Cowboy troops & Dead Journalists

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

<Angry>

Guest
So the toll rises.

Al Jazeera office destroyed by US Missile one journalist dead but this is not the first attack on them by US forces. Al jazeera suffered a similar fate when a bureau was destroyed in Kabul.
Both times the Pentagon said it as a mistake.

Reuters were also hit in a hotel known to contain foreign jornalists, we know none of the locals can afford to stay there. After watching the BBC footage you can hear no gunfire eminating from the building but the intention from the tank is plain to see. The results speak volumes.

http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/article.asp?cu_no=1&item_no=2162&version=1&template_id=277&parent_id=258

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2928153.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/08/sprj.irq.hotel/index.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/article.asp?cu_no=1&item_no=2147&version=1&template_id=263&parent_id=258

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s827705.htm

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=B0FNBA0IZ5ICACRBAEZSFEY?type=focusIraqNews&storyID=2531462

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83503,00.html

War zones are dangerous but this attack has left me felling really pissed with the US military.
Or maybe the Pentagon does not want any independant covreage in Bahdad?

More and more the scene with Jack Nicholson in Easy rider where the guys are talking about freedm in the diner is coming to mind. More and more I see those red necks in US military uniforms.

You can have as much media freedom as you want, as long as it toes the offical line from the White House.
:mad:
 
D

<dumb ass>

Guest
funny thing .... many of the tank commanders i have seen have been black.
black, red neck does it matter?
i will put you in a tank or on the ground and see what kind of decisions you make....
if i'm a grunt, i would light up a hotel full of journalists any day if it meant one sniper get killed before my buddies do .....
remember its called "war" for a reason
if you cover it you may not come home

many in our business look through that little black and white view finder too long and feel they are not part of what they cover
but we all know that is not true

i'm sorry some good people got killed today
but dumb asses in tanks and dumb asses who work in tv are a reality
 

KahunaPhotog

Well-known member
You know, my heart goes out to all the journalist families that have loved ones killed. But, the idea of media being in the way isn't that unknown. It happens in every WAR. Al-Jazeer(SP?) and other independant media folks are getting killed because they are "independant." Most of the American media people know not to get in the way or they know not where to be when the shooting or bombing starts. Thats the whole point of media military escorts. And you have to admit, how smart is it to stand next to an anti-aircraft gun while there are planes going overhead. Thats how one Al-Jazeer photographer and reporter got fatally wounded. But it all comes down to one simple fact, "All journalist know the risk while reporting during a WAR."
 
F

<flash>

Guest
ever see a gun flash in the distance?
could the back and fourth panning of the cameras
in the hotel have made flashing reflections that could have been mistaken for gunfire?
tripods .... guys with gear on balconies in a war zone? do you think the poor sap in the tank got the memo about which hotel you can't shoot at?
 
S

<stayin alive>

Guest
Originally posted by <Angry>:
So the toll rises.
Just think of it as Darwinian natural selection. They should have moved quicker. They should have been smarter. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. You pay your money and you take your chances. There is no safe war. You want a guarantee of not being hurt or killed? Don't go to a war zone. I stayed home for a reason.
 

Terry E. Toller

Well-known member
CNN showed that room the other night. They showed how they had cameras on tripods out on the landing. they said that the journalists would gather in the other room where it was safe. Could it be that an Iraqi creeped into the room the thought the US would not fire on to pop off a few rounds?

Anyway, it's a war. People die.
 

Sycophant

Well-known member
I strongly doubt that there was anyone shooting from the hotel Palestine. However the tank was quite likely taking fire, and I am sure it's not easy to identify the source of fire from the controls of an Abrams. If you look at a building and see glints off lenses in your direction, it's understandable that you might make that mistake.

I am more interested in the bombing of the Al Jazera building - they had provided the Pentagon with exact GPS coordinates so that 'accidents' wouldn't happen again as they did in Afghanistan. However, as the US forces have deliberately targetted Iraqi Television (something forbidden by the Geneva Convention) because they claim the Iraqi authorities were using facilities of the TV station to communicate with their forces - I wonder if a similar assessment was made about Al Jezera?

I keep suspecting we are going to see a correspondant be killed while doing a live cross - I wonder what that will do for the networks and viewing audience?
 
?

<????>

Guest
The US did NOT attack the journalist. Those guys put themselves in danger by choosing to be there-even if it was a hotel where journalist are based. I certainly do not want to see any of my colleagues injured or worse killed out there, but come on it is a frikkin war zone and that is the risk you take when you cover a WAR. ESPECIALLY URBAN WARFARE!!!

As far as the Al Jazeer issue, if someone could provide the text in the Geneva convention that states communications cannot be eliminated during war, I would appreciate it.

Al Jazeer puts its people with the enemy.
Ummmmm..... the enemy is the target of the coalition..... why on earth would they think they are bulletproof? No the journalist is not the target, but hey, once again, they are choosing to put themselves in a VERY dangerous situation and that is the risk...hang out with the enemy and you may be taken out too.
 

Sycophant

Well-known member
The point with respect to the Geneva Convention is that a television station is a civilian entitiy. It is against the Geneva Convention to delibrately target civilan entities.

The US justification was that the Iraqi TV station was also used by the military as communications tool. A similar claim would be very hard to level against Al Jazera.

Here is an article about the issue after the Iraqi TV station was attacked: The Guardian
 
S

<steede>

Guest
While I'm totally against this war, when the media treats something as horrific as what's happening in Iraq as football game coverage, casualties are inevitable. My condolences go out to the families and friends of the victims.

-steede
 
1

<19K20>

Guest
Originally posted by Sycophant:
[QB]The point with respect to the Geneva Convention is that a television station is a civilian entitiy. It is against the Geneva Convention to delibrately target civilan entities.
I think the case can be made that Iraqi television wasn't civilian at all. AFAIK, it was run by the government, not some independent civilian entity.
 
D

<dumb ass>

Guest
"when the media treats something as horrific as what's happening in Iraq as football game coverage"

so right .....
i'm glad i'm not the only one who was bothered by the orignial post
 
M

<M2>

Guest
This whole topic is testing my patience.
Have yu ever driven an Abram's ? NO
have you ever been in a war as soldier, probrably not.
This division had been attacked by Republican Guard dreesed as civilians, they learned there lesson. I am almost positive that there was a threat from the hotel.
The Republican Guard want's nothing more to bring more casualties to civilians to bring bad press about the coalition.
I don't beleive journalsit should be there!!! and I totally agree about the coverage being like a football game...disgusting. People are dieing both sides and here we sit cracking open a beer watching it on TV.
as far as the journalist there they just want to make a name for themselve and further their career at what ever cost! :D
 
R

<reality of war coverage>

Guest
Originally posted by <????>:
Al Jazeer puts its people with the enemy.
Ummmmm..... the enemy is the target of the coalition..... why on earth would they think they are bulletproof? No the journalist is not the target, but hey, once again, they are choosing to put themselves in a VERY dangerous situation and that is the risk...hang out with the enemy and you may be taken out too.
Most of the US networks had people there as well. Not just Al Jazeera.

We'll never know the full truth. No matter what it is. Covering a war has it's risks. All it takes is one guy with a rifle from one window and the army will blast the whole complex. It's overkill but that's how they operate. The same as dropping all those bombs to kill Saddam at the restaurant without a care about all the innocent civilians who were there as well.

I don't say it's right. I only say that is the reality of war. It's real sad when a journo gets killed. Still they knew the risks and it was bound to happen.

Even when they were pulling the statue of Saddam down on live tv, someone was shooting at them. This war is far from over no matter how many want to believe a statue being pulled over means something.

The journalists killed will be replaced. Just like troops KIA. It's a fact of life in any war at any time. Thinking it won't happen to you in the same situation is what keeps those positions filled.
 
S

<steede>

Guest
It's all about ratings....

I usually watch BBC 'cause there's no American corporate or political influence. They don't sugarcoat things like American tv news. BBC shows the good, the bad, the pretty, and the ugly when it comes to this war. I think some people's opinions on the war would change if they saw some of the pictures being aired on BBC.

America should also congratulate itself on a well played propaganda war, with the conservative, pro-war media playing an exquisite role. I think that in the race to have the best stories, pictures, and access that the U.S. media isn't presenting a true unbiased look at the war, which is a great disservice. Journalists are supposed to keep a professional distance from the stories, but in the great race to get the story journalists are breaking that rule. It's all about ratings...if say for instance CNN angered Bu$h and the troops with a not so complimentary story their access would be limited. This would give the others an advantage in coverage, and CNN would lose viewers. Even in times of war it's all about $$$$, which is what this war is really about anyway.

-steede
 

ELVEE

Member
All these good journalist died in the war and Geraldo is still alive. Why can't someone mistake him for an Iraqi and drop a bomb on him?
 
S

<sooner>

Guest
As far as I'm concerned, I don't think there should be a single journalist anywhere near the damn war front. People don't need to know what war is like. It's unfortunate that soldiers have to find out the hard way, but the general public has no use for this kind of up close and personal while safe on your couch war experience. I fear it will only make viewers think they know what it is like, and that takes away from the respect do the soldiers that actually do know. As a son of a Vietnam vet, I have some personal feelings about media covering war, I don't like it. No matter what, we can NOT convey what it is all about and what the soldiers are going through. To try is to disrespect them. Sorry for the rant.
 
S

<steede>

Guest
Well said Sooner. I agree 100%. Regardless of where you stand on the war and all the rhetoric surrounding it, the media coverage is making a mockery of a very serious situation.

-steede
 
B

<BlindSpot>

Guest
are you forgetting that everything done there is done in your name - good AND bad??!! how dare you say that the public doesn't need to know! the public not knowing what was being done over the past several years resulted in 09-11. where do you think HE got the gas and weapons in the first place??
it's a dangerous job, given. but we're all better FOR knowing. :mad:
 
S

<steede>

Guest
My biggest gripe as stated earlier is that the coverage seems very sugarcoated and doesn't present both sides. Our (American) journalists are too close to the frontlines, thus comprimising objective reporting. Even though I'm against this war I obviously want to know what's going on and I don't think we're getting that right now.

-steede
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top