It is a tough job defending the media, when some can’t help themselves and just keep stepping in it:
“Journalists, by the way, are not just being targeted verbally or
by John Cole| 37 Comments
This post is in: Media
It is a tough job defending the media, when some can’t help themselves and just keep stepping in it:
“Journalists, by the way, are not just being targeted verbally or
Comments are closed.
Linda Foley’s Murderous Accusations Echo Loudly
Linda Foley's baseless (still) accusations against the men and women of the American Military are beginning to echo loudly in the Blogosphere. There is a distant thunder rolling ever closer. Ms. Foley, Your assault on the honor of the…
Linda Foley’s Murderous Accusations Echo Loudly
Linda Foley's baseless (still) accusations against the men and women of the American Military are beginning to echo loudly in the Blogosphere. There is a distant thunder rolling ever closer. Ms. Foley, Your assault on the honor of the…
Blog Reactions to Linda Foley’s Comments
The new media is buzzing with reactions to Linda Foley’s comments. Like Eason Jordan, she accuses our miltary of targeting journalists. But unlike Eason Jordan, her remarks were caught on tape. Ms. Foley is noteworthy because she is the presi…
Bloggers Up in Arms Over Linda Foley’s Comments
The new media is buzzing with reactions to Linda Foley’s comments. Like Eason Jordan, she accuses our miltary of targeting journalists. But unlike Eason Jordan, her remarks were caught on tape.
Bloggers Up in Arms Over Linda Foley’s Comments
The new media is buzzing with reactions to Linda Foley’s comments. Like Eason Jordan, she accuses our miltary of targeting journalists. But unlike Eason Jordan, her remarks were caught on tape.
Bloggers Up in Arms Over Linda Foley’s Comments
The new media is buzzing with reactions to Linda Foley’s comments. Like Eason Jordan, she accuses our miltary of targeting journalists. But unlike Eason Jordan, her remarks were caught on tape.
A Linda K Foley Timeline of Events
Note: All dates are linked to a source. This timeline will be updated occasionally as it will be the go-to document for watershed events for this story. Prologue: EASON JORDAN January 27, 2005 Location: Davos, Switzerland – The World Econom…
A Linda K Foley Timeline of Events
*Note: All dates are linked to a source. This timeline will be updated occasionally as it will be the go-to document for watershed events for this story. Prologue: EASON JORDAN January 27, 2005 Location: Davos, Switzerland – The World…
A Linda K Foley Timeline of Events
*Note: All dates are linked to a source. This timeline will be updated occasionally as it will be the go-to document for watershed events regarding this story. Prologue: EASON JORDAN January 27, 2005 Location: Davos, Switzerland – The…
A Linda K. Foley Timeline of Events
*Note: All dates are linked to a source. This timeline will be updated occasionally as it will be the go-to document for watershed events regarding this story. EASON JORDAN January 27, 2005 Location: Davos, Switzerland – The World Econ…
Peg C.
I just finished sending email to Scott at PowerLine thanking him for posting the letter by a serviceman in Iraq (in response to the PepsiCo commencement speech brouhaha). My comments to PowerLine were mainly to praise the eloquence of the words, articulation of thought and reason, and how I find the ability of our servicepeople in general, in writing and on TV/radio, to express themselves in superior form. Particularly in contrast to the inarticulate and illogical nonsense that comes from most of the media people and academics. This nonsense by Linda Foley only confirms my point! One wonders if these people ever hear themselves or read what they said and cringe. They should! Our military is far more educated, better-spoken and better written than our so-called elites. Unbelievable.
Dusty
It’s too bad the Mark Hyman vid clipped out parts and left out the context, which was that there was practically no context at all.
Her session at the Conference was Media Consolidation and her accusation of the targeting of journalists by the military was sandwiched between the targeting of journalists by Republicans and the targeting of journalists by corporate management.
John Cole
What part of the word ‘target’ confuses you, Dusty, and needs appropriate context?
lolajl
Dusty, she specifically made a point to mention Arab countries, Arab news services. I’m sure that is pretty clear enough as to whom she thinks is being targeted.
red
Dusty gives us a nice review of the topics of the conference but fails to address the simple point — that journalists being targeted is a lie. Should this simple statement be challenged, then please have a “targeted journalist” or the employing organization of a “targeted journalist” present some documented proof that this has happened. Otherwise its a myth.
In the old days journalists used to trade in something called facts.
Fred Boness
The old days weren’t any different. See the glowing Duranty reports of the Soviet Union in the thirties. Pulitzer prize winning stuff, too.
Faith+1
Now, now, Ms Foley may be correct. After all, haven’t several terrorists been hired as “stringers” for some of the news services only to be found carrying weapons and shooting at our soldiers?
submandave
Please read Dusty’s entire comment, including “there was practically no context at all.” His point was that besides being unintelligible, the comment was practically a non-sequiteur considering the topic at hand. It was another example of Bush-hatred inspired media tourettes.
If some nut-job tries to defend Ms. Foley’s comments, please have at them. But please be sure to read what the person has to say rather than just assuming you know the content of the post.
Peg C.
I guess one person’s terrorist is another person’s journalist!
John Cole
Yeah- I am an idiot. Apologies, Dusty.
Dusty
You misunderstand, John, lolajl, and red.
I agree that her accusations are unfounded. What I noted was that her accusation came out of left field, with no reason whatsoever, (no context) and that she grouped the accusation with a wide ranging rant about journalists being targeted by Republicans, the Military and Corporate Management. This is why I said it is too bad the Hyman vid is so short. If you want the original video, you need to download it at this direct link:
http://www.cctvcambridge.org/freepress/archive/freepress-mediaconsol0513.zip
Thanks.
Dusty
You misunderstand, John, lolajl, and red.
I agree that her accusations are unfounded. What I noted was that her accusation came out of left field, with no reason whatsoever, (no context) and that she grouped the accusation with a wide ranging rant about journalists being targeted by Republicans, the Military and Corporate Management. This is why I said it is too bad the Hyman vid is so short. If you want the original video, you need to download it at this direct link:
http://www.cctvcambridge.org/freepress/archive/freepress-mediaconsol0513.zip
Thanks.
pdq332
Newspaper Guild? What’s a newspaper?
Dusty
Submandave: Thanks dude.
Others: No prob… it isn’t the first time it’s been noted, directly or by inference, that I am too subtle in my commenting. :-)
Dusty
BTW, for those who bother to dl it, I’ll save you having to sit thru the rest of the commie sounding crap — just go to the 38:18 of the QT vid.
Becker
I know this is BS. My son was a SpOps USMC Team Leader. I can assure you if the military were targeting journalists the news would be filled with pictures of reporters coming home in body bags.
Our guys are way too good at their jobs for this drivel to be credible.
Blogsy McBlog
Well, the US military has been VERY cavalier about journalist deaths caused by military action. When the US blew up the hotel that Al-Jazeera reporters were in, the proper response would be extreme contrition and sorrow. Instead, the military basically claims that it was justified in doing what it did. Our military has “force protection” rules that place incredible burdens on journalists and civillians present in areas where our military goes. So, while it is doubtful that military commanders actively encourage their subordinates to attack reports, they sure don’t act too upset when it happens.
Achillea
Blogsy: Instead, the military basically claims that it was justified in doing what it did. Our military has “force protection” rules that place incredible burdens on journalists and civillians present in areas where our military goes.
Three questions:
1) Was the military justified in doing what it did?
2) What are these ‘force projection’ rules and to whom do they apply?
3) If they apply to journalists, were the journalists in question following them?
D.B.
Didn’t show enough sorrow and contrition? Perhaps the CinC ought to have crawled the miles to the hotel or studio in a hair shirt, followed by 100 lashes. But he isn’t Henry II and he didn’t ask the military to rid him of those bothersome journalists. Of course, if you are truly concerned about this, you could sacrifice and do the penitence for the collective. How about a year of silence.
Dusty
John, I have a fuller transcript of what Foley said backed up a good eal before she started her aside and carried to the end of her remarks, if you are interested.
http://thedustyattic.blogspot.com/2005/05/more-of-linda-foleys-talk.html
poxhouse
Ms. Foley’s Guild website refers to the US tank attacking the Palestine Hotel where journalists were staying. I recall watching CNN when it happened, and I saw a video clip taken from the balcony of the hotel when the tank fired. The cameraman hit the deck and the clip ended. I swore at the time that for a second or so I saw shells being ejected into the air in the lower righthand corner of the screen, as if next to the cameraman someone was lying prone on the balcony firing an automatic rifle. I never saw the clip again. I assume that CNN or whoever bought the footage from some free-lancers in the hotel. A journalist, Jose Couso, was killed by the tank shell, and journalists insist there was nobody firing at the US forces from the hotel. I wonder if the clip I saw could be found in the CNN archives and if it would show what I thought I saw that day?
Kevin Murphy
Why weren’t journalists concerned when NATO bombed Serb Television and killed more than 2 journalists during the Kosovo fracas? It can’t have anything to do with the fact that the French pushed for it and Clinton was president, can it?
And as for the Palestine hotel, I’m sorry if untrained journalists looking through binoculars at American troops while they take incoming artillery fire don’t realize they look like a forward observer, but whose fault is that? War is not a spectator sport, and their is no magic shield for anyone, including journalists.
blogsy mcblog
The US military KNEW that the Palestine hotel was were most non-embedded jouranlists were based. The journalists on the scene have sworn that there was no fire coming from the hotel. Regardless of that, the military intentionally fired on a hotel that it (as an organization) knew was filled with journalists, journalists that refused to allow their reporting to be controlled by said military (unlike the embedded journalists). The US attacked the offices of Abu Dhabi and Al Jazeera knowing fully that journalists were present. A car clearly marked as “Al Jazeera Television” was shot at by US troops on April 7, 2003. Kate Adie, a British war correspondent during the 1991 Gulf War, told Irish radio prior to the war (RTE Radio1, 3/9/03; GuluFuture.com, 3/10/03) that she had received an even more direct threat from the U.S. military: “I was told by a senior officer in the Pentagon, that if uplinks — that is, the television signals out of… Baghdad, for example — were detected by any planes…of the military above Baghdad… they’d be fired down on. Even if they were journalists…. He said: ‘ Well…they know this…. They’ve been warned.’ During the US invasion of Afghanistan, the Al Jazeera office in Kabul was destroyed by US bombs. Reuters complained to the U.S. military that four journalists working for them, and NBC, were abducted by U.S. troops and tortured for three days in January of last year. A US helicopter fired upon an unarmed crowd of children celebrating the destruction of a US military vehicle. The reporter who covered this was dramatically shot by the US as well, with the entire incident cuaght on tape. Thus, while it is probably fantasy to assume that the military “targets” journalists, non-US journalists and unembedded (and therefore uncontrolled) journalists have been the recipients of an enormous amount of military fire. While the military may not be deliberately targeting journalists (I don’t think it is, but I’m not privy to knowledge that it isn’t), it certainly looks that way to the rest of the world. The force protection rules, without being too specific, allow US soldiers to fire in questionable situations if they feel even remotely threatened without receiving authorization from a superior officer. While this enables US soldiers to protect themselves better, this engenders extreme hostility and anger from the local population, who (obviously) bears the brunt of this policy. How would you feel if an occupier chose to place the burden of his presence on you? At any rate, in situations like this, a reasonable reaction would be to show incredible contrition and sorrow over the loss of life of reporters, and maybe even to change to rules to protect un-controlled reporters more. It wouldn’t cost much to do so, and it would go a long way toward showing the world that we are not always heartless, unilateral war mongers. However, the pig-headed Republicans in charge of things refuse to do that, because that would be a sign of weakness to pajama-fighters. In the long run, this will backfire on us. I don’t understand why sensible Republicans (like Mr. Cole) don’t constantly request our military to put foward its best face possible. Mr. Cole does so when he focuses on the torture committed by our troops, but that’s not enough. There are many ways to fight a war of occupation that don’t needlessly antagonize the rest of the world by eliminating all of our funds in the “credibility bank.”
Jeff Medcalf
Blogsy, to address some of your comments:
Institutionally? No doubt about it. The specific guys sitting in that tank, who had been going through unbelievable amounts of fire and death for the past several days, with little sleep and more than a few close calls, taking fire from a tall building across the river, and seeing the glint of spotting scopes or binoculars in that tall building? I don’t think that they knew that they were firing at the Palestine Hotel, much less who might be there. Is it your requirement that US troops, in the midst of being shot at and watching their fellows die, positively beyond any shadow of a doubt identify every target they engage before engaging? How many of our soldiers is it worth to protect one journalist? Because this kind of rule would cost hundreds of lives of our soldiers.
How, pray tell, does one distinguish between a satellite uplink being used for journalism and a satellite uplink being used for controlling Iraqi troops? If you say, by frequency, how do you keep the Iraqis from simply switching to the frequency the journalists are using to protect their transmitters? If you say, by listening in, do you expect the pilots to all speak Arabic, or to listen to each transmission and determine what is being said and whether it is military? How much fire should a pilot expose themselves to if their detectors sense a target, in order to verify that the target is not a journalist’s uplink?
I’m not familiar with the incident (or incidents; it is unclear if the journalist was fired on in the same instance by the helicopter, or in a separate instance by ground troops, from what you wrote), but it is helpful to note that journalists turn every single destroyed (and sometimes damaged) US vehicle into a major enemy victory when they report. It is also helpful to note that many US vehicles contain sensitive information. For those reasons, the US will risk soldiers’ lives to destroy utterly any vehicles abandoned or heavily damaged. Those kids dancing around the vehicle were likely put there by the enemy because the enemy knows this, and also knows that the reporters will report unarmed kids being killed by the heartless US military, rather than unarmed kids being put into a known dangerous situation by the enemy to smear the Americans with when they do what the enemy knows they will do.
If you go to a war zone, seek out places where there is fighting, put yourself in with the enemy, and aim a camera (that looks a lot like a shoulder-launched missile when you’re looking through a tank’s gun sight) at American troops, you’re going to take fire. Any of those actions is dangerous; in combination they are suicidal.
Every anti-war statement and protest, it seems, begins with the number of US troops killed in action as justification that the war is wrong. So you are advocating that we increase the number of troops killed in action? Not a good way to keep public sentiment on the side on continuing the war, and not good for recruiting either. In other words, those force protection rules make it easier for the military to do their job: to win the war.
Yeah, it sucks to be in a war zone, and it sucks to be an enemy of the US. Of course, if I were in a place being attacked, I’d be angry at the guys doing the attacking. But when the enemy fights out of uniform, and hides among civilians, it makes it hard to tell the civilians from the enemy fighters. By the Geneva Conventions, and common sense, it is the enemy which has endangered the civilian population by fighting this way, not us. Our troops are uniformed, and do not mix among the civilians to protect themselves in combat. The resentment belongs to them also.
Oh, and a question, who but the population of the occupied nation could ever bear the burden of being occupied? That’s a tautology.
It would cost the lives of our soldiers, and frankly I’d rather keep the soldiers we send abroad to defend us than the journalists working to defeat us, if it comes to a choice.
blogsy mcblog
1)The “journalists working to defeat us?” That is exactly the type of attitude that makes the rest of the world HATE the US. That is it, in a nutshell. Are you kidding me? Do you really think that the folks working for Reuters, Al-Jazeera, BBC, or Al-Aryabia actively desire the Baathist/Islamo Facist coalition to win? Are you insane? See, Mr. Medcalf, you place everyone in a binary system; with ’em or agin ’em. Educated people who understand that the world is much more complicated than that will immediately distrust you, and seek to expose the over-simplicity of that analysis. In addition, if you really want to force people to square off and choose one camp over another, you will only increase your enemies.
2) “[J]ournalists turn every single destroyed (and sometimes damaged) US vehicle into a major enemy victory when they report.” This is another example of your over-simplictic dichotomy. Forst of all, the journalists merely report what happened. The insurgents (and a surprisingly large amount of the general population)are the people celebrating. If you are willing to cover up actual events to deprive your “enemies” of celebration, just how committed to the principal of free speech are you? Stalin often killed soldiers returning from the Winter War front simply to be certain that the Soviets’ pitiful performance in that was wasn’t allowed to demoralize the general population. It sounds like you approve of this policy.
3) “It is also helpful to note that many US vehicles contain sensitive information. For those reasons, the US will risk soldiers’ lives to destroy utterly any vehicles abandoned or heavily damaged.” In other words, to protect US soldiers from the inderect risk that the insurgents could derive lethal information from a ruined piece of equipment, the military places the lives of civillians/reporters at risk. This is unacceptable. As long as that happens, the local population will resent the US, and give tacit support to an insurgency with goals that most people in Iraq disapprove of. In other words, this practice makes it HARDER to win the war, and thus “do their job.” The same is true about our practices regarding independant journalists. In the Arab world, we are viewed with extreme skepticism. When we act like their current oppressors (the post-colonial regimes) the region’s worst fears of us are confirmed. This can only help the insurgency.
4) “Oh, and a question, who but the population of the occupied nation could ever bear the burden of being occupied?”
It’s true that the occupied will always bear some burden of the occupation. However, this is (once again) not a binary situation. Much of the burden could be alleviated by redirecting it onto the occupying troops. Yes, this will make it harder (in the short run) to avoid casualties. However, in the long run, it will encourage the local population to avoid giving tacit approval to the insurgency. Without that tacit approval, the insurgency would be defeated very quickly; there are only 20,000 active insurgents. Further, if we cannot occupy a country humanely with acceptable troop casualty levels, that is an extremely compelling argument against going to war.
5) “and common sense, it is the enemy which has endangered the civilian population by fighting this way, not us.”
A slight suggestion; never support an argument with “common sense.” Nothing has a worse history of withstanding scrutiny than “common sense.” At any rate, the Iraqis don’t see it that way. Most stories have indicated that many people (espcially small shop owners) are very upset at the insurgency for the very reason you articulate. However, when the military attacks indepednant journalists and consistantly obscures the truth about its actions, people start to listen to insurgent propaganda. If your brother/mother/father (or you) were erroneously tortured at Abu Grahaib (remember, over 60% of the inmates there were found to have no connection to the insurgenct, and were not guilty of any crime), how would you feel? Would you still think “none of this would happen if it weren’t for the insurgents,” or would you start to think that maybe the insurgents/Saddam/Al Sadr was correct about the true motivations of the Americans? Would you start to feel like the insurgents were giving power to the powerless?
Kevin Murphy
I’m not happy when any civilian is killed in a war and it’s a terrible and regrettable thing. But the question isn’t do unfortunate events occur in war (they do), or are some soldiers rotten apples who use war to cover their own terrible deeds (they do), but do ( or did) the US Armed Forces deliberately targeting journalists. And the answer is, yes, there are times when high level decisions are made to go after journalists like NATO did in Kosovo. My local paper didn’t run my letter to the editor that the press better make a stink about this or more journalists will be targeted in the future.
The Palestine Hotel incident has been thoroughly hashed out in the past and what is clear is that the US soldiers did nothing wrong. The soldiers from the 3rd ID had no idea where journalists were staying in Baghdad (as they had been training in the Kuwaiti desert in the run up to the war), were fighing in the Marine’s sector of Baghdad as the result of a running battle that spilled over to the other side of the Tigris, and any solider would far prefer to take out an artillery forward observer than anybody with a gun or RPG especially while taking incoming artillery. So the idea that because nobody was using a gun to shoot at the tank the tank shouldn’t try to take out an FO is a red herring.
I can remember several instances where cars containing journalists were shot up, but I don’t blame the soliders. The terrorists/paramilitaries in Iraq use civilian vehicles, civilian clothes, ambulences, etc. to attack US soldiers. The idea that they wouldn’t use press markings (in one instance it was “TV” in black electricians tape) is ludicrous and bound to get US soldiers killed.
Is it really suprising that unembedded journalists are killed covering a war? Hello, McFly, how in the hell are US soldiers supposed to tell journalists from terrorists/paramilitaries when they dress the same way and the journalists don’t have a reliable way to alert the soldiers to their presence? When combatants don’t wear uniforms, it’s the civilians who suffer, so please be directing your anger at those who don’t wear uniforms.
And as far as the average Iraqi, I don’t know, but I have to think that the way the terrorists are blowing up lots of civilians and not so many American or Iraqi troops these days should speak volumes about motivation.
Kimmitt
I think that this is what causes the sense of targetting among journalists — they get shot at because pretty much everybody in that area gets shot at. The soldiers who did the shooting are too tired and wired to be properly apologetic, and the obvious frustration results. Even if they know intellectually that they weren’t targets, the experience of being terrified for one’s life isn’t so easily put away.