If you want to control opinion...

P51mus · **Posted:** Tue Apr 08, 2003 9:24 pm

....you control reporting.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=5975

Quote:

Reporters Without Borders accuses US military of deliberately firing at journalists

Reporters Without Borders called today on US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld to provide evidence that the offices of the pan-Arab TV station Al-Jazeera and the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad were not deliberately fired at by US forces earlier in the day in attacks that killed three journalists.

"We are appalled at what happened because it was known that both places contained journalists," said the organisation's secretary-general Robert Ménard. "Film shot by the French TV station France 3 and descriptions by journalists show the neighbourhood was very quiet at that hour and that the US tank crew took their time, waiting for a couple of minutes and adjusting its gun before opening fire."

"This evidence does not match the US version of an attack in self-defence and we can only conclude that the US Army deliberately and without warning targeted journalists. US forces must prove that the incident was not a deliberate attack to dissuade or prevent journalists from continuing to report on what is happening in Baghdad," he said.

"We are concerned at the US army's increasingly hostile attitude towards journalists, especially those non-embedded in its military units. Army officials have also remained deplorably silent and refused to give any details about what happened when a British ITN TV crew was fired on near Basra on 22 March, killing one journalist and leaving two others missing.

"Very many non-embedded journalists have complained about being refused entry to Iraq from Kuwait, threatened with withdrawal of accreditation and being held and interrogated for several hours. One group of non-embedded journalists was held in secret for two days and roughed up by US military police," Ménard said.

Ukrainian cameraman Taras Protsyuk (35), normally attached to Reuters office in Warsaw, and José Couso, a Spanish cameraman for the Spanish TV station Telecinco, were killed in today's attack on the Palestine Hotel. Three other journalists were wounded when their rooms were hit by a shell fired by the US tank.

Gen. Buford Blount, commander of the US Third Infantry Division, admitted that the tank had fired a shell at the hotel. He claimed it was in response to rocket fire and other shooting from the hotel.

Al-Jazeera cameraman Tarek Ayoub was also killed today in US bombing of the pan-Arab TV station's offices elsewhere in the city.

ollie · **Posted:** Tue Apr 08, 2003 9:46 pm

look at that (linked) site, every article blames this counrty or that country for something, whiners, everyone is getting shot in this war because, well, it's a war, journalists are being shot just like civilians, just like friendly forces, by both sides, that's what happens

"Coalition accused of showing "contempt" for journalists covering war in Iraq" "Iraqi authorities accused of contempt for foreign journalists" etc

and anyway, the least people messing around in a warzone the better, there are too many journalists there as it is, official control isn't something they should be trying to avoid at this point, that's how people walk into the wrong areas and get fired on

P51mus · **Posted:** Tue Apr 08, 2003 9:54 pm

The group is called "Reporters without borders"
The whole point of them existing is to complaing about mistreatment of journalists, so of course that's what you'll see on the site.

http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=280

Quote:

More than a third of the world's people live in countries where there is no press freedom. Reporters Without Borders works constantly to restore their right to be informed. Thirty-one media professionals lost their lives in 2001 for doing what they were paid to do -- keeping us informed. Today, more than 120 journalists around the world are in prison simply for doing their job. In Nepal, Eritrea and China, they can spend years in jail just for using the "wrong" word or photo. Reporters Without Borders believes imprisoning or killing a journalist is like eliminating a key witness and threatens everyone's right to be informed. It has been fighting such practices for more than 17 years.

And, if you read the article, the whole point is that the American tank deliberately aimed at the hotel while there was no firing or fighting of any sort in the area, and definitely not anything being fired from the building it aimed at.
This was said in the second paragraph of the article:

Quote:

"Film shot by the French TV station France 3 and descriptions by journalists show the neighbourhood was very quiet at that hour and that the US tank crew took their time, waiting for a couple of minutes and adjusting its gun before opening fire."

In the article they state the building was aimed at for minutes by the tank, thus not something done as a gut reaction, but a planned action.

You're dodging the question and attempting to blame the victim, try again.

ollie · **Posted:** Tue Apr 08, 2003 10:16 pm

with all the attention to detail the US have been making in this war, why suddenly target the journalists now? why try and stop them at this laste stage, they could have done it at the startif they'd have wanted to far more effectivly than hamfistedly trying to 'silence' them now

I'm not going to defend an policy that makes no sence, and i really doubt they're doing it, if they did it would hardly be as amature as this would it?

as i said, it's war, there are casulties, and withthe media watching they're hardly likely to pull something as stupid as this

(i saw the footage, check one of the unrelated threads where i mentioned it yesterday)

P51mus · **Posted:** Tue Apr 08, 2003 11:32 pm

It could just be an idiot soldier, but still...

Oooh...the actual footage. I'll have to look that up.

The Man In Black · **Posted:** Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:44 am

P51mus wrote:

It could just be an idiot soldier, but still...

I think Ollie's point was that the site is hardly a reliable place to get info on what happens to journalists in such cases, its sort of rabidly pro-press and it would probably spin stuff to make it look good for the press, look bad for whoever did the firing.

Again Ollie points out that random firing (sorry, 1 firing) into a place where journalists are staying (which the soldiers might or might not have known) is hardly a way to 'control' (as you so intelligently put it) reporting. Nor does it mention (and your title so clearly implies) exactly what unknown atrocities the evil evil US soldiers, who want only to pillage and rape, were found out by this brave and intelligent French news team.

Furthermore, the 'official' story out of the DoD is that sniper fire was heard from somewhere and they thought it was that building, really what do you think is more likely the US knew the specific room this team was staying in, fired into it specifically, or that it heard sniper fire from somewhere and fired in?

Really I think the more likely scenario was that someone just fucked up, and fired into the wrong building. Odd, how the two scenarios P51 has either has the DoD havign some conspiracy to control the press or some trigger-happy soldier seeing the French and shooting them on purpose.

A case of some idiot who hates the USA jumping to conclusions? Well, I'm not gonna say anything, but...oh wait, YES.

-MiB

Bealz · **Posted:** Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:49 am

Al Jezera is rabidly anti-american, is it so hard to believe that they were trying to provoke an attack just to make the U.S. look bad?

MrWarMage · **Posted:** Wed Apr 09, 2003 9:34 am

Bealz wrote:

Al Jezera is rabidly anti-american, is it so hard to believe that they were trying to provoke an attack just to make the U.S. look bad?

Nope, not unless you also believe that the best reporting is done from three feet behind concrete or six feet under the desert with your toes in the air.

In my experience, news reporters care about one thing: Headlines. That's what makes or breaks their names (Geraldo an Peter are negative examples here). Any reporter that honestly gives a rat's ass about the integrity of their stories is probably working the documentary angle for Discovery Channel or some such, and in that - they stay THE HELL AWAY from the FIGHTING. Have you *seen* how big a telephoto lens can be these days??

It's only the corporate spin-faces that sit on the tank and babble on over their lovely satellite videophones. As far as I'm concerned, if an individual - ANY individual - is going to be near a battlefield or an urban crossfire, it's their own damn fault and responsibility. Were there snipers in the Palestine Hotel? YOU BET!!! Why? So the anti-coalition people could scream foul when they labeled a poor journalist. Just look at Al-Sahhaf.(why the hell has he been bagged and tagged yet? that's just wierd)

I'm sorry they got killed doing a job that supposedly doesn't involve bullets. But I'll guaran-damn-tee you at least one man on every news team is packing a pistol for their own peace of mind. I sure as hell would.

I have no sympathy for the same organizations that blasted a sun-lamp into the face of a special forces unit as they made beach-head on Grenada 15 (is it 20 now?) years ago. The same people that reported U.S. troop movements in Panama, and the same people that drew FREAKING MAPS IN THE SAND.

Gimme a break already!

-----------------
-MrWarMage doesn't like death, but realizes the inevitability.

Ryven · **Posted:** Sun Apr 13, 2003 8:39 pm

Yeah, I'll have to agree. Journalists who put themselves in the line of fire and do stupid things, JUST to get a headlines deserve whatever's coming to them. When they follow a unit in the battlefield, they're accepting the same risks as everyone else. They don't get special privilages just because they're holding a microphone, and not a rifle.

Kylaer · **Joined:** Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:00 pm **Posts:** 903

If the military wanted the journalists killed, they would have bombed the building. Moreover, if that tank crew wanted the journalists killed, they wouldn't have stopped after one shell. The idea that the journalists were deliberately targetted is ludicrous.

"People who put themselves in danger, put themselves in danger." The journalists were warned. They stayed anyway.

Lucis Spei · **Posted:** Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:58 am

Y'know what I'd be interested in seeing? Statistics on the number of other random buildings that were shot up in Baghdad. That might shed some light on this.

At any rate, even if it was an accident, doesn't that imply a dangerous lack of organization and coherence in the military? I think it does, and if it seems to you that I enjoy criticizing the military, it's because I do. Soldiers, sailors, marines and pilots have to be perfect, fucking perfect. Once you enlist you forgo the right to make mistakes in your official position.

I also find it interesting that in many of that pages articles the "Secretary General" of that organization, "Menard," makes most of the quotes and the organization itself gives most of the opinions.

The Man In Black · **Posted:** Tue Apr 15, 2003 8:25 am

Quote:

At any rate, even if it was an accident, doesn't that imply a dangerous lack of organization and coherence in the military? I think it does, and if it seems to you that I enjoy criticizing the military, it's because I do. Soldiers, sailors, marines and pilots have to be perfect, fucking perfect. Once you enlist you forgo the right to make mistakes in your official position

No.

That may be your opinion but nobody else realistically expects military people to be perfect. By definition its a human impossibility. Expecting mistakes not to be made in an organization controlled and manned by humans is stupid in the extreme. The number of such incidents can be critisized in some cases (not this one) but saying that you expect any organization to be perfect sets you up for a disappointment.

I'm half convinced you posted that idiotic bullshit merely to get attention. I have trouble convincing myself that anybody with some squishy, greyish matter in their skull would actually they they expect absolute perfection out of anything.

And, to answer your first question, the only thing it implies is that not all information can be perfectly confirmed, 100% checked out etc, especially stuff done by us humans, so there will be mistakes made on the battlefield. I know its an unbelievable concept, but not all information is always 100% correct. And often people in the military have to act on this imperfect information. I'd give an example but if that wasn't painfully obvious the first time that dumbass idea entered your head, I'm afraid analogies are above your intellectual scope.

And no, before you do the typical "wahh, he's just trying to make himself feel smarter" BS, I am not. I insult you because that is what you fucking deserve for such an idiotic point.

-MiB

OmnipotentEntity · **Posted:** Tue Apr 15, 2003 9:22 am

With the US constantly acting like a internation policing force, perfection is very important, and it is expected. One bullet can start a war with the way the press can explode something, when a soldier goes out on a policing mission he carries the weight of every man killed in a theoretical war that could occur if he screws in the wrong way.

It's a sad truth, and I'm sure no single person expects prefection. However, the world view is the union of all the people looking for faults, not the intersection.

The Man In Black · **Posted:** Tue Apr 15, 2003 9:34 am

No.

I know it makes for good rhetoric (so good that in fact at first I found nothing wrong with your statements) but your ascertions simply are not true.

Quote:

One bullet can start a war with the way the press can explode something

Tell me how 1 single bullet fire accidentally can turn two countries neutral towards each other into hostile enemies?

It can't. There has to be a lot of other things going on for this to happen, and that, then, is not the fault of the person who accidentally fired the bullet. If your statement was true, where are your examples? Where has simply the press turned two countries which had nothing to do with each other and no want for war going to war by the act of one man?

Answer: none. There has to be a lot of political things going on behind the man who fires for that to trigger a war. Claiming it is the man's fault is as stupid as saying, for example, the first shot fired in the American revolution ("the shot heard round the world") CAUSED the American revolution.

So, the world isn't balanced, potentially, on one man, and never has. Perfection should not be expected, especially on such a risky proposition such as war, where the RULE is that everything is likely to go wrong. We can expect them to win, we can expect them to win without a lot of these accidents and without a lot of casualties, but absolute perfection is a dream. Unless you have some odd, non-perfect definition of perfection, it is quite literally impossible, and has never been expected (since a perfect military operation would have nobody die on either side, or some other absurd conditions.)

-MiB

OmnipotentEntity · **Posted:** Tue Apr 15, 2003 10:16 am

The Shot heard round the world is not the cause of the American Revolution, I agree, however, it was the beginning, if not for that particular shot the revolution would have been delayed right, possibly opening up peacible channels more diplomacy, because the Americans were split terribly going into the revolution and it is possible that there could have been a resolution. (1/3 for 1/3 against 1/3 neutral)

I'm not saying one bullet can turn friendly nations into blood enemies. However, the places where our soldiers are sent for Policing aren't England and Sweden. They are places of unrest, filled with people who have a reason to go at it with someone else (even if it isn't with us). And any oppertunity is seized upon. Even if that oppertunity is a bullet that didn't even come from the opposing side.

I'm not saying that I agree with it, or I think that it is a good thing, I'm just stating that this is the way it is. One man can change the world given the correct circumstances. (You've read the first few chapters of Alas, Babylon?)

Kylaer · **Joined:** Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:00 pm **Posts:** 903

Well, a military sweep of the hotel turned up four Iraqis without proper ID.

The idea of fedayeen being "embedded" with the reporters doesn't sound too impossible to me.

MrWarMage · **Posted:** Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:53 am

Kylaer wrote:

The idea of fedayeen being "embedded" with the reporters doesn't sound too impossible to me.

...Goddamn right! You may have seen the good-guy version in "True Lies" when the cameraman pops three tangoes and emerges victorious.

----------------
-MrWarMage wants to fly a Harrier.

revolutio · **Posted:** Tue Apr 15, 2003 3:25 pm

Bealz wrote:

Al Jezera is rabidly anti-american, is it so hard to believe that they were trying to provoke an attack just to make the U.S. look bad?

Umm right... because they show graphic images of Iraqi casualties?

Well they can't exactly show images of American casualties since both the units with embedded Al-Jazeera reporters have been grounded in Kuwait since the beginning of the war.

ZOMBIE FORUMS

If you want to control opinion...

Who is online