BBC producer shot dead two hours after

[crtDzyn]

Who told her this? Whoever it is, they're an idiot.

Well the article mentioned that BBC advises their reporters not to wear a flak jacket as it will draw attention, yet she was provided with a security detail consisting of not one, not two, but eight people. Very inconspicuous....

Edited November 26, 2008 by crtDzyn

[ifisurvive]

you got to be a liberal in the first place to be stupid to put yourself and get paid to be in a war zone

What?! You're saying that any journalist that goes to any war zone or region of conflict is by definition a liberal?! What on earth are you talking about.

Does, for example, Fox News not have journalists in Iraq, or the Daily Mail not send people to report in Afganistan?

[ifisurvive]

Well the article mentioned that BBC advises their reporters not to wear a flak jacket as it will draw attention, yet she was provided with a security detail consisting of not one, not two, but eight people. Very inconspicuous....

Does seem a bit dense. A lot more information on the circumstances of the attack and the level of security here - again, doesn't sound like she was wandering around in a tutu, hugging the heavily armed locals, thinking they were all jolly good sorts deep down and assuming her journalist badge would give her immortality.

[chemical-licker]

Does, for example, Fox News not have journalists in Iraq, or the Daily Mail not send people to report in Afganistan?

goes to the bbc for information

[MasterPo]

I think there's alot of thruth in that. Liberal reporters might think that since they are sympathetic to " the oppressed ", they will be safe. But many time " the oppressed " would still shoot them dead.

Remember a couple of years ago when that reporter was kidnapped and beheaded? (I've seen the video. A cow in a slaughterhouse dies with more dignity than he did!)

Remember how outraged the news industry was that this would happen to one of their own?

Yet they should little similar reaction when civilians die.

Many reporters clearly think themselves higher status people then the rest of us pleebs.

I don't know if this woman was such a reporter. But if she felt a false sense of immunity then she was kidding herself.

[chemical-licker]

Remember a couple of years ago when that reporter was kidnapped and beheaded? (I've seen the video. A cow in a slaughterhouse dies with more dignity than he did!)

Remember how outraged the news industry was that this would happen to one of their own?

Yet they should little similar reaction when civilians die.

Many reporters clearly think themselves higher status people then the rest of us pleebs.

I don't know if this woman was such a reporter. But if she felt a false sense of immunity then she was kidding herself.

that was such a clear message, i lost my original point

[ifisurvive]

goes to the bbc for information

Ah, so your argument is so stupid you're not even bothing to defend it then. Ok.

[AztecInca]

ifisurvive do not resort to calling another members arguments stupid simply because you disagree with them. Simply post a counter-argument or opinion to what they have stated. Lets please keep this discussion civil and constructive.

[ifisurvive]

ifisurvive do not resort to calling another members arguments stupid simply because you disagree with them. Simply post a counter-argument or opinion to what they have stated. Lets please keep this discussion civil and constructive.

I already had posted a counter-argument which he chose to ignore and make a joke instead. Thus my comment that his argument was apparently not worth defending.

Fair enough though, 'stupid' could have been replaced with something like 'poor' / 'nonsensical' / 'illogical' to keep the tone more civil.

[chemical-licker]

how can you deny the bbc doesn't have a liberal bias-

The BBC is operating in a "left-leaning comfort zone" and has an "innate liberal bias" according to a report commissioned by the corporation.

click me here

[ifisurvive]

how can you deny the bbc doesn't have a liberal bias-

It's not about the BBC having a liberal bias. The story was about a BBC producer getting shot, and the possibility that she had felt pressurised to go there. After posting that story you commented "dizzy liberal thinking". What's that got to do with the story?

Firstly, you have no idea whether she was a 'dizzy liberal' or not. Yes, she worked for the BBC, yes the BBC is said to have a liberal bias, but that does not mean all their employees immediately do. She could have been left-wing, completely central, or right-wing (hell, perhaps all the 'lack of commitment' she had been showing was complaining about being forced to put a more liberal than she felt correct slant on her work). It was a job.

Secondly, there is nothing whatsoever in the article you posted to suggest she or the BBC acted in a 'dizzy liberal' way about the danger - and let's face it, it was a Daily Mail article, they would have pointed it out. It was known to be dangerous, local security experts (not the BBC) determined the level of cover needed and the recommendations were followed.

The only explanation given for your 'dizzy liberal thinking' comment (not directly by you so if you meant something else, please say what your meaning was) was that some reporters think they are above it all and no one will harm them. When I pointed out that journalists from left, right and centre get themselves killed in conflict zones you said "you got to be a liberal in the first place to be stupid to put yourself and get paid to be in a war zone". This makes no sense whatsoever as you know left, centre and right news organisations all report on the same stories.

So, your 'dizzy liberal thinking' comment still bears no relevance to the posted story unless you can explain otherwise?

[InHuman]

*stays out of chem's dizzy liberal fiasco*

K, so 8 bodyguards AND youre a white women!

Thankgod she didn't wear that flak jacket or it woulda been attention OVERLOAD!

[crtDzyn]

*stays out of chem's dizzy liberal fiasco*

K, so 8 bodyguards AND youre a white women!

Thankgod she didn't wear that flak jacket or it woulda been attention OVERLOAD!

It was already attention overload! Notice how she got shot and killed? Gee, that flak jacket sure woulda been handy...

[ifisurvive]

I wasn't quite as cut and dry as journalists wandering around Somalia with 8 bodyguards and no flack jacket though. Comments on the incident from the news link I posted previously:

"The courtyard of the Sahafi was full of militia and their technicals [pick-up truck, usually with a heavy machine gun bolted to the top] accompanying the government delegation. In fact they were spilling out onto the street and there were technicals either side of the hotel entrance and plenty of armed men in the street. But the atmosphere was relaxed, with the militia lounging in the back of their pick-ups or chatting under the shade of the trees which lined the road."

"And it was only what the AP and other journalists had been doing every day for the previous couple of weeks without a problem."

"Should they have been wearing their flak jackets? They had taken them in case inter-factional fighting broke out and there was a danger of being caught in the crossfire. The local advice was that to wear them routinely in the streets would draw unnecessary attention and might even invite an attack. Being directly targeted was not thought to be the risk. And in any case, if you think you might be directly targeted, a flak jacket is not the solution. Not going is the answer."

[crtDzyn]

I wasn't quite as cut and dry as journalists wandering around Somalia with 8 bodyguards and no flack jacket though. Comments on the incident from the news link I posted previously:

"The courtyard of the Sahafi was full of militia and their technicals [pick-up truck, usually with a heavy machine gun bolted to the top] accompanying the government delegation. In fact they were spilling out onto the street and there were technicals either side of the hotel entrance and plenty of armed men in the street. But the atmosphere was relaxed, with the militia lounging in the back of their pick-ups or chatting under the shade of the trees which lined the road."

"And it was only what the AP and other journalists had been doing every day for the previous couple of weeks without a problem."

"Should they have been wearing their flak jackets? They had taken them in case inter-factional fighting broke out and there was a danger of being caught in the crossfire. The local advice was that to wear them routinely in the streets would draw unnecessary attention and might even invite an attack. Being directly targeted was not thought to be the risk. And in any case, if you think you might be directly targeted, a flak jacket is not the solution. Not going is the answer."

Thanks for that... this clears a few things up.

[Obsin]

Liberals? Sounds like hipster mindset to me to me.

[chemical-licker]

It's not about the BBC having a liberal bias. The story was about a BBC producer getting shot, and the possibility that she had felt pressurised to go there. After posting that story you commented "dizzy liberal thinking". What's that got to do with the story?

Ok. I'll explain. It has everything to do with the BBC having a liberal Bias. They were the one's who sent her.

First of all, this was her brief- her mandate.

Her brief in Somalia was to record the first signs of hope in that country's recent tragic history.

Apparently there wasn't any 'hope' so even if she reported the story, it would have been BS.

If she said ther wasn't any hope the BBC would've have reported the story- futile.

What is the cause of The Somalia's civil war?

I'll tell ya!

A- Traditional tribal warfare with the extra layer of Islamic fundamentalism thrown into mix.

Will the BBC ever report that?

No. Why?

Because of- dizzy liberal thinking. Too un-pc for them to admit.

Ok, on to the Journalist.

According to wiki. Kate Peyton's long-term ambition as a young radio producer was eventually to work in South Africa, a country she had first visited with her family in 1979.

She finally moved to South Africa to work in the 1990s.

According to BBC-

At the time of her death, her friends said the 39-year-old loved to help and her generosity was very African in nature.

What does that mean? very African in nature?

She also paid for people's education and tried to find them jobs, aware that she had more money than many other people.

Which is nice but also means she was a dizzy liberal. That's the reason she was there in the first place.

So to conclude.

The BBC's... dizzy liberals thinking sent her there..

And her own dizzy liberal thinking was why she was in Africa and why she eventually went on to Somalia to her untimely death.

Dizzy liberal thinking, watch out for them, they gonna get you killed.

[ifisurvive]

So to conclude.

The BBC's... dizzy liberals thinking sent her there..

And her own dizzy liberal thinking was why she was in Africa and why she eventually went on to Somalia to her untimely death.

Dizzy liberal thinking, watch out for them, they gonna get you killed.

Sorry, you are still making no sense. The BBC is a NEWS organisation. She was a NEWS journalist. Whatever left-wing / right-wing spin ultimately is put on the story, people are there to report the NEWS.

By your own logic if a Fox reporter gets killed in Iraq tomorrow you will post the story and conclude it with a comment of "fascist right-wing thinking, they gonna get you killed"? I mean Fox is known to be right wing, the journalist's mandate was maybe "promote the greatness of the USA, show how our army is kicking *** abroad", the journalist was a life-long Republican party member. All that right-wing thinking was responsible for his death surely?

No, the BBC's slant and Kate Peyton's personal views had absolutely nothing to do with her death. Other non-BBC journalists were in the same place at the same time reporting on the same story, taking the same level of security precautions. No 'dizzy liberal thinking' was responsible for her death at all, you've just decided to project your personal political leanings onto a story which bears no relation to your comment.

[chemical-licker]

Your point personal politics or the BBC's left-wing bias not being relevant is redundant, because according to the official inquest

\/ \/

'The BBC will say that it has not been the practice to deploy Western security advisers with their teams going into Mogadishu,' he said.

'The preferred option would be to use the hotel security, which had been used on a number of previous occasions.

'Local people are felt the best placed to negotiate travel through and between the various factions and this was the preferred option for Miss Peyton's visit.

'Armed Western security would be considered provocative and counter-productive.'

He added: 'Flak jackets were taken but not normally worn because it was thought that it would draw unnecessary attention and invite attack.

'Miss Peyton was not wearing a flak jacket at the time of her death.

See, Political correct idealism. Not applicable in the real world.

Or watch out dizzy liberal thinking is gonna get you killed.

Also I noticed...

Ms Peyton's sister, Rebecca, an actress who lives in Brixton, south London, said: "All the journalists we've spoken to who have been to Somalia or who know about it have been quite shocked that she was sent. We say that she didn't have access to all the information before she went. "She didn't have any contacts in Somalia and we believe she wasn't aware of the dangers of working there."

Wasn't aware of the dangers? I live 3000 miles away and even I'm aware of the dangers!

Interesting, her sister lives in Brixton- which is famous the most violent gangs in the whole UK link

She better watch out- why? because...dizzy liberal thinking's gonna get you killed.

Edited November 29, 2008 by chemical-licker

[DJK0320]

I wouldn't even go to Somalia even with a bullet proof vest! Who goes to an Anarchy nation and thinks they'll make it through. Anyone see or hear of true story black hawk down? Well, that happened in Somalia!

[Bill Hill]

I wouldn't even go to Somalia even with a bullet proof vest! Who goes to an Anarchy nation and thinks they'll make it through. Anyone see or hear of true story black hawk down? Well, that happened in Somalia!

You're right. For some reason I thought it was Sierra Leone. Another country emerging from civil war.

These civil wars, I tell ya....they all blend into one....

[The Brain Overlord]

You're right. For some reason I thought it was Sierra Leone. Another country emerging from civil war.

These civil wars, I tell ya....they all blend into one....

Yeah i also get confused, which is the one where they all dress up like US Rappers posing with machine guns?

[ifisurvive]

Your point personal politics or the BBC's left-wing bias not being relevant is redundant

Don't virtually all your threads start with 'post Daily Mail article, attack liberal attitude'? I think if I had some blind belief in 'liberalism' that I needed to debate you on my post count would be a lot higher I'm debating your logic.

'The BBC will say that it has not been the practice to deploy Western security advisers with their teams going into Mogadishu,' he said.

'The preferred option would be to use the hotel security, which had been used on a number of previous occasions.

'Local people are felt the best placed to negotiate travel through and between the various factions and this was the preferred option for Miss Peyton's visit.

'Armed Western security would be considered provocative and counter-productive.'

He added: 'Flak jackets were taken but not normally worn because it was thought that it would draw unnecessary attention and invite attack.

'Miss Peyton was not wearing a flak jacket at the time of her death.

See, Political correct idealism. Not applicable in the real world.

Or watch out dizzy liberal thinking is gonna get you killed.

Where is the political correct idealism in what you just posted? They followed the suggested security levels, your own quote says those levels had been successfully used on a number of previous occasions. It's not the BBC that decided the level of security to use - it's the local security advisers who determined the level of security, that the BBC then followed. What other security mechanisms are you suggesting they should have used - perhaps they should have been clothed head to toe in kevlar and constantly surrounded by our own SAS boys? I'm sure that wouldn't have drawn any attention. And what expertise do you have to say anything you suggest is better than the security they actually followed?

If the BBC went against the suggested advice of how security should be performed, if they lowered their security levels because, being a bunch of liberal hippies, they thought they'd be ok because the men with guns were jolly good sorts deep down, then you'd have a point. But they didn't. Other non-BBC journalists were in the same place in at the same time using the same levels of security as the BBC.

I notice you conveniently ignored my previous question about right-wing organisations and right-wing journalists getting killed - is it their right-wing beliefs that is to blame for their deaths? If this story was identical - a journalist went to a war area, followed the recommended levels of security that had been advised but still got killed - but instead of 'BBC' it was 'Fox' would you be ranting about dizzy right wing thinking?

Wasn't aware of the dangers? I live 3000 miles away and even I'm aware of the dangers!

Please, she was heading into a war zone. As much as you want to paint a picture that because she was 'liberal' she was some kind of moron who thought she'd be 100% safe that's not the reality. 'Aware of the dangers' does not mean 'no danger what so ever', it's a comment on the severity of the danger. And that's a family member giving their opinion on whether they think Kate Peyton was aware of the dangers or not. Not whether Kate Peyton herself was actually 'aware' or not.

Why is it that you are aware of the dangers of Somalia now - could it be because news agencies (not just the BBC) report about it? The same way you're aware of the dangers in Iraq, Afganistan, the West Bank and every other conflict zone and places where there are wars going on - because the BBC and ITN and Sky and Fox and CNN and NBC and ABC and AP and The Guardian and The Daily Mail... send people there to report on it.

Edited November 30, 2008 by ifisurvive

[chemical-licker]

I notice you conveniently ignored my previous question about right-wing organisations and right-wing journalists getting killed - is it their right-wing beliefs that is to blame for their deaths? If this story was identical - a journalist went to a war area, followed the recommended levels of security that had been advised but still got killed - but instead of 'BBC' it was 'Fox' would you be ranting about dizzy right wing thinking? Are you going to answer this?

Conveniently ignored it? hardly. I noticed your comparison ignored all the little details, such as the important facts, so didn't feel it was worth bothering to reply.

Nevermind, let's correct this. Here's an identical comparison.

If a right-wing Journalist moved to the Middle East to live, with the purpose in mind, to laugh at the locals because she thought she was so superior,

If she was then asked by a Right wing type News organisation to go to Iraq- with mandate to "Show how superior the West is"

If once there, she ignored the troops and decided instead to take advice from the 'Inferior locals' who were in fact the covert enemy.

(She knew this but didn't care... after all, she was superior..)

And IF she refused a flak jacket because she considered herself 'invincible'

Then ran into the warzone and was shot dead.

Then yeah.. I would say.... Deluded Right-wing thinking, better watch out it's gonna get you killed.

it's not the BBC that decided the level of security to use - it's the local security advisers who determined the level of security, that the BBC then followed.

Exactly- dizzy liberal thinking gonna get you killed.

The BBC used Hotel security... or as you put 'local security advisers.' Right, there's NO such concept in Somalia! They used a Tribal street gang! Sheesh.

They paid them... when the Journalist was shot, none of them lifted a finger! suggesting a possible inside job...

BBC use local people in situations like this ? What, as if it's a fair trade convention..

It's not, it's a civil war in Somalia.

[ifisurvive]

If once there, she ignored the troops and decided instead to take advice from the 'Inferior locals' who were in fact the covert enemy.

Where is your 'identical comparison' here? 'Ignore the troops' - who did the BBC or Kate Peyton ignore when they took their security from the locals?

And IF she refused a flak jacket because she considered herself 'invincible'

An 'identical comparison' here would presume she refused a flak jacket because of some liberal ideal, because she thought everyone is nice deep down and no one would want to hurt her. That, of course, is not what happened - she wasn't wearing a flak jacket because it was deemed the safer thing to do. Sure, easy enough over three years and a couple of thousand miles away to laugh at the idea, but if you were in a dangerous situation, were about to slip on a bullet proof vest and someone who knows the area, has lived in the area for a long time without being killed says something like "Don't put that on, it'll only make people more suspicious of you and make them more likely to just shoot you in the head" would you ignore them? The fact is it wasn't a 'liberal' decision, it was a safety decision.

BBC use local people in situations like this ? What, as if it's a fair trade convention..

What were the other journalists at the same time doing? You're saying she got killed because of dizzy liberal thinking, so surely the other non-BBC, non-dizzy liberal journalists who were there were doing something else for their security? It's not like "it was only what the AP and other journalists had been doing every day for the previous couple of weeks without a problem." was it? Had other journalists been surrounded by non-local security forces and only the BBC was using local forces? Again, what do you expect to have been done for security and what is your expertise to say it's better than what they did?

Interestingly I see a Daily Telegraph (hardly 'liberal') journalist has been kidnapped recently in Somalia. Given you blame dizzy liberal thinking for the death of a BBC producer who followed the suggested security processes, what's your view on the journalist working for a slightly right-wing newspaper who's got kidnapped after ignoring the suggested security advice?

Edited November 30, 2008 by ifisurvive