Originally posted by Viking
A couple of questions:
1. Is the USA actually in a state of war (legaly)?
2. Isn't freedom of the press part of the US Constitution which contains the following: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ? (rhetorical question I guess)
3. Was the photographer/journalist a US citizen? I would think the majority of freelance journalists in Iraq are not Americans for obvious reasons.
4. Final question: Why would you deny yourselves such an abundant source of intelligence?
Yes, of course the US is in a state of war, or conflict if you wish; however, we were not in a "legal" state of war with the USSR yet people were still convicted of espionage. The actual status of Iraq as a hostile country still existed from Desert Storm, the conflict was never "legally" ended, it was only a cease fire. Even so, the bottom line is there is no requirement for the country to have declared war for an act, or acts, to constitute either treason or sedition.
There are limits to freedom of speech and the press. The classic "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater", libel, and slander are all restrictions on Constititional rights that are freely accepted by the courts and have centuries of legal precidence.
Don't know the photographer's background in this case. I was responding to comments some others made regarding the roll of the press in general when questions are raised as to the source and purpose of published material. In addition, you're right, much of what the press will broadcast does not originate from it's own emploees which actually further brings into question the legitimacy of their broadcasts. Recently, there was a freelance photographer who produced hundreds of pictures of the Israel/Hizballah conflict that were reproduced around the world. Many of his pictures were later found to be doctored by him to put the Israelies in a bad light. This happens all the time and for the press to unquestionly and even enthusiastically publish such material is unethical at least.
Even if the product is not doctored after the fact the very choice of material recorded, published and/or broadcast can be a huge source of bias. I was in Perth Austrailia back when there were protests about American nuclear weapons on ships. During the port call some demonstrators showed up at the pier to protest. I was there and saw them, there were maybe 50 total. I was with a group of Aussie friends that were there to visit the CV. There were over 2,000 in line to do that. Over 20,000 visited during that day, all friendly and all embarassed by the leftest protesters. I later got a letter from home and my family was asking about the demonstration because it appeared to be very bad, they had recorded the US news broadcast of it and sent it along. Turns out the press photographers had taken pictures from above the crowd and zoomed in so you couldn't see the limits of the small group. Could have been 50, could have been thousands. Guess how the press chose to portray it? They used words like "huge, massive, untold hundreds", etc. If they had simply zoomed out everyone would have seen that there was no story. If they had simply turned their cameras around they could have seen literally thousands that wanted to visit the ship, not protest it but that didn't fit their pre-conceived (read prejudiced) story line.
The press is not a great source of intelligence but it can be useful. When it comes to their broadcasting of enemy propaganda, they are showing what the enemy wants us to see for strategic or tactical reasons. This is the problem with our supposedly unbiased press, they have agendas of their own. These agendas may vary and be driven by ideology (BBC) or profit (CNN) but they exist none the less.
