[censored]

The chief news executive at CNN quit over remarks he made that U.S. soldiers meant to target journalists in Iraq (you need a free login to access this):
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17462-2005Feb11.html
More here: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050212/D886M8800.html

And the subhead to this article is "Bloggers are forcing truth to prevail."
http://www.webpronews.com/news/ebusinessnews/wpn-45-20050211BlogExposureGetsCNNNewsExecFired.html

One of the most gripping parts of The Control Room, which I saw at SIPA last semester, was when an Al Jazeera reporter was killed. The other Al Jazeera staffers, in the movie, seemed convinced that the attack was intentional. The U.S. did shell the Palestine Hotel, where foreign journalists were known to stay. This guy, Eason, had won the duPont and the Peabody. (He wasn't some schmo.)

People have a right to express their views. It boggles the mind how much our society has regressed lately --- it's as though people want to be censored. And some bloggers are perpetuating the attack on freedom of speech and of the press, which is ironic because blogging is the freest publishing format out there. I'd say vigilante bloggers should watch the subjects they choose to attack before it bites them in the rear, but it already has (this story is about some hapless twentysomethings getting fired because of their blogs): http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1804&e=3&u=/washpost/a15511_2005feb10

I'm certainly not an advocate of restrictions on blogging content, silly ethics codes or the like. I just think people who utilize freedom of speech daily should seriously consider whether their actions could strip those freedoms from others. Should we be attacking people like Lawrence Summers and Eason Jordan, or should we let their remarks spark conversations, arguments and debates?