Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Killjoy2 on November 25, 2004, 03:46:15 PM
-
How much did Kevin Sites get for his video of the Marine killing a wounded terrorist in Falluja?
Was he upset because this was happening every where they went? NO.
Could he have sent a copy to a commanding officer for review and punishment if indicated? YES.
In stead he sold the video to whoever paid because it was sensational. One Marine out of 15,000 kills an unarmed Iraqi and he knows he'll make a bundle.
He sold out the Marines who protected his bellybutton in combat so he can make a buck. He sold out his country, by making this "incident" the focus of Falluja instead of the showing how these Marines have defeated a Terroist Enemy who has no rules other than terror. He even sold out the Iraqi nation by making it that much harder to build trust in their own government.
Kevin Sites will be paid a lot of money. But if I ever find him, I'll point out to everyone I can that he's a traitor to his best friends and his country.
Pardon me, but this has pushed me over the edge. Our media is a 5th column against America. All they care about is ratings and money. They are incapable of observing America as patriots or even good Americans. All they look for sensatinalism so they can make a buck.
-
Heres your answers :
The broadcast last week of footage showing a US marine shooting an injured Iraqi fighter in Falluja caused an international outcry. Yesterday the cameraman, Kevin Sites, published on his website this open letter to the marines with whom he had been embedded.
Since the shooting in the mosque, I've been haunted that I have not been able to tell you directly what I saw or explain the process by which the world came to see it as well.
As you know, I'm not some war zone tourist with a camera who doesn't understand that ugly things happen in combat. I've spent most of the last five years covering global conflict. But I have never in my career been a "gotcha" reporter - hoping for people to commit wrongdoings so I can catch them at it.
This week I've been shocked to see myself painted as some kind of anti-war activist. Anyone who has seen my reporting on television or has read my dispatches on the web is fully aware of the lengths I've gone to to play it straight down the middle - not to become a tool of propaganda for the left or the right. But I find myself a lightning rod for controversy in reporting what I saw occur in front of me, camera rolling.
It's time for you to have the facts, in my own words, about what I saw, without imposing on that marine guilt or innocence or anything in between. I want you to read my account and make up your own minds. Here it goes.
It's Saturday morning and we're still at our strong point from the night before, a clearing between a set of buildings on the southern edge of the city. The advance has been swift, but pockets of resistance still exist. In fact, we're taking sniper fire from both the front and the rear.
Weapons Company uses its 81's (mortars) where they spot muzzle flashes. The tanks do some blasting of their own. By mid-morning, we're told we're moving north again. We'll be back clearing some of the area we passed yesterday. There are also reports that the mosque, where 10 insurgents were killed and five wounded on Friday, may have been re-occupied overnight.
I decide to leave you guys and pick up with one of the infantry squads as they move house-to-house back toward the mosque. Many of the structures are empty of people - but full of weapons. Outside one residence, a member of the squad lobs a frag grenade over the wall. Everyone piles in, including me.
While the marines go into the house, I follow the flames caused by the grenade into the courtyard. When the smoke clears, I can see through my viewfinder that the fire is burning beside a large pile of anti-aircraft rounds.
I yell to the lieutenant that we need to move. Almost immediately after clearing out of the house, small explosions begin as the rounds cook off in the fire.
At that point, we hear the tanks firing their 240-machine guns into the mosque. There's radio chatter that insurgents inside could be shooting back. The tanks cease fire and we file through a breach in the outer wall.
We hear gunshots that seem to becoming from inside the mosque. A marine from my squad yells, "Are there marines in here?"
When we arrive at the front entrance, we see that another squad has already entered before us.
The lieutenant asks them, "Are there people inside?"
One of the marines raises his hand signaling five.
"Did you shoot them," the lieutenant asks?
"Roger that, sir, " the same marine responds.
"Were they armed?" The marine just shrugs and we all move inside.
Immediately after going in, I see the same black plastic body bags spread around the mosque. The dead from the day before. But more surprising, I see the same five men that were wounded from Friday as well. It appears that one of them is now dead and three are bleeding to death from new gunshot wounds.
The fifth is partially covered by a blanket and is in the same place and condition he was in on Friday, near a column. He has not been shot again. I look closely at both the dead and the wounded. There don't appear to be any weapons anywhere.
"These were the same wounded from yesterday," I say to the lieutenant. He takes a look around and goes outside the mosque with his radio operator to call in the situation to Battalion Forward HQ.
I see an old man in a red kaffiyeh lying against the back wall. Another is face down next to him, his hand on the old man's lap - as if he were trying to take cover. I squat beside them, inches away and begin to videotape them. Then I notice that the blood coming from the old man's nose is bubbling. A sign he is still breathing. So is the man next to him.
While I continue to tape, a marine walks up to the other two bodies about 15 feet away, but also lying against the same back wall.
Then I hear him say this about one of the men:
"He's ****ing faking he's dead - he's faking he's ****ing dead."
Through my viewfinder I can see him raise the muzzle of his rifle in the direction of the wounded Iraqi. There are no sudden movements, no reaching or lunging.
However, the marine could legitimately believe the man poses some kind of danger. Maybe he's going to cover him while another marine searches for weapons.
Instead, he pulls the trigger. There is a small splatter against the back wall and the man's leg slumps down.
"Well he's dead now," says another marine in the background.
I am still rolling. I feel the deep pit of my stomach. The marine then abruptly turns away and strides away, right past the fifth wounded insurgent lying next to a column. He is very much alive and peering from his blanket.
He is moving, even trying to talk. But for some reason, it seems he did not pose the same apparent "danger" as the other man - though he may have been more capable of hiding a weapon or explosive beneath his blanket.
But then two other marines in the room raise their weapons as the man tries to talk.
For a moment, I'm paralysed still taping with the old man in the foreground. I get up after a beat and tell the marines again, what I had told the lieutenant - that this man - all of these wounded men - were the same ones from yesterday. That they had been disarmed treated and left here.
At that point the marine who fired the shot became aware that I was in the room. He came up to me and said, "I didn't know sir - I didn't know." The anger that seemed present just moments before turned to fear and dread.
The wounded man then tries again to talk to me in Arabic.
He says, "Yesterday I was shot ... please ... yesterday I was shot over there - and talked to all of you on camera - I am one of the guys from this whole group. I gave you information. Do you speak Arabic? I want to give you information."
(This man has since reportedly been located by the Naval Criminal Investigation Service which is handling the case.)
In the aftermath, the first question that came to mind was why had these wounded men been left in the mosque?
It was answered by staff judge advocate Lieutenant Colonel Bob Miller - who interviewed the marines involved following the incident. After being treated for their wounds on Friday by a navy corpsman (I personally saw their bandages) the insurgents were going to be transported to the rear when time and circumstances allowed.
The area, however, was still hot. And there were American casualties to be moved first.
Also, the squad that entered the mosque on Saturday was different than the one that had led the attack on Friday.
It's reasonable to presume they may not have known that these insurgents had already been engaged and subdued a day earlier.
Yet when this new squad engaged the wounded insurgents on Saturday, perhaps really believing they had been fighting or somehow posed a threat - those marines inside knew from their training to check the insurgents for weapons and explosives after disabling them, instead of leaving them where they were and waiting outside the mosque for the squad I was following to arrive.
During the course of these events, there were plenty of mitigating circumstances like the ones just mentioned and which I reported in my story. The marine who fired the shot had reportedly been shot in the face himself the day before.
I'm also well aware from many years as a war reporter that there have been times, especially in this conflict, when dead and wounded insurgents have been booby-trapped, even supposedly including an incident that happened just a block away from the mosque in which one marine was killed and five others wounded. Again, a detail that was clearly stated in my television report.
-
No one, especially someone like me who has lived in a war zone, would deny that a soldier or marine could legitimately err on the side of caution under those circumstances. War is about killing your enemy before he kills you.
In the particular circumstance I was reporting, it bothered me that the marine didn't seem to consider the other insurgents a threat - the one very obviously moving under the blanket, or even the two next to me that were still breathing.
I can't know what was in the mind of that marine. He is the only one who does.
But observing all of this as an experienced war reporter who always bore in mind the perils of this conflict, even knowing the possibilities of mitigating circumstances - it appeared to me very plainly that something was not right. According to Lt Col Bob Miller, the rules of engagement in Falluja required soldiers or marines to determine hostile intent before using deadly force. I was not watching from a hundred feet away. I was in the same room. Aside from breathing, I did not observe any movement at all.
Making sure you know the basis for my choices after the incident is as important to me as knowing how the incident went down.
I did not in any way feel like I had captured some kind of "prize" video. In fact, I was heartsick. Immediately after the mosque incident, I told the unit's commanding officer what had happened. I shared the video with him, and its impact rippled all the way up the chain of command. Marine commanders immediately pledged their cooperation.
We all knew it was a complicated story and, if not handled responsibly, could have the potential to further inflame the volatile region. I offered to hold the tape until they had time to look into incident and begin an investigation - providing me with information that would fill in some of the blanks.
For those who don't practise journalism as a profession, it may be difficult to understand why we must report stories like this at all - especially if they seem to be aberrations, and not representative of the behaviour or character of an organisation as a whole.
The answer is not an easy one.
In war, as in life, there are plenty of opportunities to see the full spectrum of good and evil that people are capable of. As journalists, it is our job is to report both - though neither may be fully representative of those people on whom we're reporting.
But our coverage of these unique events, combined with the larger perspective, will allow the truth of that situation, in all of its complexities, to begin to emerge. That doesn't make the decision to report events like this one any easier. It has, for me, led to an agonising struggle - the proverbial long, dark night of the soul.
When NBC aired the story 48 hours later, we did so in a way that attempted to highlight every possible mitigating issue for that marine's actions. We wanted viewers to have a very clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding the fighting on that frontline. Many of our colleagues were just as responsible.
Other foreign networks made different decisions, and because of that, I have become the conflicted conduit who has brought this to the world.
I interviewed your commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Willy Buhl, before the battle for Falluja began. He said something very powerful at the time - something that now seems prophetic. It was this:
"We're the good guys. We are Americans. We are fighting a gentleman's war here - because we don't behead people, we don't come down to the same level of the people we're combating.
"That's a very difficult thing for a young 18-year-old marine who's been trained to locate, close with and destroy the enemy with fire and close combat. That's a very difficult thing for a 42-year-old lieutenant colonel with 23 years experience in the service who was trained to do the same thing once upon a time, and who now has a thousand-plus men to lead, guide, coach, mentor - and ensure we remain the good guys and keep the moral high ground." I listened carefully when he said those words. I believed them.
So here, ultimately, is how it all plays out: when the Iraqi man in the mosque posed a threat, he was your enemy; when he was subdued he was your responsibility; when he was killed in front of my eyes and my camera - the story of his death became my responsibility.
The burdens of war, as you so well know, are unforgiving for all of us.
I pray for your soon and safe return.
-
Pardon me, but this has pushed me over the edge. Our media is a 5th column against America. All they care about is ratings and money. They are incapable of observing America as patriots or even good Americans. All they look for sensatinalism so they can make a buck. [/B]
I didnt see any Americans complaining when we saw the invasion of Iraq take place live on TV... Cnn, BBC, FOX you name it... riding along the Tanks etc etc etc etc.
Everyone was watching war live on TV, and not a word of complaining. Everyone were glued to the TV sets. It was sick!
But no one complained then, and now, when something bad happens, you complain?
-
Just imagine. Without the film you would be denying it as muslim propoganda. Saying things like.."if its true its very important..but of course its not true"
So your hate of the person that denied you that refuge is undertstandable.
-
By the way, exactly why aint there no more live coverage of what happens in Iraq?
-
Good Post KILLJOY2. I agree 100%. It s a damn shame that Loyalty has been outpriced by sheer Greed.
-
Originally posted by EN4CER
Good Post KILLJOY2. I agree 100%. It s a damn shame that Loyalty has been outpriced by sheer Greed.
Ignorance is bliss, aint it?
-
Originally posted by EN4CER
Good Post KILLJOY2. I agree 100%. It s a damn shame that Loyalty has been outpriced by sheer Greed.
so its being disloyal to report news that could put america or its soldiers in a bad light? as for greed, well, the entire system is based on greed, so stop acting so suprised.
-
1) It looks to me that a Marine killed an unarmed terrorist.
2) Sites knew the video would aid the Terrorist cause. "We all knew it was a complicated story and, if not handled responsibly, could have the potential to further inflame the volatile region."
3) He also knew it was not "typical" Marine behavior.
4) He could have used the video to pursue justice within the military. It did not have to be reported to the world.
5) Sites had the option. He chose to cash in. He knew it would damage the Marines, he knew it was not typical, but it must be reported. It didn't have to be reported. Notice he never mentions how much he got paid. He can talk about his journalistic imperitives but leaves out how the money influences his decision.
The money influenced his decision.
-
The money influenced his decision.
Welcome to the real world. What did you think the Iraq war was about? WMD´s? Liberating people?
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Ignorance is bliss, aint it?
Sorry bouncy balls but I believe the word here is INTEGRITY. Something Kevin Sites knows nothing about. Do you know anything about it? Have you ever trained with a Military or Tactical team and bonded with them. Its like a tight knit family - I know - I run one. None of my team members would have done this - None of them - thats why they are on the team. Mr. Sites made his decision and he will have to live with it. I don't see his choice in the same light as others. When terrorists attack your country and you lose a friend cause some muslim ******** runs a plane into the building where they work at you might feel differently.
-
So its being disloyal to report news that could put america or its soldiers in a bad light?
If this is typical behavior by the Marines it needs to be reported.
It was reported because it is sensational and because he knew he would make big bucks.
How much was he paid? It was a BIG factor in his decision.
as for greed, well, the entire system is based on greed, so stop acting so suprised.
I am not suprised. This story is about the greed of the media. Who holds the media to a standard? We do, or I should say we don't. We reward them for selling out our country and giving aid to our Terrorist enemies.
During WWII all media voluntarily didn't report the existance or effect of Japanese terror weapons used against the US mainland because it would give information to Japan about how effective they were. But in WWII we had loyal and patriotic press.
WE don't now. We have a greedy press.
-
Originally posted by EN4CER
Sorry bouncy balls but I believe the word here is INTEGRITY. Something Kevin Sites knows nothing about. Do you know anything about it? Have you ever trained with a Military or Tactical team and bonded with them. Its like a tight knit family - I know - I run one. None of my team members would have done this - None of them - thats why they are on the team. Mr. Sites made his decision and he will have to live with it. I don't see his choice in the same light as others. When terrorists attack your country and you lose a friend cause some muslim ******** runs a plane into the building where they work at you might feel differently.
And the Marine made his decision, he have to live with it too i guess.
Its funny, you say no one of your team would have done what Sites did. But would they have done the same thing as the Marine did?
Kill a uncouncious man? (sp?)
-
Originally posted by vorticon
so its being disloyal to report news that could put america or its soldiers in a bad light? as for greed, well, the entire system is based on greed, so stop acting so suprised.
I'm not surprised at all - unfortunately I expect from these Generation X piss ants - To me its a shame that’s all - Sorry, I was brought up under different value system. I will be the first to admit it is not easy to be Loyal. I have stuck my head out plenty of times and had my neck cut - no regrets by the way.
-
So.. are we for free press or against it now? what is the correct thing to cheer and whats not?
Is there some goverment website that could inform me so im not mislead by the free press.?
-
I'm just curious as to your source Killjoy, one that states that he recieved monies above and beyond what he would recieve for doing his JOB.
Just curious.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
So.. are we for free press or against it now? what is the correct thing to cheer and whats not?
mmm, You mean share by your "cheer" comment right? im not in anyway a spelling nazi, but it has meaning to what you want to get out of your post :)
"If its what i think you meant : what is the correct thing to share and whats not?"
Then my reply would be, Share it all. And let god sort it out.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
mmm, You mean share by your "cheer" comment right? im not in anyway a spelling nazi, but it has meaning to what you want to get out of your post :)
"If its what i think you meant : what is the correct thing to share and whats not?"
Then my reply would be, Share it all. And let god sort it out.
no.... cheer as in praise
-
Blaming those that report the crime is not
Kevin Sites did not report the crime. Reporting a crime is not selling it to the media.
Kevin Sites could have used to video to "report the crime" to a military officer. Instead he sold it and gave the terroist cause great joy.
Blind loyalty is not
Blind Loyalty impies that Kevin Sites had to suppress true loyalty to only show the video to a military court. If the military courts took no action he "might" be justified in selling his video. Blind Loyalty is an empty phrase in this context.
How many terrorists will be inspired to kill US soldiers because of Kevin Sites video?
Kevin Sites can hide behind journalistic integrity all he wants, but the fact is he sold out.
-
Originally posted by Killjoy2
Kevin Sites did not report the crime. Reporting a crime is not selling it to the media.
Kevin Sites could have used to video to "report the crime" to a military officer.
He did indeed, did you read what he wrote or not?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
no.... cheer as in praise
Mkay, did not get what you was replying to in that case. i must have missed something :(
-
Seems like this is more a question of, does your country allow the media to have 'inbedded' units with the military, if yes (and the comments have already been made that the initial war coverage was laped up) or no. Do you want to hold your military up to the very highest standards with media right up at the front with them and watching them, or do you want to let the military get on with it, not allow the media to get close, and just be told when it's all over and have all battlefield news come to you from the military/administration (i.e. propoganda for home consumption). You can't have both, so pick one and don't whine about the downside of what you pick...and as the 'free press' is a fairly major feature of 'democracy' and supposendly what all this mess is about, then maybe dictatorships for western countries need to be reconsidered?
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Mkay, did not get what you was replying to in that case. i must have missed something :(
I did not reply to any spesific post, just in general regarding what information we are supposed to like and what we are supposed to condemn.
Some seem to think that when something bad happens it should swept under the rug (like in this case) but when things goes well it should be shown as often as possible.
-
I'm just curious as to your source Killjoy, one that states that he recieved monies above and beyond what he would recieve for doing his JOB.
I don't know what he got paid for his video. It's my original question. It is common practice for these "journalists" to get paid for video. Sometimes they are paid a base to do the reporting. But they are there because thats where they can get sensational video. They get paid for sensational video and little else.
I don't know how much me was paid. I know he is paid every time it is aired.
what is the correct thing to cheer
The correct thing to "cheer" are those who put "higher purpose" above their own gain. Sites is not one of those people. 15,000 Marines went into Falluja. As a whole they fight for a higher purpose.
-
Killjoy and others did you ACTUALLY read this bit:
I did not in any way feel like I had captured some kind of "prize" video. In fact, I was heartsick. Immediately after the mosque incident, I told the unit's commanding officer what had happened. I shared the video with him, and its impact rippled all the way up the chain of command. Marine commanders immediately pledged their cooperation.
We all knew it was a complicated story and, if not handled responsibly, could have the potential to further inflame the volatile region. I offered to hold the tape until they had time to look into incident and begin an investigation - providing me with information that would fill in some of the blanks.
For those who don't practise journalism as a profession, it may be difficult to understand why we must report stories like this at all - especially if they seem to be aberrations, and not representative of the behaviour or character of an organisation as a whole.
The answer is not an easy one.
He showed it to his the commander straight away. He offered to hold it back. What do you want; a cover up which would inevitably get out and stain the reputation of the Marine Corps and the United States.
Maybe that's what you want?
Who is the real traitor???
-
Originally posted by Killjoy2
The correct thing to "cheer" are those who put "higher purpose" above their own gain. Sites is not one of those people. 15,000 Marines went into Falluja. As a whole they fight for a higher purpose.
Oh I see.
Basicly you want it to be covered up because of the "higher purpouse"?
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Its funny, you say no one of your team would have done what Sites did. But would they have done the same thing as the Marine did?
I can only speak for my team and its members. Police Tactical Teams train different than Military Teams. Our missions our different, policies different etc. When we breach a door we constantly have to make split second decisions. Those decisions effect everyone - innocent bystanders, victims, perps, and team members. You can go from hero to goat, live to dead in the blink of an eye. I'm sure the Military has as many if not more unknowns to deal with when doing room entry and clearing. I'm not gonna Monday Morning Quaterback what that Marine did - I was not there. He has been well trained, he pulled the trigger, he had a reason why he did it. IMO - In the world of CQB (Close Quarter Battle) and Room Entries - What goes on in room entry should stay there - It has no place in the eyes of the general public.
-
I told the unit's commanding officer what had happened. I shared the video with him, and its impact rippled all the way up the chain of command. Marine commanders immediately pledged their cooperation.
I read it. I also read that NBC delayed broadcasting the video by 48 hours.
He offered to hold it back.
He didn't offer to hold it back, only delay it.
What do you want; a cover up
Since when is it a coverup to report a crime to military authorities? And leave it at that? What if the video was delayed a month? A year? Is that a coverup?
But the video can't be delayed a month let alone a year because it loses its VALUE. NBC or Sites would never consider delaying the video for very long. It is worth too much money.
So far what I am reading is left-over tripe from the war protests of the 70's.
Lets see what we agree on.
1) The Sites video gave the terrorist cause more power. It will inspire terrorists to go to any lengths to kill US soldiers.
2) It is not typical behavior of US Marines in Falluja. In fact it appears to be an isolated incident.
3) Miliary authority moved quickly and gave assurance that the accused Marine and the incident would be investigated.
Is it worth giving aid to the terrorist cause to "report" this incident? Remember, there is no "coverup", there is no overwhelming human rights violation by US Marine. Just one Marine.
We've walked all some empty rhetoric and now we finally arrive at the core of the issue.
Is it worth giving aid to the terrorist cause?
-
You still haven't answered my question Killjoy.
-
Sites was there, with the willing support of the military, as a front line journalist, he was under military reporting restrictions, IF they had deemed the video as being a security threat, it would have been held back, he reported legitimate news...not nice news, not helpful to the US cause news. He was risking his life with less equipment and training than the soldiers he was with. Either you stop the media from being so close to the frontlines, or you let them and accept the consequences. Give the military more of a free hand to get on with the job and not worry about the media, cos they/the government are doing all the reports themselves, or you have frontline journalists.....at the moment as 'western democracy's' that hail the freedom of the press we have the latter....don't like it, then vote for a party that will censor the press
-
So Kiljoy - who has Stiles the greater loyalty to - your military or your country ????? Found this somewhere ...... :rolleyes:
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; ............
Seems to me you have this freedom of speech thing which was actually put in the Bill of Rights to STOP the sensorship of the press when there are things the government might not want the people to know.
Or are you saying you're only free to say what the government wants at the time??
Regardless of money or motive anyone has the RIGHT to say or print what he wants - your democracy is supposedly strong enought to take the results. If a US citizen wanted to set up Al-jazeera in Chicago he is protected by your own Bill of Rights to do so. You may not like it but it a foundation stone of your country.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
By the way, exactly why aint there no more live coverage of what happens in Iraq?
Same reason you no longer hear each and every persons name killed or wounded there complete with background information.
Its no longer big news.
I beleive the media typse would call it being "played out"
BTW just to add my 2 cents to the original post on this thread.
Totally unjustified attack on this reporter.
He recorded and reported what he saw.
Wasnt treachery at all.
Was freedom of the press in action.
Cant only have freedom of the press apply for only the things we like.
Same thing with freedom of speach.
If you only have the freedom to say things that are popular. then its not really free now is it.
example
Now I may not like and may detest it of someone calls a white person a currupt cracker, or a black man a N*****. Or a hispanic a spic.
But, they absolutely positively have the right to say it.
-
Right, shoot the messenger for bringing you the truth.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Was freedom of the press in action.
DRED - Good Point - Sometimes you should take one for the Home Team tho?
-
En4cer - personal choice.
My point is that his use of the freedom of speech in his own country has labeled him treacherous in his own country. Now if he had sold that video direct to Al-Jazeera for mega bucks without airing in US then you may have a point about treachery but to do something that the Bill of Rights specifically allows ???
-
It's an unfortunate fact of war that sometimes no quarter is given in battle.
While I personally have very little tolerance of anyone who would kill prisoners in cold blood after prisoners are policed up and processed, on the battlefield even the best intentioned commit such actions. Some still treat war as a game when it clearly is not.
The real problem here, as premised by the post heading, is the obvious destruction in the belief of a free and independant press - the corner stone of any true democracy. From the embedding of press, to the patriotic grandstanding of ALL the american networks, it makes any independant reporting that is not along the approved lines suddenly sedition instead of what it should be considered: the truth.
Tronsky
-
This is a great country and a great game. Where else can you hunt down and kill everybody who disagrees with you.
I'll see you in the skies.
-
Originally posted by EN4CER
DRED - Good Point - Sometimes you should take one for the Home Team tho?
That is a matter of how you personally feel about it.
At which point do you stop being just a reporter and start being an American?
Interestingly enough Assuming he speaks the truth he did offer to withold it
-
Originally posted by SLO
Right, shoot the messenger for bringing you the truth.
The "Truth" is all in the eye of the beholder.
Your truth, and anothers may be two entirely different things.
-
Originally posted by Killjoy2
This is a great country and a great game. Where else can you hunt down and kill everybody who disagrees with you.
I'll see you in the skies.
Damn good point.
and what I should be doing right now.
Happy hunting.
Just remember
/IT\ KILLS! ///oo\\\
-
The embed process was the brainchild of Victoria Clark, former Pentagon Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. I saw an interview with her a few days ago (after the Marine incident) and she was still very happy with the way the process has worked. The military and White House have been happy too, and with good reason. Here is the idea behind the process, in Clarke's and Rumsfelds words:
"We need to tell the factual story -- good and bad -- before others seed the media with disinformation and distortions, as they most certainly will continue to do," Rumsfeld and Clarke wrote.
"Our people in the field need to tell our story. Only commanders can ensure the media get to the story alongside the troops. We must organize for and facilitate access of national and international media to our forces, including those forces engaged in ground operations....To accomplish this, we will embed media with our units. These embedded media will live, work and travel as part of the units...to facilitate maximum, in-depth coverage."
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/877282/posts
The process has worked exceedingly well. Most of the footage being shot shows heroic American Marines and soldiers taking the fight to the bad guys. The dramatic drive into Baghdad, "Where do we get guys like these..." images and soundbytes that not only instill pride in the American people, but no doubt help move some percentage of young men and women to make the trip to the recruiter's office.
To my estimation it works too well. The media was way to soft on the Administration leading up to the war. Practically gave it a free ride where issues like how much, how long and at what cost were concerned. It wouldn't be surprising to learn that those asking tough questions would be traveling with the 193rd Field Kitchen Unit vs. some Cav trooper's Bradley. Something similar happened to Helen Thomas when, for the first time in decades, she was left off the list for the final pre-war White House press conference.
Once in the field, when something bad happens the journalists understand the context better having been there. But, they also now have a personal connection with the troops (sharing danger and hardship) which leads to the temptation to self-edit and soften the story. Similarly, I would imagine the fear of loosing good access to the people and places you need can be a nagging pressure. Really quite brilliant. Carrot, stick and empathy all rolled into one, and likely leading to a higher level of favorable coverage than you would expect otherwise.
If anything the Marine clip shows that the media hasn't been fully co-opted quite yet, and that some journalists aren't too afraid to leave the green zone and get in the line of fire and do their jobs. The bad with the good, or it's just another dispatch from the ministry of propaganda.
Charon
-
Good post Charon.
Embedded journalists = baaaad journalism.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Good post Charon.
Embedded journalists = baaaad journalism.
And keeping the press in the rear with the gear around the big briefing tents like in the first gulf war makes for what kind of journalism...
What is your suggestion Nash?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And keeping the press in the rear with the gear around the big briefing tents like in the first gulf war makes for what kind of journalism...What is your suggestion Nash?
I think that his post has some sarcasm, ah, embedded
-
Originally posted by Killjoy2
Kevin Sites did not report the crime. Reporting a crime is not selling it to the media.
Kevin Sites could have used to video to "report the crime" to a military officer. Instead he sold it and gave the terroist cause great joy.
Blind Loyalty impies that Kevin Sites had to suppress true loyalty to only show the video to a military court. If the military courts took no action he "might" be justified in selling his video. Blind Loyalty is an empty phrase in this context.
How many terrorists will be inspired to kill US soldiers because of Kevin Sites video?
Kevin Sites can hide behind journalistic integrity all he wants, but the fact is he sold out.
lol what a stupid question "How many Terrorist will be inspired to kill us soldiers because of video........... Guess terrorist were not killing us soldiers before but now they will lol..................
Kiljoy do you know what a soldier is fighting for? Hes fighting for American liberties and Justice. One of these is Freedom of speech. So the reporters can show abuses and wrong doings of all kinds. Our forefathers decided freedom of speech was 1 of the top things to keep this country safe and to have chks and balance for the people. Murder should never go unchecked, in war or peace. In every war we Americans have done crimes, And everyone of these crimes would continue if a reporter somewhere didn't let American people know truth.
The next guy will have to think twice before murdering someone. Its a fact someone will murder again hopefully his video might save 1 person if it does then he couldn't do no greater good then to expose what happen.
Its a fact we have to live with, Or fighting Military is made mostly up of young barely educated men and boys. They will make mistakes and easily rage out of control. Think how many police officers who have hard time with rage after long car chases. Times that by 100 and you could see how young man would easily make mistake. Video my make 1 guy maybe more think twice and I hope it does.
Kil Most of the world knows were not perfect, Problem is seem s some Americans think were close to perfect. Were not and never will be. But I'm proud to be a american and damn proud of my familly members who have fought and some who have died to give this reporter the right to do his job.
This reminds me of same fate ANDY roonie got during ww2 as a reporter. I might have exact facts mixed but I know he had seen a pilot straffe a fishing boat. And then brag on how fast it sunk. Man said was good target practice. Not one pilot complained That andy sent full report ( many praised him) that had pilot removed and his report was in USA papers even back then it had to go thru Armed forces before going in paper and US military wanted it in papers if it made paper back then......................... ...
-
Killjoy, if you read the reporter's account of how it went down, tell me step by step how YOU would have handled it if you were the reporter.
-
Maybe there should be only one "Official" newspaper and TV-channel in US which would be controlled by the State; it would be so much easier to keep Americans well informed :)