Laura Ling, Euna Lee and the New Season of Vanguard

my, my, how quick some people are to call others names... very mature of you O_o

In regards to your last comment about the use of the word bitch, Laura actually said, "Do you see that Mitch?" No derogatory names were used. It might be wise to pay closer attention before making such broad degrading assumptions.

wtf

What are you talking about?! She's talking to Mitch Koss, a Vanguard producer and the cameraman on the trip.
And she's Chinese American. What difference does that make? If every correspondent had to learn every language before starting the actual journalism, Vanguard wouldn't exist.

Laura is a first class journalist and she is part of the reason why Vanguard exists. Check your facts before you start spewing off your hateful words. Being Chinese and speaking the language does not make you superior to her. You and your hearing disability are not needed on Current.

Uh... Laura has never been disrespectful of the cultures she's visited. I always had immense respect for the Vanguard team. I've traveled abroad, and I sure as hell don't have the courage to ask/film about the pressing and current issues happening there.

She was not calling someone a Bitch. Laura has ALWAYS been very respectful of the cultures she films..

I will miss seeing her reports and pieces.

Maybe it depends of what they were charged with. Who do they work for? How much support are they getting from their families?

Is it as much as Laura and Euna got from theirs? Why aren't their employers and families as commited to getting their release? Is it because the circumstances of what they did are different?

I agree that the WHOLE story should be told and not "just sweep it under the table" that includes the reasons why every article and every comment about it was censored on Current during that time.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that there might've been good reasons for the censorship, but an explanation for it is WAY overdue, and I don't accept any good reason for NO explanation at all.

So as long as the story is going to be told they should include ALL of it. I agree with everyone else that I've been eagerly anticipating the coverage of what happened to them.

Good point since "we thought it in the best interest during the negotiations". can be used to justify a lot of different things depending on whose "interests" are meant. Propaganda for North Korea, CYA for mistakes of the State Department or by Current itself.

Going into more depth of why those "interests" were necessary and what was gained by the censorship in order to effect the release of Laura and Euna would go a long way to maintain the high standards of credibility that Vanguard has

I had a lot of the same questions right after the incident happened. Several of my stories appeared to have been pulled off the live site. I was really confused.

Then I searched around and figured that I should be talking with someone who might know. Enter the "Committee to Protect Journalists." I spoke with a senior coordinator there over the phone who explained that it is very normal for the government to request media organizations not to publicize the capture of its journalists.

The reasoning goes that more media attention means more publicity and makes the imprisoned journalist into a political bargaining chip: the last thing anyone wants. Once a journalist becomes a valuable asset for the enemy in negotiations, and NK wants something the US is unwilling to provide, then that journalist is stuck for good.

The silver lining here was that Laura and Euna were lucky enough for NK to want something that the US government was willing to provide (or more accurately, that the US government was willing to allow Current's contacts to arrange the Clinton visit which NK took as a government concession but that the US could say wasn't really an official trip).

That's my understanding of what happened. Hope it helps!

Also that point was brought up at the time since other media was reporting on it so it was getting attention, just not from Current then what was the benefit?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-rosenbaum/laura-ling-journalists-da_b_215329...

http://www.facebook.com/FreeLauraLingandEunaLee

http://cbs4denver.com/national/jailed.american.journalists.2.1058691.html

http://joshwolf.net/blog/?p=400

That's the problem that there was a lot of inconsisencies since the story was only being partially told in only certain places

That's the point that all of that has been "speculated" before with a lot of other things.

But since the story is going to be told then what actually did happen should be cleared up so that all the theories and speculations would be put to rest

If you look back in my comment history you will find that I too was very unhappy about the way current handled it.

Now, many months after the fact, I see things in a bit of a different light. Laura has been a close member of the current family for a long time(relative to the age of the network of course). The blackout could have been for some other reason, but it could, just as likely, have been out of respect for the privacy of Laura, Euna, and their families.

I have serious doubts that there was anything shady about the blackout/cover-up, and should the Vanguard team fail to report on the blackout, i would not hold it against them

Aw, gee, I've read enough. I think this is more about your curiosity and pseudo-conspiracy theories than an actual respect for these journalists, who've been through a hell of a lot. This must have been terrifying for them and their families. So if they needed a little time to pull it together before they spill their guts, I think they more than deserve that. And for you to impinge upon their integrity the way you have in these comments is really, really shady.

I look forward to watching the special. I hope that Laura and Euna have been getting the much deserved rest since they've been home.

It's not the journalist that had the problem since they weren't the ones that did the censorship. So their integrity wasn't impinged or even questioned in any way.

It is those that set the policy of deleting articles and comment that owe an explanation. It's not like people wouldn't accept GOOD reasons for it, if it could be shown that it was in the best interest of getting them released.

The problem lies in the silence of NO GOOD explanation at all that is what spawns the speculations in the abscence of reasons so that less than pure motives can be guessed at without cause.

In the wake of the courage shown by Laura and Euna to get to the truth in North Korea, no matter what the cost to them. It is sort of hypocritical and demeans their sacrifice to hide the thruth about why the censorship was in place at the time of their imprisonment.

Granted they needed time and they've had months to recover that's all to the good. But now the decision has been made to tell the story and all that is being asked is to tell the WHOLE story and not just the parts they want to.

The parts of their imprisonment would be the most painful to relive, and I very much doubt they would leave those out, so why would they leave out the parts Laura and Euna didnt even experience to save the executives pain?

Wouldn't that mean the people that enforced the censorship have a lot less integrity than the professional journalists? Wouldn't that be disrespecting them and a blow to their credibility to hide the rest of the facts?

Yeah, you continue to prove my point.

A.) I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about. B.) Deleting comments and posts during the time these girls were in real serious danger is not exactly a cover up since we (I include myself since one of my posts were deleted as well) didn't know anything and really couldn't say anything factual about what was going on. C.) Other news sources were reporting on this matter without the "almighty hand of Current" stopping them D.) The current pod hasn't even come out yet, I think it's a bit soon to judge Current's actions in this matter. E.) Since you are here--on Current's site--and are able to make any and all comments about this matter, it strikes me a bit strange to say that there is some kind of silence of critics going on.

So speculating and making up some kind of conspiracy seems to me a bit nutty. But freedom of speech being what it is, you can continue with your nut-baggery.

lets just stick to the facts and ignore your assumptions of "nut-baggery," speculations of "losing face" or "just as likely, have been out of respect for the privacy of Laura, Euna, and their families. " since none of those have been shown to be the case yet.

In fact the "privacy" motive is contradictory because they certainly didn't go all that way to keep the story private and even after all that happened since they are still telling the story now makes no sense to have "privacy about it"

Your point A and C are tied together because the very fact that others were reporting the story makes the fact that Current wasn't so strange that goes to show that you don't know the facts.

It is not actually that the were deleting the comments and articles during that time since that was widely known at the time, there might've a reason for it that shows they lessened the "really serious danger" but the fact that they have hidden that reason is what has been "covered up" and because in almost a year since that time they STILL haven't given a good explanation of what that reason was.

I haven't been judging on what the pod WILL BE just on what HAS NOT yet been done in all the months since that time. I have been imploring them to rectify it when the pod is shown so giving them the benefit of the doubt that they would tell the ALL the facts.

I've been asked to END all the "speculations" with the truth and put to rest any other guesses about "conspiracies" with the facts of what actually happened by finally explaining the reason for the censorship once and for all.

Get a grip and get a clue instead of jumping to conclusions because telling all the truth of the matter and the integrity of the whole story is what journalism is all about.

That applies as much those that administer the web site as much as the Vanguard team.

Yeah, you're proving my point, too.

"Your point A and C are tied together because the very fact that others were reporting the story makes the fact that Current wasn't so strange that goes to show that you don't know the facts."

Since they were INVOLVED in the story, I think it would be a bit strange for them to report on the story. I know the facts. I was here a year ago. I just obviously see them differently than you.

"I just obviously see them differently than you." That you don't read and can't comprehend, is that your point that you proved?

That they didn't report the story wasn't the strange part, you could expect that from being a conflict of interest.

But that they deleted the comments without any explanation when others WERE reporting it WAS. What was the purpose since it didn't stop the story from being reported.

Since I just told you that it was the opposite of speculating that was the solution, that point wasn't proven it wasn't valid in the first place.