Arab war reporting

[Thinker]

report this

[catbirdseat]

Jim said:

Seems like the incident was an unfortunate mistake by the tank crew. But one that could have been avoided. But fog of war and all that....

 

The military has switched their story several times on this. First they were fired upon from the lobby of the hotel - a physical impossibility. Then they said they were fired upon from the roof - none of the journalists watching the battle from their rooms heard any shots. Then the military said there were people with binoculars at the hotel - well duh, about 100 of them.

 

The military report is of course classified. The unit commander was overheard shouting "Who hit the Palestine?". Since tank crews have the flexibility to act relatively independently it was likely a mistake by the crew, not intentional. But it's was (and is) a dangerous place.

 

Certainly the military's usual lack of candor doesn't help.

The military should have said, "Sorry, but we made a mistake. Shit happens in war." The military never admits to mistakes unless you have uncrontrovertible evidence they can't deny.

[scott_harpell]

j_b said:

are you for real?

 

31 journalists killed since jan 1, 2003

 

They are there to make money off the deaths of our servicemen; so yes. I am for real. They are not being forced to go there. No-one is making them. They took the risks. I feel bad, but people start to be accountable for their decisions and their actions.

[Cpt.Caveman]

The military should have said, "Sorry, but we made a mistake. Shit happens in war." The military never admits to mistakes unless you have uncrontrovertible evidence they can't deny.

 

I believe the evidence is lacking.. ..

[j_b]

scott_harpell said:

They are there to make money off the deaths of our servicemen; so yes. I am for real. They are not being forced to go there. No-one is making them. They took the risks. I feel bad, but people start to be accountable for their decisions and their actions.

 

what a bunch of horseshit. they are taking responsabilities, they keep going there despite the risks. it does not mean they have to say thank you when they get shot at and killed. mistakes are not ok and should not be shoved under the rug because 'shit happens'. the evolution of the situation there depends on it.

 

i, for one, am grateful for reporters working there. if it wasn't for them we'd hear that everything is ok, which is obviously very far from the truth.

[scott_harpell]

j_b said:

scott_harpell said:

They are there to make money off the deaths of our servicemen; so yes. I am for real. They are not being forced to go there. No-one is making them. They took the risks. I feel bad, but people start to be accountable for their decisions and their actions.

 

what a bunch of horseshit. they are taking responsabilities, they keep going there despite the risks. it does not mean they have to say thank you when they get shot at and killed. mistakes are not ok and should not be shoved under the rug because 'shit happens'. the evolution of the situation there depends on it.

 

i, for one, am grateful for reporters working there. if it wasn't for them we'd hear that everything is ok, which is obviously very far from the truth.

 

its war! what do you want? you are dillousonal. first as to the nature of war and second to the nature of journalism. they are only there to make a buck. fuck your liberal ass idealogy. $ dude $. that is why. they were greedy and they paid the price. some did not. that is the risk. as sisu would say. fuck with the bull your gonna get the horns. or dont play with fire unless you are ready to get burnt. it sucks they died. but they knew the potential consequences of their actions.

[scrambler]

sisu_suomi said:

scrambler said:

Cpt, go fuck yourself, shithead. You're low level of reactionary thinking shows you to be the cretin you are.

I'll tell ya what you fucking dick head. If you had one gram the guts, determination, personal integrity and intelligence that the Cap. Caveman has you might be a measure of a man. But I can see that you are nothing but a whining looser that belongs in the swirling decomposing shit pile of society where you apparently crawled out of. Go back there and do everyone a favor…buy some donut holes and ...

 

I read Sisu’s post and I started to write a reply in the same vein. But then I realized that everything would degenerate to reactionary posting. “Fuck you, man.” “No, fuck you, dickwad.” “Who you calling dickwad, you asshat wearing imbecile.” I was just reminded of that Old Testament saying, basically we would all be walking around eyeless if we applied the eye for an eye attitude.

 

I think the hardest thing for a guy to admit is that he’s guilty of what he accuses the next guy of, but I’m not apologizing. I’m the typical stubborn SOB who’s conversationally confrontational. For what it’s worth, the Cpt has good points in his later posts although his original post still sounds reactionary and appears designed to automatically stifle the opposing view. The wording is not that good but the intent sure comes across that way. The ‘if you disagree with me, you’re a fool’ tactic, kind of like that statement, “Have you quit beating your wife?”

 

I guess I also read that the Cpt thinks he’s uniquely qualified to speak of what goes on in Iraq, i.e., “I was there even though I’m not there now.” I disagree with that. It’s called thinking outside the box. Well, I have shit I have to complete today so I’m not gonna spend time here. There's a lot of things I don't understand about the world but I try.

 

Have a good one, Sisu. Here's to ya Cpt

 

is good for the soul.

[Cpt.Caveman]

I guess I also read that the Cpt thinks he’s uniquely qualified to speak of what goes on in Iraq, i.e., “I was there even though I’m not there now.” I disagree with that. It’s called thinking outside the box. Well, I have shit I have to complete today so I’m not gonna spend time here. There's a lot of things I don't understand about the world but I try.

 

I never said or implied I was uniquely qualified to speak. There are others out there on the board that read this I know personally but feel not interested to comment. But based on your responses I can only assume you have never been in combat and rely on the media to merge information and form an opinion as does most of the world. It is that possible opinion based on not much real knowledge first hand of combat that I am questioning. First of all you dont know as well as I what happened on the battlefield that day. I get a cynical kick out of media reporters when they think they know about combat too. All they see is the works in action and are most often not privy to information as the troops are including radio communications and combat situational reports and update when the shit hits the fan.

 

There could have been combatants in the hotel but maybe we will never know.

 

There could have been errors and there could have been whatever.

 

If you dont like my approach well you dont have to. I make no comment on war without passion as I understand what can and does happen including rank structures, fear, reactions, enemy tactics, technology and the instinct to withdraw information. Nobody has to agree with me. But I would guess some of my points are a lot more militarily educated than what you have presented.

 

The whole outside the box example is just as easily spinned back to you.

 

[Dru]

So back to the original point, is it any worse for Al-jazeera to do a ride along with some Iraqi insurgents, or Hamas in Palestine, or whatever, than it is for CNN to ride in a tank on the way into Baghdad? If you think it is please try and justify it. No Catturd type "Well CNN is OUR GUYS so it's ok" please.

[Cpt.Caveman]

I think it's lawful.

 

These media folks that might engage in that activity will possibly be subject to interrogation etc though if they are suspected of collaborating against our troops with the enemy.

[nonanon]

Apparently freedom of the press is "messy" too…

 

 

 

[stinkyclimber]

scott_harpell said:

They are there to make money off the deaths of our servicemen; so yes. I am for real. They are not being forced to go there. No-one is making them. They took the risks. I feel bad, but people start to be accountable for their decisions and their actions.

Aren't US servicemen there voluntarily as well? No one forced them to join - they are not conscripts. It seems to me that both groups - servicemen and reporters - are there to serve the public interest.

 

Many reporters feel that reporting the news is a critical contribution to democracy: to speak truth to power, to inform the public, etc. Likewise, obviously servicemen are making a critical contribution to democracy: to guard the physical safety of citizens and the homeland.

 

Some may feel that reporters are, in the case of Iraq, making a lousy contribution to democracy by being biased/critical/money-grubbing/whatever you want to call it. Likewise, other people say that the US armed forces are making a lousy contribution to democracy by being unilateral/oil-grubbing/operating outside of UN sanction/whatever you want to call it. Each side has their opinions, but it doesn't change the motivation of many/most reporters and servicemen in Iraq: to serve the public interest. They are all there voluntarily, they are all getting paid, and they all feel they are making a contribution.

 

I mourn the deaths of all involved in this conflict: servicemen, reporters, and that oft-forgotten group...innocent civilians who did not choose to be born in Iraq, and even the Iraqi Army conscripts who did not choose to be in the army.

[scott_harpell]

Aren't US servicemen there voluntarily as well? No one forced them to join - they are not conscripts.

 

you think they have a choice after they signed up? the journalists can tell their bosses to fuck off... wouldn't be pretty if one of the enlisted men did that.

[stinkyclimber]

Cpt.Caveman said:

I think it's lawful.

 

These media folks that might engage in that activity will possibly be subject to interrogation etc though if they are suspected of collaborating against our troops with the enemy.

It is lawful for reporters to "embed" with US army units because the US government is making the laws in Iraq. It is not clearly so clear cut that the military action in Iraq - the invasion and occupation of a soveriegn country without UN approval - is lawful.

 

Obviously, or hopefully, the US administration believes their actions are lawful under the UN Charter.

 

However, since it is not clear cut and definately up for debate by a great majority of UN members, it is not or should not be surprising that other countries do not see it as a lawful war, and therefore would not object to the "embedding" of Al-Jazerra journalists in resistence units in Iraq. US and British reporters regularly reported on the actions of the French Resistance in WWII. I am NOT equating the US-led invasion of Iraq with Hitler's occupation of Europe, but merely drawing a parallel between embedding reporters in the French Resistance (an illegal organization in occupied France) and doing the same in the Iraqi resistance (also illegal in occupied Iraq).

 

Flame away...

[scott_harpell]

Some may feel that reporters are, in the case of Iraq, making a lousy contribution to democracy by being biased/critical/money-grubbing/whatever you want to call it. Likewise, other people say that the US armed forces are making a lousy contribution to democracy by being unilateral/oil-grubbing/operating outside of UN sanction/whatever you want to call it. Each side has their opinions, but it doesn't change the motivation of many/most reporters and servicemen in Iraq: to serve the public interest.

 

dont confuse the policies of the government with the political perspectives of the servicemen. 'their's is not to question why. theirs is but to do and die.' service men do not make the policy and that is th precise reason your idealist journalists are there. either that or make money. if they feel it is a worthy cause or if they feel that the money is right. it is their asses.

[stinkyclimber]

scott_harpell said:

Aren't US servicemen there voluntarily as well? No one forced them to join - they are not conscripts.

you think they have a choice after they signed up? the journalists can tell their bosses to fuck off... wouldn't be pretty if one of the enlisted men did that.

Sure, that is technically true (but: they were not forced to enlist, and knew it was possible they would be called to fight), but I think it is missing the point: that both servicemen and reporters are there serving voluntarily the public interest. Sure, they may not be all on the same page all the time when it comes to their opinion of the justness of the war, but isn't that the supposed great strength of the US political system, and of democracy in general?...free speech, and empowering opposing views as a system of checks and balances to guard against totalitarian authority?

[stinkyclimber]

scott_harpell said:

dont confuse the policies of the government with the political perspectives of the servicemen. 'their's is not to question why. theirs is but to do and die.' service men do not make the policy and that is th precise reason your idealist journalists are there. either that or make money. if they feel it is a worthy cause or if they feel that the money is right. it is their asses.

Well, "making policy" is YOUR opinion on why reporters are there. Not necessarily true of all reporters, or even most of them. Most would probably laugh at that statement - you ever see how most of them live and their salaries?

 

I wouldn't disagree if you you included in your statement instead "media owners want to make policy and that is why they are there", but that is a different argument, and no media baron has died, or will die, in Iraq. Just like how none of the senior US forces commanders (like the President, and the senior civvies in the DoD), who also make policy, will ever die in Iraq. The only ones dying in Iraq are powerless (when it comes to policy-making, I mean) servicemen and reporters (and I am not talking about network anchors...they don't die either...I am talking about the AP stringer, or the photog with AP-France).

 

Good discussion with no personal attacks!! What will cc.com think of next? [Enter at stage left the enraged sprayer]

[scott_harpell]

that both servicemen and reporters are there serving voluntarily the public interest.

 

bullshit. $, politics and prestige.

[scott_harpell]

stinkyclimber said:

scott_harpell said:

dont confuse the policies of the government with the political perspectives of the servicemen. 'their's is not to question why. theirs is but to do and die.' service men do not make the policy and that is th precise reason your idealist journalists are there. either that or make money. if they feel it is a worthy cause or if they feel that the money is right. it is their asses.

Well, "making policy" is YOUR opinion on why reporters are there. Not necessarily true of all reporters, or even most of them. Most would probably laugh at that statement - you ever see how most of them live and their salaries? I wouldn't disagree if you you included in your statement instead "media owners want to make policy and that is why they are there", but that is a different argument, and no media baron has died, or will die, in Iraq. Just like how none of the senior US forces commanders (like the President, and the civvies in the Dod), who also make policy, will ever die in Iraq. The only ones dying in Iraq are powerless (when it comes to policy-making, I mean) servicemen and reporters (and I am not talking about network anchors...they don't die either...I am talking about the AP stringer, or the photog with AP-France).

 

Good discussion with no personal attacks!! What will cc.com think of next? [Enter at stage left the enraged sprayer]

 

you dont ahve a fucking clue about journalism. sure the media owners have a slant, but so too do the journalists. likely they are in opposing positions. nwes is all fucking bunk anyways. if you wanna really look athte media... google the ukranian massacre and a certain new york times 'journalists'... never heard of it? what if you knew that more ukranians were starved to death than jews were killed by hitler. and do you hear about that? journalism is garbage pure and simple.

[Cpt.Caveman]

It is lawful for reporters to "embed" with US army units because the US government is making the laws in Iraq. It is not clearly so clear cut that the military action in Iraq - the invasion and occupation of a soveriegn country without UN approval - is lawful.

 

Not many wars are lawful.

 

The UN Charter is garbage IMHO. Their consistant failure is proving how useless they are in all out genocide and other situations. The whole idea of the UN is nice but it doesnt work in all situatoins of life. This example and several others are good examples.

 

I dont see any reason to outlaw persucute al jazeera reporting in the context you imply as long as they are not aiding combatants.

 

 

[catbirdseat]

Dru said:

So back to the original point, is it any worse for Al-jazeera to do a ride along with some Iraqi insurgents, or Hamas in Palestine, or whatever, than it is for CNN to ride in a tank on the way into Baghdad? If you think it is please try and justify it. No Catturd type "Well CNN is OUR GUYS so it's ok" please.

Any worse? It's the same thing. The point is THEY ARE THE ENEMY!

 

What side are you on Dru? During the active combat ortion of the war Saddam's army would have taken out our embedded CNN reporters the first chance they got (not that they did, but they would have). If Al Jazeer is in league with the enemy, we should take them out. Period.

[stinkyclimber]

Quote: "you dont ahve a fucking clue about journalism"

 

Oh well - scratch what I said about "no personal attacks" It was good while it lasted.

 

Yes, I have heard about the Ukranian example....from 1919...and involved ONE reporter!! How this relates to the hundreds of reporters, all presumably with different motivations for reporting, currently reporting in Iraq in 2003 is beyond me. I never said that ALL reporters share one motivation or other. Sure, some "want to change policy", but surely not all?! [Note to US reporters who want to change policy: you must be doing a lousy fucking job, because you aren't changing shit!] Not the ones I read in my daily paper or listen to on the radio (I don't own a TV).

 

Anyway, as i said earlier, not everyone in the world, or the US, is going to support the contributions of a free media to democratic society. Clearly you do not. However, I don't think your view is shared by everyone (but I could be wrong after seeing the junk of US TV). If it is not shared by everyone, and if not all reporters think alike, and if there is room for free speech in the US Constitution and indeed all democracies, then doesn't it at least allow a smidgen of room for reporters to report the war in Iraq FROM BOTH SIDES?

 

Obviously rhetorical, as I assume you will answer NO!

[Cpt.Caveman]

Sure, that is technically true (but: they were not forced to enlist, and knew it was possible they would be called to fight), but I think it is missing the point: that both servicemen and reporters are there serving voluntarily the public interest.

 

There are many reasons for joining the military in the US. Many serve their own personal interest upon joining whether it be to escape poverty and help family, gain college tuition assistance, adventure, travel, and many other things along those lines. Of couse anyone enlisting is subject to combat and death as in any army. Let's not generalize too much since some of your argument is nearly implying suggesting or doing so without more detail.

 

If there were not so many volunteers then there would be a conscript service.

 

I feel a lot less sympathy for willing reporters than I do for in harms way soldiers for various reasons.

 

The heros are not the reporters. The heros are the privates and sergeants doing what they must in dire situatoins trying to survive and come home to their families whether or not the war is just in anyone's opinion. Yes a solder get's paid but often his life hangs with the odds of luck and personal fortitude. Survival.

 

I don't really care if we bailed out of Iraq tomorrow but I know and respect the honor and professionalism of most troops there. There will always be exceptions and war crimes. THere always has. Some are identified while others are not. Some accidents are identified as crimes and some are not...

 

 

[lummox]

sean penn = 'fair and balanced'

[stinkyclimber]

Cpt.Caveman said:

I dont see any reason to outlaw persucute al jazeera reporting in the context you imply as long as they are not aiding combatants.

I agree with you there. But I don't think anyone, even Rummy, has said that they were aiding combatants...only that they were tipped on where to show up to get footage of resistance/guerrila action.

 

You are right too that few wars are lawful (except for Afganistan, the Baltics stuff, etc.). That is what the UN is trying to change: to stop unilateralism, and the power of might to make right, to use power over the weak.... Idealistic, undoubtedly...but the US was and still is a signatory.