E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Rick Bowmer / AP
A copy of The New York Times published on May 8, 1945, featuring a story by former AP Paris bureau chief Ed Kennedy, fired by the AP after he became the first journalist to file a firsthand account of German officials surrendering unconditionally to Allied commanders.
NEW YORK -- In World War II's final moments in Europe, Associated Press correspondent Edward Kennedy gave his news agency perhaps the biggest scoop in its history. He reported -- a full day ahead of the competition -- that the Germans had surrendered unconditionally at a former schoolhouse in Reims, France.
For this, he was publicly rebuked by the AP, and then quietly fired.
The problem: Kennedy had defied military censors to get the story out. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Harry Truman had agreed to suppress news of the capitulation for a day, in order to allow Stalin to stage a second surrender ceremony in Berlin. Kennedy was also accused of breaking a pledge that he and 16 other journalists had made to keep the surrender a secret for a time, as a condition of being allowed to witness it firsthand.
Sixty-seven years later, the AP's top executive is apologizing for the way the company treated Kennedy.
"It was a terrible day for the AP. It was handled in the worst possible way," said president and CEO Tom Curley.
Kennedy, he said, "did everything just right."
Curley rejected the notion that the AP had a duty to obey the order to hold the story once it was clear the embargo was for political reasons, rather than to protect the troops.
"Once the war is over, you can't hold back information like that. The world needed to know," he said in an interview.
Rick Bowmer / AP
Julia Kennedy Cochran, daughter of former AP Paris bureau chief Ed Kennedy, points to her father in a picture taken during the German surrender in 1945, at her home in Bend, Ore.
Curley, who is retiring this year, has also co-written an introduction to Kennedy's newly published memoir, "Ed Kennedy's War: V-E Day, Censorship & The Associated Press."
Kennedy, who died in a traffic accident in 1963, had long sought such public vindication from his old employer. His daughter, Julia Kennedy Cochran, of Bend, Ore., said she was "overjoyed" by the apology.
"I think it would have meant a lot to him," she said.
The German surrender happened at 2:41 a.m. on May 7, 1945.
No secrets at stake
Kennedy was one of 17 reporters taken to witness the ceremony. He and the others were hastily assembled by military commanders, then pledged to secrecy by a U.S. general while the group flew over France.
As a condition of being allowed to see the surrender in person, the correspondents were barred from reporting what they had witnessed until authorized by Allied headquarters.
Initially, the journalists were told the news would be held up for only a few hours. But after the surrender was complete, the embargo was extended for 36 hours - until 3 p.m. the following day.
Kennedy was astounded.
"The absurdity of attempting to bottle up news of such magnitude was too apparent," he would later write.
Nevertheless, he initially stayed quiet. Then, at 2:03 p.m., the surrender was announced by German officials, via a radio broadcast from Flensburg, a city already in Allied hands. That meant, Kennedy knew, that the transmission had been authorized by the same military censors gagging the press.
PhotoBlog: Funeral for French resistance hero Raymond Aubrac
Furious, Kennedy went to see the chief American censor and told him there was no way he could continue to hold the story. Word was out. The military had broken its side of the pact by allowing the Germans to announce the surrender. And there were no military secrets at stake.
The censor waved him off. Kennedy thought about it for 15 minutes, and then acted.
He used a military phone, not subject to monitoring by censors, to dispatch his account to the AP's London bureau. Notably, he didn't brief his own editors about the embargo or his decision to dodge the censors. The AP put the story on the wire within minutes.
NYT reporter 'browned off'
To some of Kennedy's competitors, the scoop was a betrayal on the scale of Pearl Harbor. Compounding their anger, military censors continued to refuse to allow any other news organization to send their own stories, meaning the AP would continue to have an exclusive for a day.
"I am browned off, fed up, burnt up and put out," wrote Drew Middleton, a New York Times correspondent. He called the suppression of the story "the most colossal 'snafu' in the history of the war." His newspaper followed with an editorial chastising the AP for initially boasting of a historic "news beat."
"If it was a 'beat,'" the paper wrote, "it was one only because Mr. Kennedy's sixteen colleagues chose to stand by their commitments."
Rick Bowmer / AP
Julia Kennedy Cochran holds a picture taken during the German surrender in 1945, at her home in Bend, Ore.
Retribution was swift. The military briefly suspended the AP's ability to dispatch any news from the European theater. When that ban was lifted, more than 50 of Kennedy's fellow war correspondents signed a protest letter asking that it be reinstated. The military expelled Kennedy from France.
Condemnation also came from the AP's president at the time, Robert McLean.
"The Associated Press profoundly regrets the distribution on Monday of the report of the total surrender in Europe which investigation now clearly discloses was distributed in advance of authorization by Supreme Allied Headquarters," he said in a public statement on May 10.
The AP's general manager, Kent Cooper, said Kennedy should have conferred with his editors about the decision to publish. Later, he addressed a letter to the reporter saying that he had violated a "cardinal principle" of journalism by breaking a pledge to keep the surrender confidential.
"No employee of the Associated Press has the right to disregard what is defined by the source as a pledge of confidence, when he knows that those who meant to impose it still hold it to be in force," he said.
'The AP surrender'
Other journalists defended Kennedy. In an essay in The New Yorker, published May 19, 1945, under the subhead "The AP Surrender," A.J. Liebling absolved Kennedy of breaking the "pledge" he had supposedly made aboard the aircraft flying to Reims.
"Whether a promise extorted as this one was, in an airplane several thousand feet up, has any moral force is a question for the theologians," Liebling wrote. "I suppose that Kennedy should have refused to promise anything and thus made sure of missing an event that no newspaperman in the world would want to miss."
WWII vet's dog tags returned after 66 years
Wes Gallagher, the AP reporter who succeeded Kennedy in Europe and became the general manager after Cooper, strongly supported his colleague and believed he had done the right thing.
According to the memoir, Gallagher told Truman's successor, President Dwight D. Eisenhower: "If I'd been Kennedy, I'd have done the same thing - except that I'd have telephoned you first."
After being fired by the AP, Kennedy took a job as managing editor of the Santa Barbara News-Press in California, and then went on to become publisher of the Monterey Peninsula Herald. He died at age 58 after being struck by an automobile.
Kennedy wrote the war memoir before his death. His family held on to the manuscript for decades before his daughter, Cochran, began looking for a publisher.
She said that even though she was only 16 when her father died, she got the impression he still took great joy in his career, despite the episode.
"Some people said after the war, 'Oh, Ed Kennedy is a broken man. He's out there editing some little newspaper in California.' I think people had this idea that he was feeling sorry for himself. But he wasn't. He wasn't the kind of person who sat around and felt sorry," she said.
Curley said Kennedy's daughter approached him around the same time he had become interested in the matter while helping with work on the book "Breaking News: How The Associated Press Has Covered War, Peace, and Everything Else." The publication of Kennedy's memoir prompted the AP's apology, Curley said.
He called Kennedy's dismissal "a great, great tragedy" and hailed him and the desk editors who put the surrender story on the wire for upholding the highest principles of journalism.
"They did the right thing," Curley said. "They stood up to power."
Nearly 70 years since the attack on Pearl Harbor propelled America into World War II, Congress paid tribute to Japanese-American war veterans. NBC's Tom Costello reports.
More world news from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Bin Laden fretted about al-Qaida affiliates' missteps, letters show
- Blind activist Chen Guangcheng: 'I want to leave China on Hillary Clinton's plane'
- 'A little fixing up'? Philippines hides slum behind wall ahead of poverty conference
- Sarkozy fails to floor Hollande in France election television debate
- Has Britain's Prime Minister Cameron lost his gloss? Voters issue their verdict
- Catholic priest: I've been secretly married for a year
- Five years on, parents of missing Madeleine McCann cling to hope
Follow us on Twitter: @msnbc_world
Leave a Comment:
While it's nice that the apology came, it still came too late to be of benefit to the reporter involved. The reporter's been dead for almost 50 years, and nothing AP can do is going to change the fact that it fired a reporter whose life was ruined by it.
To me, it doesn't seem that his life was ruined. Even his daughter says it didn't faze him. In fact, it seems the only ones who lost anything were the Associated Press when they lost a damn good reporter as well as respect.
Not only did he deserve to be fired, No apology should have been given and after 67 years and the man has been dead for 49 years. Besides he deserved to never be told nothing in confidence again as his word obviously meant nothing.
He was allowed to be in on the biggest story there was and could not wait for 1 day for them to get it all set up for a transition, And almost noone would ever trust him with delicate information again as he showed he could not be trusted.
bluthunder, the German press had already put the same information out so it was no longer a secret.
"Initially, the journalists were told the news would be held up for only a few hours. But after the surrender was complete, the embargo was extended for 36 hours - until 3 p.m. the following day.
"Nevertheless, he initially stayed quiet. Then, at 2:03 p.m., the surrender was announced by German officials, via a radio broadcast from Flensburg, a city already in Allied hands. That meant, Kennedy knew, that the transmission had been authorized by the same military censors gagging the press."
Anyone with a shortwave radio already had the information and since there was much communications via shortwave radio during the war by members of the "Resistance", the only people that could not report the story were the 16 news people!
So bluthunder, he agreed to one set of restrictions and then the military changed those restrictions and he was not given the opportunity to reaffirm or change his response.
Sounds more like a modern day NBC reporter. Pleadge not to do something, then do it anyway for the "scoop".
The guy made a committment. Had he not made the committment, he would not have witnessed the event. Had he not witnessed the event he would have had nothing to report. It seems like the reporter is the one that should be apologing.
The military demanded they stay silent about the BIGGEST STORY of the time: the surrender of the Germans and, essentially, the cessation of all hostilities. A story that brought relief to millions of Americans and families of those fighting in the war. Relief that it was finally over and their loved ones could come home.
You think he deserved what he got? I think the people who benefited from the 'scoop' - the American public at the time - would probably disagree. One less day of anguishing over the war was definitely worth breaking a BS "commitment" to stay silent so the Soviets could stage a ceremony for propaganda reasons.
I would bring back the WWII reporter so he could write the MSNBC headline so it made sense. From the main page it looks like a 5th grader wrote the headline backwards.......
But here you are daily reading what is printed on the site. You are either stupid or a glutton for punishment . If you don't like it, don't come here. You just come here to bitch and moan about MSNBC, you must be proud.
This must be one slow news day..............and that is the good news.
So much for journalistic "ethics", never mind a man standing by his word. Reporters have no honor: never speak to one.
A reporter actually believed in the publics right to know back then. As stated by a previous poster, it was one less day American families would live in fear for those of them in harms way! If he reported it, who put it out there? Were reporters in charge of everything involved inputting a story out back then? Sounds like the AP itself is responsible, and should pay his family all the backpay with interest!
Liberals want their revisionist history and won't let anything stop them.
He got exactly what he deserved. Fired. He made an agreement and then threw his word away like the trash is was. I'm sure the thought of being the one to break the story of the war's end played no part in his decision.
This was the same military that separated black and white mans blood. The War was over. Let it be known. For a political ceremony?
Skup, like some of the readers above, read FURTHER.
He broke his word after the military broke theirs. And, by the way, as mentioned, the information was already out.
Disagreeing is fine. But at least address the obvious part of the article which disproves that he was the one who broke his word first.
@Robert. Like every military at the time, by the way. In fact, count how many black soldiers were in their militiaries at all, even segregated.
The injustice was really the lack of recognition for the black soldier. That they gave more for their country and when they came back that they were treated the same way. And yeah, I'm not arguing for segregation, because it is pure fail. But just saying that you make it sound as if the US military was the only prejudiced military in the world.
Because of this delay a lot of good men died on both sides of this conflict so that Churchill and Truman could kiss Stalin's rear end properly. THAT is the real story here, which nobody likes to report.
Not quite. The French Army, prior to surrender, had black soldiers integrated into it. Most were from Senegal, but there were others.
There was also no official race discrimination in the British Armed Forces .. they served with everyone else. But there was the less overt discrimination ... here's an interesting quote (I recommend the entire article):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/96/a1921196.shtml
It's also interesting to note that the French and the British civilians treated our black soldiers better than we did.
Beth, you are talking about the Free French in Africa. They weren't really integrated, but yes, they fought together. They had French officers lead them, but yes, they had many African tribes working with them. Keep in mind, however, the brutal wars the French fought with these African tribes prior to World War I, and somewhat afterward before World War II. It wasn't all handshakes and good feelings.
Wow,,, Everyone bitching at the media & the Government?
Too bad Fox News wasn't created until Bush 43 ran for office to get him elected,,,, Excuse me, selected by the Supreme Nut Court
Fox News would have tried to paint the story as the Germans capitulating to Mitt Romney as President Obama was surrendering to the Germans
All of you on here supporting the reporter need to learn and remember two words;
Now refer back to bluthunder's post (1.2) and remember those two words!
How is it any different today? You cross military and you're history. It doesn't matter if what they do is wrong, it's their rule and it's to be obeyed or else.
I wonder how many of you here criticizing this reporter were defending Sgt. Gary Stein. The Marine who disobeyed his commanding officer. Oh but Stein was saying things you wanted to hear so its all right with you but this reporter was wrong.
Am I missing something? He gave his word to hold off on the story in exchange for viewing the ceremony live. He then broke his word. Am I missing something?
Yes you are, it has been said in the article...
Actually Derek, no I wasn't. Google "Senegalese Infantrymen". They fought IN FRANCE, during WWII along with other soldiers. Some were integrated, most were not, but they were full combat troops, unlike the black American soldiers.
In fact there is a new movie out about them called "Les Enfants du Pays". Not sure if you can see it in the states yet or not.
BTW: I never insinuated that all was "sweetness and light" with black soldiers either in the French OR British Army (did you follow my link?). What I was doing was clairifying your statement.
Ah, okay, you are talking about something I had no idea of then.
See? I admit it. :)_
Yeah, yeah. He gave his "word"... to stay silent... about the END of a WORLD WAR (at least in Europe)...
Just so the SOVIETS - you know, the communists we spent most of the 20th Century in fear of - could stage a ceremony.
What's more important? Letting frightened Americans know that the war in Europe is over? Or kissing the backsides of the Russians? Sorry, I'll take Americans any day and twice on Sunday. Thank you.
I often learn things up here! I'd kind of like to see that movie ... should it ever come here and be nicely subtitled! LOL
It is very difficult to wage a war while civilian reporters roam underfoot, acting independently with regard to the dissemination of wartime information. This is why military personnel rarely welcome the presence of civilian correspondents in a war zone.
Reporters sticking their neck out to oppose the abuse of power, what a concept.
Too bad the vast majority of today's "journalists" are more interested in sucking up to the powerful, so they can socialize with them.
I agree that most reporters today are merely in it for self-aggrandizement.
But, a reporter who has been showh to say anything, do anything, and is even willing to give their word, just to get a "scoop" is not worthy of praise.
Who would ever trust them, again, now knowing their words mean nothing?
And, why should anything they said in the past then be trusted as "Gospel", since it is now common knowledge they lie.
It then forces the "buying public" (the people who depend on that news) to question everything that person says, hoping that they only lie about things for the "good of mankind"
A man gave his word. Something that means very little to WAY to many people today and proved that he was worthless. Do not honor liars. People can make any excuse on why he broke his word, but that is what he did so to hell with him.
Can you blame today's journalists for not willing to stick their necks out? Their profession has been turned, mainly by the right, as something dishonorable, something to be ashamed of. Just like teaching and public government work. No wonders people don't want to do these jobs any more.
Yes, it's a different world today. Now if a reporter breaks a story that puts American soldiers lives at stake, he/she is considered a hero, mainly by the left, as something honorable, something to be proud of.
This has nothing to do with right or left. The decline of journalism came about when news organizations stopped funding investigative journalism and got into bed with the politicians instead of holding them accountable. It started with JFK. Read The Powers That Be, by David Halberstam, for starters. Journalism wasn't turned ... it made itself irrelelvant.
The news that we get is not even our own or even in our country. All the news we see is controlled by 7 or 8 conglomerates world wide and not a one of them is in this country. It is polished and gleemed to be what they think an Americans want or they want us to see, not what I really want to see. The war in Germany was not offically over until the Germans surrendered to the Russians. To ask these reporters to hold off a couple of times is ok They may have surrened in France but we still were advancing in germany and on Berlin. We were still losing lives at this time.
Yes it is a differn't world today the journalists are so left. Of course if some do tell the truth they will be fired.
Since Reuters and the New York Times are both owned by the Rothschild family; the same folks that own the Bank of England, the European Central Banks, the big Banks of the US, and thus control the Federal Reserve; I wouldn't really expect any useful information out of today's mainstream news outlets..
The war was OVER. This was a story about the SURRENDER.
1. No American soldiers lives were at stake.
2. The military broke ITS word and allowed the Germans to release the story. And the GERMANS were the enemy!
The initial agreement,to which Kennedy signed on,was to hold the story for a matter of a few hours.After the surrender the military extended the embargo for 36-hours.The military changed the agreement thereby rendering Kennedy's pledge moot.Kennedy had every right to fulfill his obligation to report this news.
Until GERMANY broadcast it's surrender the war in Europe was not over. Hearing the Allies say Germany had surrendered could easily have been thought a ploy, angering the last fanatics to fight even harder, thus all Allied soldiers were still at risk.
The military knew this, hence the censoring. The Anglo Allies' leadership also knew the Soviets lost way more in the war than the rest of the Allied nations combined. They needed to let Stalin have his own surrender ceremony to keep the peace. Russia was already mistrustful of her allies, and hearing the news break the way it did, by a U.S. reporter, could easily been seen as a major slight. For all we know, the leaked surrender story could have been the match that lit the fuse for the Cold War.
At that point in history, censorship was a necessary evil; to end the war with all parties being satisfied enough to end hostilities. Kennedy saw only the story, not the big picture. At a time when your word actually meant something, he was treated accordingly.
It is very difficult to wage a war while civilian reporters roam underfoot, acting independently with regard to the dissemination of wartime information. This is why military personnel rarely welcome the presence of civilian correspondents in a war zone.
Dale R. 01 Don't blame the lack of integrity and willingness by progressive journalists to print bias news on the right. The right only has one news outlet to thwart the leftist jounalists in all of the other press. They report leftist slanted articles without any regard to integrity or neutrality. Don't blame that on the right.
he had the opportunity to witness ONE of the greatest events of the 20th century IF he promised to keep it secret for ONE day. he did not .he put his own self interests in front of other circumstances .he was a hack no apology needed
The apology came far too late. This was definitely political. The Press gets censored now. Today's reporters are not trying to lose their jobs.
Right or wrong on end-running the military, the fact is he gave his word to NOT publish until allowed to do so. Censorship was everything in those days, for military and political reasons. He could have not agreed to keep quiet, and yes, missed the story. But he gave his word, then broke it. I believe he wasn't punished so much becuase of releasing the story, but instead for violating his personal honor, and by extention the honor and reputation of the AP. We don't really think that much about personal integrity today as a society, but back then, a person's word was their bond. His actions, even as small as they seem to us today, would have been horrifying to his peers and his news organization. He broke his word, and paid for it.
"Can you blame today's journalists for not willing to stick their necks out? Their profession has been turned, mainly by the right"
Dal R, are you serious? Turned by the right??
If he actually believes that, he is demented.
FLASH Mainstream journalists have taken the number one spot away from attornies as the biggest liars in our society. Sorry, lawyers, you'll have to do better next decade.
Hey~ no different today. They manipulated news then, they do now. Same rat, different head.
Who would have guessed a Republican Supreme Allied Commander would be manipulating the media? --- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Jim-372206 #7.1,
????
Who was it that warned us of the "military industrial complex"?
Unlike today's news, where it is filtered out and broadcast. This journalist wanted to get the story out to the people. He had bigger balls to do it, instead of today's media.
How stupid is this?
Apology delayed is apology denied.
Should have done it when it mattered, AP. Now it's like Oprah advocating for self-esteem...it's kind of a soft sell.
By the way...only 15% of WWII vets who survived the war are still alive. Nice "apology". Totally inconsequential and self-serving and not an ounce of courage required.
Andrew, the apology was not necessary. A man's word should be the issue.
General Patton stated it clearly, when politicians make decisions regarding the field of battle, you get much more than you bargained for, as we quickly learned, regarding the Russians after WWII. As for AP, the knee-jerk response to political pressure did not stop with WWII. During the Vietnam War, I recall hearing a press briefing during which the Information Officer reported a figure three times higher than the actual figures for dead enemy soldiers following a recent suicide raid, and we told the reporters from AP and UPI that the numbers were too high. We were told by AP and UPI that Washington creates the news, not field level reporters.
Those press briefings were known as the "Five O'Clock Follies" .... put on just in time for the evening news so there was no chance to do anything but report on the briefing.
post got repeated...so I deleted
Lies and the liars that tell them. Story is not true, complete fiction. Why do things like this?
Really? And you have proof of this? Please do tell ... don't keep us in suspense any longer!
If the apology had come while he was still alive it might have meant something. 50 years late, it's meaningless.
put yourself in the family's shoes...I think the apology means the world to them...I will be glad with and for them.
In the world of today it is hard to believe that once upon a time some editors had integrity. If a mans word is not his bond, what value is his life?
Problem I have is that he gave his word and then broke it. He took it upon himself to show that his word ment nothing and thus cannot be trusted. No wonder many hate reporters...they will say and do anything to get the story. And, to be the first one to do it to get the fame. I don't think an apology was needed.
Kennedy's actions taught the world one thing and one thing only: NEVER TRUST THE PRESS. If you want to keep something secret then never, ever, ever, tell anyone in the press. They cannot be trusted.
Their job is to report,not keep secrets.If you don't want something known don't tell a reporter.It's pretty simple.Kind of like asking a doctor to kill.And this particular story wasn't about something frivolous,like not embarrassing an actor,this was about the end of a world war in which tens of millions had died.It needed to be reported.
Standingwave, he was given a choice, come and hear the news but agree on your own word that you will not break the news for a day, or don't hear the news at all. He chose to listen and then break his word, plain and simple.
hiap, That is not the agreement he made according to the story. The military asked for a few hours of silence, then changed that to 36 hours after the event. Kennedy was stunned but STILL KEPT HIS WORD until he heard the Germans announcing the surrender. He approached the military censor to inform him that the story had been released by the Germans in town under military control. So they allowed the defeated enemy to announce this monumental story while America, Britain and the rest of the Allies thought they were still at war, but you have a problem with this man doing his job. All of this just for political purposes, not for the protection of our troops...
It is very difficult to wage a war while civilian reporters roam underfoot, acting independently with regard to the dissemination of wartime information. This is why military personnel rarely welcome the presence of civilian correspondents in a war zone.
The ones that deserve an apology are the other 16 reporters that kept their word.
Kennedy was WRONG. The contention in the article that you don't have to obey agreements if "political reasons" are behind them because they alleged don't involve the safety of troops is beyond ridiculous: it could have degenerated into anger and clashes where the West and USSR troops met.
He knew the rules that for valid reasons at the time the story needed delay for a day, he broke his oath. This was not a public need to know his motives were for personal recognition.
Amazing how often "officials" find it necessary after many, many years to apologize for a "crime" committed against an individual doing his job the right way. Of course an embargo cannot be extended without the consent of those participating, and it's difficult to believe only one of the 17 refused to go along. He was the only journalist in the lot. What is it about freedom of speech that people in this country don't understand? It's a freedom that distinguishes the United States from most other countries, and so many of those commenting would fight against their right if given the opportunity. What fools. You morons will get what you deserve: a country bereft of rights but operating under the illusion they exist. You idiots will get what you deserve.
Ron, what does Honor mean to you? Does your word mean anything or is it just something you give at the moment knowing that when it is convenient, you will break it and do what you want anyway?
Where did the American people get the idea that lying was just part of doing business? Are you and the news people of today saying that being a liar to get your way is OK? There is something terribly wrong here.
The Military Command allowed the "ENEMY" to broadcast the surrender. The good news of the end of war had been released by, wait for it...The Military Command!!!!!! The scoop Kennedy had over the other 16 journalists was the good news was now being shared throughout Europe. I see it as others have posted, Kennedy was allowing American family's to take heart and courage for the return of their loved ones. I do not see it as his breaking the promise...I see it as Military Command snafu and breech of trust. And though I have a Journalism degree, I wouldn't trust any journalist today!
He should have been fired, no question about it.
At least back then 15 out of 16 reporters had some dignity and their word meant something.
But, his word, by his own deeds, clearly meant nothing.
He agreed to the conditions, ignored what he agreed to for personal and professional gain and did exactly what he agreed not to do.
Now, AP (which I have dealt with in the past and found them to be lacking of moral compass) apologizes?
For what? Apologizing that they had standards in the past, held someone accountable and now no longer do?
You are absolutely correct.
I agree hank, by apologizing they are basically telling the world that a reporter's word is meaningless, and that if a reporter today did the same thing he did then, they would not repremand that person. Pretty telling to me.
The SOB got what he deserved, he was a scumbag for reporting the surrender after agreeing not to. Too bad reporters aren't held to the same standard today. He deserved no apology...too bad he got one.
Terry,
Mustard gives me heartburn!
Too bad you believe in a press that should do what it is told by the political authorities in charge. Many a Dictator would love your ilk, at least until you woke up one day and realized (finally) where your blind adherence to government censorship has led you and others. How many Hitlers is the world to fight because shallow people like yourself have the depth of reason that is commensurate with a plate of urine?
Sparky, HE had the CHOICE to give his word or the CHOICE not to give his word. He got what he deserved.
I believe that it is the liars that say that they will do something and then do the other that end up being dictators and individuals that have no honor that allow them to stay in power. Think of all the people that jack up huge debts so that they can be protected by Bankruptcy. Think of all the companies and banks that lie to the public and then get to walk. How many liars does it take to rob the USA of a Trillion Dollars?
No sir, the liars are the problem and those that think that a man honor is shallow...well, that doesn't speak well of you.
He broke his word. A man who can not keep his word is useless.
eh what's up doc? You got something against men? Allow me to introduce you to my ex-wife
In this situation, I believe he had an obligation to run it all by his superiors at the AP first. It was really their judgement call. Since it was this failure of judgement which got him fired, I really don't think an apology was called for. The AP needed to get its credentials reinstated for the benefit of its other correspondents. - RC
The reporter should have honored his commitment. But even so, the actions of that reporter in this incident not withstanding; that period of history hearkens back to a time when there were many real journalists trying to fairly report the truth, as opposed to the majority of the partisan lying political lap-dog editorialists, trying to pass themselves off as journalists, that we mostly find today.
i heard conservatives are the ones who's been converted to polygamy ; is it conservatives that believe in jesus , or republicans that believe in moroni ????? they really had people fooled with that christian professing !!!!!! democrats won't vote for polygamist bible preachers !!!!!!!