Resonant Information - Journalism - Comments

They didn't print it

Zed — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:58:38 -0400

Not only did they not print it, they didn't even include it in the (much more expansive) collection of letters in the online edition.

The Daily Revile

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 12:08:21 -0400

Yes, that was misspelled on purpose.

Please let us know if they print it, and if so, how much they decide to edit out. I have a very bad feeling that if it is printed, it will come out to be a far different document than the one you provided them with. They're not known for their editorial or journalistic skills, and frankly, I wouldn't put it past some of them to alter things, especially since it is clear that you are not a Republican.

Petition to honor Jabbar Gibson

Anonymous — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 03:31:36 -0400

Petition to honor Jabbar Gibson

http://www.petitiononline.com/JG0007Q/petition.html

"We have been extraordinarily moved by the story of Jabbar Gibson, and the initiative he displayed in commandeering a bus to drive Hurricane Katrina victims out of New Orleans. We were very alarmed to hear that he was at one time in danger of prosecution. Mr. Gibson declared to the news media, "I don’t care if I get blamed for it, as long as I saved my people." But WE care if he gets blamed for it."

[snip]

" We request that this young man be awarded appropriately with a Presidential Medal of Freedom and a full four-year scholarship to the college of his choice. For we truly believe that Jabbar Gibson as an individual, exemplified the courage and the spirit that is the best part of America and in so doing became emblematic of the actions many others who responded bravely and selflessly in the face of this disaster. He is someone we should support, encourage, and see prosper in this great nation. Jabbar Gibson and those like him are the future of America!"

NewsChannel 5

Zed — Tue, 06 Sep 2005 21:03:48 -0400

I think this is standard expiration. Poking around a bit, all of their older stories seem to be gone as well. It's still in the Google cache, and I may create a local repository to link to later tonight when I get the chance.

NewsChannel5

Anonymous — Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:32:32 -0400

NewsChannel5 has taken the story down from their website. Hmmm.

Authorization

Zed — Mon, 05 Sep 2005 12:36:20 -0400

If you have a link providing evidence that the National Guard was only allowed to enter on Wednesday, I'd appreciate seeing it.

For the record, I don't

Anonymous — Mon, 05 Sep 2005 08:33:23 -0400

For the record, I don't think that perception was correct, but it came from the top, which is one reason I have called for the resignation of both Chertoff and Brown. Regarding, the Blanco request, though, she made a money request at that point--she only authorized the guard from other states to enter LA on Wednesday. Gail at ST

Just to clarify, Maggie and

Anonymous — Mon, 05 Sep 2005 08:23:29 -0400

Just to clarify, Maggie and I were both quoting from her husband's message to her. He is a national guardsman who was scheduled to go to NO and was explaining what he knew about the situation. Gail at Scribal Terror

hmmm.

Lynne — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 12:49:22 -0400

Quote:
"Like almost everything else associated with Cleveland (certainly excluding one very notable exception), I remember the Cleveland Plain Dealer with a vague sense of distaste."

*ponders*

The mochas at Arabica, definitely.

Final note

Zed — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:50:08 -0500

This discussion has brought up a lot of interesting, useful information, which I'm quite happy to leave as a record of counterpoint, but it's moving well astray of the original point of this entry, which was to show that Eason Jordan had cause to believe what he said. This hasn't changed, nor has the subsequent discussion about whether he was right affected this primary point.

Unfortunately, I don't have unlimited time to continue a discussion into every detail of every incident, and I find that I am now simply repeating myself when I answer, so I am closing the comments to further entries. I have already spent much more time here than I intended. For those interested in both sides of the issues, I strongly encourage you to read through all of the links yourself, both in the main entry, and in the comments.

For those that stopped in with additional information, thanks again for your efforts. My largest issue with those attacking Eason Jordan was that they didn't do the work that you have done (see my original "Closing comments" section in the main entry), and if I've inspired people to actually think about the matter, rather than just jumping on the bandwagon, I'm satisfied with the outcome.

Quick notes

Zed — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:35:54 -0500

A few quick things, and then I have to move on:

Your USA Today link is a pretty clear example of what's wrong with embedded reporting: everything in it is hearsay, being fed to the journalist from the military. The journalist states up front that he had no idea what had happened at the time because the military concealed it from him, and then he only reports afterwards what the military told him about it. The ITN investigation is more interesting. But that's only of passing interest because...

Quoting Anonymous:

It totally destroys its utility in your original point...that the US military targets journalists

Argh, no, for the third time, that's not my original point, though perhaps I need to go back up top and clarify, since the conclusion is at the bottom of the entry: the point is that Eason Jordan had cause to believe what he said was true.

Just for the record

Anonymous — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:21:52 -0500

I'm pretty forgiving when it comes to heat of the moment rough-housing. Naturally, if you think someone is an enemy you aren't going to be nice to them, especially if (a) you think they were shooting at you, and (b) they are not cooperating while being rounded up.

I have no problem with an elbow to the head or trowing them around a bit if thats what it takes to detain them.

The thing that disturbs me is when we get news reports of people winding up in the hospital with broken ribs.

The Pentagon issued a stateme

Anonymous — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:49:13 -0500

The Pentagon issued a statement, sometime around the start of hostilities, something to the effect that they could not guarantee the safety of any people sent into the war zone, embedded or not.

I have tried for the last hour or so to find the exact statement issued, but have not. It most likely makes no difference.

I can only tell you that from the standpoint of a Soldier who has been in a combat zone, where people are trying to kill him, it is most times, shoot first and ask questions later. No matter how well trained he is or even if he knows its possible innocent people might be killed or wounded, survival instinct and protecting your soldiers, rules the day.

Also, the more powerful your weapons, the more damage is done in a very short time. The old reliable, 50 cal can tear a car up in a heartbeat, destroy a frame house in a few minutes. It can also do equal damage to anything behind or around the target.

Imagine giving the troops weapons that make the 50 look like a large rifle. You will get massive damage very very quickly. Anyone in the general vicinity is going to be in dire danger of losing his life or being wounded. Couple that with troops that are excited, driven by fear, rage or just saturated with adrenaline. This of course applies to both sides of the warring parties. Even more so if the person is not very well trained.

In those circumstances and conditions, nobody in the zone is remotely safe and it is impossible to "protect them".

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

Rage

Zed — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:53:04 -0500

Quoting Papa Ray:

In the heat of the battle, moment or in the rage of finally getting ahold of the enemy, it is difficult NOT to take that rage out on him.

Or on the reporter that you think might be providing "comfort" by way of publishing a viewpoint hostile to your cause? Or someone you picked up who you think might be an enemy, because they happened to be nearby when the dust cleared? That's exactly the problem, you see. If that behaviour is being accepted or even endorsed, then there really is a lot of merit to the accusation that the military considers journalists fair targets.

Quoting Papa Ray:

Right, wrong, thats just the way it is in combat.

There's a lot of merit to this, unfortunately. Wars are ugly, psychologically damaging to everyone involved, and the boys with the guns are under a frightful amount of strain. Were it up to me, even if everything that happened was properly investigated, I'd assign only the bare minimum of responsibility to the soldiers on the ground, all the way up to and including the events at Abu Ghraib. Dishonorable discharge for conduct unbecoming or failing to refuse an illegal order, perhaps, but not jail time. The ones that set the policies and gave the orders, however (which are the ones that get away free in the current system), I'd like to throw the book at.

But that said, if it's happening, it's happening, and there's no call to rage at someone for pointing it out.

Here is an excerpt from anoth

Anonymous — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:47:18 -0500

Here is an excerpt from another link about the Lloyd incident
http://www.arabmediawatch.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=1194

"The Journal article cited a report from a British security firm commissioned by ITN to investigate the incident saying that Lloyd's car was hit by both coalition and Iraqi fire; the latter most likely came from behind the car, possibly after the vehicle had crashed.

The report concluded that "[t]he Iraqis no doubt mounted an attack using the ITN crew as cover, or perhaps stumbled into the U.S. forces whilst attempting to detain the ITN crew." The report also speculated that Nerac and Othman, who were last seen by Demoustier in another car being stopped by Iraqi forces—might have been pulled out of their car before it came under fire from coalition forces, and then Iraqi forces used the SUV to attack the coalition forces.
...
In September, London's The Daily Mirror newspaper reported the testimony of an Iraqi man named Hamid Aglan who had allegedly tried to rescue the wounded Lloyd in a civilian minibus.
...
An ITN spokesperson told CPJ that a number of elements of Aglan's story are not consistent with ITN's own investigation. "

End of excerpt.

Algan the discredited is the source of the conspiracy theory versions of the story.

This doesn't have any specific mention of what Iraqi forces were involved , but it happened in the sector of the Iraqi 6th Armored (tank) Division of the Iraqi third corps. Note:This link was written before DNA evidence support for Othman being killed while inside an Iraqi vehicle. The fact that at least one of the deceased was in Iraqi military custody makes clear that there were Iraqi forces operating in the immediate vicinity at the same time. Also worth noting was that NO DNA evidence was found for Nerac, and given the US military investigation, the British military investigation, the British police investigation and ITN's private civilian investigation, and is highly likely that if it were there it would have been found. They DNA'd everything they found...and didn't find Nerac. That at least raises the strong possibility that he was 'disappeared' while in Iraqi custody.

This is from an embed with the unit involved:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-07-baghdad-intoiraq_x.htm

Three journalists and a translator employed by Britain's Independent Television News, driving two rented Mitsubishi Pajeros with the taped letters "TV" prominently affixed to the vehicles' roofs and sides, blundered into the Iraqi charge.

The Marines destroyed one of the journalist's vehicles and fired on another. The British journalist Terry Lloyd was shot dead although it's unclear whether he was killed by Marines or Iraqi fighters. The French cameraman, Fred Nerac, and the Lebanese driver and translator, Hussein Osman, are still missing. The first Marine investigators to the scene were themselves injured as fighting continued. Today, the U.S. and British military investigations remain incomplete. "We are waiting for the results," ITN spokesman Saskia Wirth says. "It is still too early to draw any conclusions."

Nobody questions the American tankers' right, even duty, to fire on the frightened journalists as they raced toward what they believed to be friendly forces. But the tank battalion's official history describes the blunder callously, stating, "It didn't even occur to any of us that journalists would try to participate in an Iraqi suicide charge."

Twice, I asked Capt. Poland what happened at the bridge. He told the story with gusto, omitting the fact at least one journalist was dead. Col. Chartier reported the accident to Gen. James Mattis, who promised to investigate. But he and Poland kept me in the dark. That night, Chartier was telling Poland the plan when Poland hushed him, aware I was standing almost invisibly in a deep shadow near them. I heard nothing.

"We did not kill any journalists but at that time we thought maybe we had," Chartier told me recently. "I just didn't need that going out right at that moment."
End of excerpt.
Other parts of the article make it clear that the unit was involved with Iraqi tank forces.

With regard to the roadblock incident, I dispute your disputation of the timeline. How long do you think between happened between the soldiers destroying the vehicle ramming through the checkpoint and the reporters vehicle being hit? According to the reports, it happened at essentially the same moment...even to the point that the military thinking it was bullets aimed at one vehicle hitting another. It wasn't like 5 minutes later that the journalists were fired on.

You're right that fleeing from fighting is 'expected' but you are wrong that it is not 'suspicious' Suspicious is judged from the perspective of those behind the trigger. And a second vehicle parked in line at a checkpoint starting to drive at essentially the same moment as another vehicle tries to ram through is absolutely suspicious. And if you think it isn't, it was clear that the line was over an hour long, which means there were a lot of vehicles parked waiting to be searched. How come only the journalists were hit? If that was an 'expected' reaction and the 'expected' reaction got people killed, how come that entire checkpoint was not a massacre of innocents? The TV journalists made themselves stand out at exactly the wrong time in exactly the wrong way. In fact, the "TV" emblazened on their car could easily have worked to their disadvantage at that point because that is exactly the behavior expected from terrorists hiding behind TV painted on their car.

As for the hotel balcony, I absolutely added something you didn't include. The context. Your writeup tries to make it seem like there was some conspiracy to kill journalists by denying information about where journalists are. It is VERY clear that the journalists were mistaken for Iraqi artillery spotters. Do you dispute this?

Because if you do accept that, it totally destroys its utility in your original point...that the US military targets journalists. And that is why you glossed over relevant facts...to try to turn something that is not supportive of your arguement into something that is.

Furthermore, you and others are operating under the false assumption that the military has some sort of responsibility for non-embedded journalists. They are no different that any other non combatant. The military is not responsible for keeping track of where they are and taking special steps to avoid them. The military can't deliberately target the media, as you and Eason are trying to argue they do, but beyond that there is nothing. The arguement that some higher HQ knew there were journalists there but didn't tell them is irrelevant. They were busying trying to fight a war. Their information and communication channels were (or should be) dedicated to where friendly and Iraqi forces are. Their job is to accomplish their mission with minimum possible number of coalition casualties. Keeping track of journalists behind enemy lines doesn't (or shouldn't) figure into that.