very sick capitalist fascist

...

he has done more than this but i wont go on & on

...

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Juan mailto:juan.g71@gmail.com mailto:juan.g71@gmail.com mailto:juan.g71@gmail.com > wrote:

...

On Sat, 04 Apr 2015 22:29:06 -0700 Seth mailto:list@sysfu.com

mailto:list@sysfu.com mailto:list@sysfu.com > wrote:

...

> It's about damn time ;) > >

http://chronicle.su/2015/03/07/greenwald-scahill-step-down-from-the-intercep...

...

...

...

> >

...

is this some kind of stupid 'joke' ?

...

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 tel:646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com mailto:carimachet@gmail.com mailto:carimachet@gmail.com mailto:carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 tel:%2B49%20152%2011779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 tel:%2B354%20894%208650 Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet

...

7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187

...

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com mailto:carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet

7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVIs7MAAoJELSH/HSoRBscScYH/i1n6ZzH77ZMwxNtHVFgX8kb LCE18yEIlrh4fPPUyMC+JHOjR56jWJr6YTnr4XI359k+pVpOUujXd/LZq9655ws2 RS3Hs8dxhuYm4S3EdpIssEeN0wu5Z0+zOeoO2IE3VR2lO4sxe9tKRCjV5sSLUxGm rIPc7BaknrGQjQoTtufJYVodT63uvKZ7r3OqMx/bwOIU60edcQrLjKAFaGeJ/Ges aqrhd+QUE7DvpiRPv6BKfsOpcZT+isk2FyMmp/1muTQ/k+huZ85HwP7Ytc+DnKpj d6lr06iQWaXFQD926cMsJIInsOQA6Sc2prig/MfF0XKTuzP5w7TQIhFojhf01Bk= =9tv1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet

7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

show me an instance of someone posing with a corpse thats a journalist & have you done it? i dont know what kind of journalist you are but it sounds like you are in america as you site specific news outlets - make assumptions that i am also in america - i dont watch that shit - i am an activist journalist being an activist journalist makes part of my job to be critical of journalism and therefor maybe i am in a different position than you - if you are okay posing with corpses then i will call you out as well but as your identity is hidden here.... soooooo... that wouldnt be so easy would it... it is your idea that there is nothing unethical but that doesnt mean that there is nothing unethical about it and that standards are not breeched by jeremy doing it and your post has not proven otherwise in any way you are presenting as if i said there is a journalist bible and it was written in there and also you are presenting as if he is just hanging out and woops a dead body came flying by and the camera was just like on and pointed at him .... and the slab they just like landed in the slab like that ... it is perfectly disgusting besides if its so nothing why are bothering to post about it On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Razer wrote:

On 04/06/2015 09:59 AM, Cari Machet wrote:

...

no journalist gets filmed with dead bodies it is unethical it never happens

perhaps if you were a journalist in the field you would understand

I AM, for what it's worth, a journalist of sorts, and the FIRST RULE of Journalism ethics is:

The journalist is NEVER supposed to be (and perhaps harder, 'become, in the process of reporting...') part of the story they're covering.

There's really nothing unethical about being with corpses in news footage and I don't have the foggiest where you heard that, but it's worth noting ABCCBSNBCCNN won't run images of their people with corpses on the air, which is most likely why you claim 'it never happens'

Those aforementioned outlets aren't really journalistic media anyway. They're propaganda outlets.

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.