Late last month a Reuters sound technician was shot and killed by a U.S. sniper.
, including an account from an eye witness who claimed the Reuters crew drove into the middle of a firefight and the camera was mistaken for an RPG. At the time, we argued that any one found filming immediately after an terror attack should be a fair target within the rules of engagement since terror organizations such as Ansar al-Sunnah and al Qaeda in Iraq routinely film their exploits.
On Sep. 1 the military cleared the soldiers involved, essentially saying the news crew was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even though this story is at least five days old, the Associated Press decided to release a 'news' story about it today. The piece essentially rejects the U.S. military version of events, and then recounts other stories from Iraq in which journalists were accidentally killed. Thus, the picture that is painted is one of the U.S. intentionally targetting journalists.
The Associated Press could save themselves a lot of time and money by just running al Jazeera stories and al Qaeda press releases verbatim.
1
Bunch of dirty journalists wonder why the GIs dont trust the low life scum just read the usial rags or listen to the talking heads and you,ll know why
Posted by: sandpiper at September 06, 2005 01:52 PM (rAMmL)
2
Killing journalists makes no sense whatsever,serves no purpose and is a waste of ammunition. Since we are going to be accused of it anyway why bother providing services, shelter, and assistance to them. Let them go off on their own and survive on their own. Their reports and communications can be an excellent source of intel especially the raw footage they upload via satellite (HEAR THAT INSURGENTS). They are fundementally mercenary and unscruplious and will trade information for access and stories to out do each other. (INSURGENTS LISTEN UP). Problem is their not actually in the field, they're farming that out to locals (good money) and underlings (lots of promises). The Names are all back in the hotels in Bagdad or hanging out in the Green Zone.
Posted by: hondo at September 06, 2005 01:57 PM (4Gtyc)
3
Things Missing Or in Short Supply From Iraq/Afghanistan Newscoverage - interviews with soldiers, units, day to day stuff, living conditions etc - even combat footage is meager when you thing about it. They have access including embeds etc. Yet, can anyone remember a conflict with so little "coverage" of the bread & butter meat & potatoes of a war zone? Yes! "little coverage"! Except of course the politizing, potificating, and opinionated analysis virtually all originating from Bagdad.
Posted by: hondo at September 06, 2005 02:13 PM (4Gtyc)
4
The AP thinks they're more "trustworthy" and will be taken more seriously than al-Jazeera. Problem is too many people think they are.
Posted by: Oyster at September 06, 2005 02:27 PM (fl6E1)
5
I actually think we should embedd journalists, which is what you're describing Hondo. It's all the non-embeds that seem to be the biggest problem.
Posted by: Rusty at September 06, 2005 03:13 PM (JQjhA)
6
At least the embeds have a harder time collaborating with the enemy to get "never before seen footage". I wonder too about how many reporters have been asked to come and film the opening of a school, hospital or newly running electric plant and turned it down because it didn't bleed.
Posted by: Oyster at September 06, 2005 03:40 PM (fl6E1)
7
You all miss the point - the coverage overall is actually miniscule. The journalists are frightened by the insurgents and Islamic fanatics. This is why they stay in Bagdad and farm out their work to locals (who need the work and money) and underlings (who want a career). They are not afraid of us. We are the Safe target - if they piss off the others they run the risk of having bullseyes on their backs. I say (soldiers in the field) embrace them (journalists), salute them, give them souveniors likes Captain's bars to pin on their hats, point them out and applaud them. I'm a nice guy.
Posted by: hondo at September 06, 2005 03:57 PM (4Gtyc)
8
It's miniscule because they're getting most of their information second hand and from some with "less than desirable" motives.
Posted by: Oyster at September 07, 2005 05:34 AM (YudAC)
9
We dont kill journalsist no matter how rotten and left-wing they are we just call them liars
Posted by: sandpiper at September 07, 2005 01:59 PM (g1M1/)
10
OK sandpiper - your right. I realize what I was implying simply sets them up for someone else to kill - and that is still wrong. Sorry.
Posted by: hondo at September 07, 2005 03:37 PM (4Gtyc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
