What does the media expect? (a vent)

[Laz]

Of course I am saddened by the loss of the Journalists. However, take a look at the situation leading up to to the shelling of the hotel. Iraqi "thugs" are not only dressing in civilian clothes, but dressing as pregnant women and shooting at soldiers. they have used civilians as human shields. They are hiding in schools, Hospitals and Mosques. What makes the journalists think they are imune just because they have the word "press" on their backs? What makes them think the Iraqis wouldn't use the hotel to shoot at troops? Why do they think that troops can't defend themselves?? They all volunteered for this. I would assume they knew the risks. Just another way for the media to talk about those EEEEvil US forces, bent on destroying everything. Of course the Iraqi paramilitary had nothing to do with it

The media says their was no sniper. The tank crew says their was. The question you must answer is who do you believe....a trained military tank crew, or a trained (in what?) journalist?

As you can tell, I am so fed up with the slant of the media coverage I could puke!

GOD BLESS AND PROTECT OUR TROOPS!!

 

[SuiteDisney]

Amen!

 

[Geoff_M]

It was certainly tragic, but understandable. Here's the most detailed description of that happened that I've found:

Speaking at Central Command headquarters in Doha, Qatar, Brooks told reporters initially that the U.S. forces had been fired on from the hotel lobby. But he later corrected his remarks to say “I may have misspoken on exactly where the fire came from.”

The tank that fired on the hotel was attached to the 3rd Infantry Division.

U.S. Army Col. David Perkins, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division’s 2nd Brigade, said Iraqis fired rocket-propelled grenades at tanks from in front of the hotel, and the military, scanning the area for observation posts, saw the binocular and fired. The tanks were also taking fire from mortars.

He said the military regrets what happened and was ordering troops not to fire on the hotel, but he placed the blame squarely on Saddam Hussein.

“By militarizing these areas, Saddam is putting these people at risk,” Perkins said. “The soldier’s primary responsibility is to protect himself and his crew.”

http://msnbc.com/news/897237.asp?0cm=c32

I've also read American service men on the scene say that the attacks on the tank stopped after the guy on the roof was taken out. Journalists objected to the US's claim of self-defense because they say no one was firing from the roof. That appears to be correct, but it also appears that they guy calling in and directing the mortar rounds was up on the roof.

We've now pledged to not fire on the hotel again. So the Iraqis are now free to use it as a base to call in strikes as they see fit without the risk of being stopped.

 

[Disney Doll]

If you go to a war zone, you must expect that you may get killed. It's really not a hard concept.

The military understands the concept. I'm not ssure why the journalists don't.

 

[dmadman43]

The media says their was no sniper. The tank crew says their was. The question you must answer is who do you believe....a trained military tank crew, or a trained (in what?) journalist?

You're asking these guys, who are being fired upon, to make decisions on whether the target is a journalist or not. Is that a snipers's scope or a TV camera? Dunno, but I'm being fired upon from that general area so I'm not taking my chances. Take out any potential threat. Also, the 50MM gun was out of range of the potential snipers so the tank needed to be used.

These journalist were idiots. We didn't kill them; they killed themselves the same as if sucked on a shotgun.

I hope the tank commander gets a bronze star.

We've now pledged to not fire on the hotel again. So the Iraqis are now free to use it as a base to call in strikes as they see fit without the risk of being stopped

That, IMHO, is a mistake based on the reasons you cite. We've taken great aims at fighting a "politically correct" war. Now is not the time to get even more politically correct.

 

[WendyZ]

I agree wholehearted with you Laz!!!

 

[Annie&Hallie'sMom]

Sadly journalists die during times of war. It's a hazard of the job. They died in WWII, the Korean Conflict, Vietman...and it's happening again in Iraq. I am saddened, BUT again, it's a harzard of the job.

 

[Laz]

An Update: A BBC reporter examined the scene and claims the the tank could not have fired unless the shell could go around corners. He is suggesting the Iraqis did it to start a controversy.

 

[C.Ann]

It's a very sad thing that any of these reporters had to die.. But you know what? If you don't want to take a chance on being injured - or worse yet, killed - then you really shouldn't position yourself right smack dab in the middle of a city that is currently engaged in a fierce war.. That's pretty much common sense - wouldn't you think?

 

[Laz]

Who said journalists had common sense

 

[Taryn]

Hi,

I barely post anymore...

I doubt I will post again....

I just want to make sure you all understand what your statements sound like to me.

It sounds to me like you are saying that myself and my coworkers deserve to die.

Journalists are not these characters out there somewhere that never mingle with real life... they read the DIS... they go to the supermarket... and they feel, just like everyone else.

Believe it or not some are just really interested in getting you the information. It seems that some people want information as they have been consuming our coverage in droves.

I agree, sometimes journalists step over the line. But to stay "the media" each time you disagree with something you read or see would be just like me saying "the Americans" when an individual in the States behaves poorly.

Maybe I am overly sensitive today, maybe I should take a break from the DIS. But I just feel like yelling! We are not so stupid that we do not realize that there is a huge risk in covering this sort of event. Why would you think that?

By the way... my collegue, whose convoy was caught in a friendly fire incident of Friday, night is going to be okay... sorry.

Leanne

 

[AirForceRocks]

Maybe I am overly sensitive today, maybe I should take a break from the DIS. But I just feel like yelling! We are no so stupid that we do not realize that there is a huge risk in covering this sort of event. Why would you think that?

Why would we think that? Perhaps because of all the pulling of hair and gnashing of teeth over these journalists getting killed. If journalists understand the dangers, then why all of the complaining when there is a death in the midst of war?

By the way... my collegue, whose convoy was caught in a friendly fire incident of Friday, night is going to be okay... sorry.

Please...

 

[Geoff_M]

It sounds to me like you are saying that myself and my coworkers deserve to die.

For what it's worth, you can find some of my photos on world-wide newswires on ocassion. No one has even remotely suggested that any journalist deserved to die. The "beef" is the claim by journalists that they are a "protected class" and if a location they are in is militarized by Saddam's goons, then that's just bad luck for the American troops that are in the line of fire. Those journalist voluntarily (bravely so) went, with full knowledge, to an area that was destined to be a war zone.

I also think some of the harsh comments are the reaction to the totally unfounded charges that the journalists were "targeted" by the US forces. The best case scenario is that they was a person either firing on, or directing fire from the roof of the hotel and the tank responded. The worst case is that the tank crew mistook someone with a 500 f4 (*) as a soldier with an anti-tank weapon or the reflection off a lens as someone directing fire with binoculars and it was all a screw-up. If the US were really targeting the journalists at the Palestine Hotel or the Arab Media compound, it would have been wiped off the map some time ago.


* = "What's a 500 f4?" you ask. It's a lens that looks like this:

 

[AirForceRocks]

Excellent post Geoff!!

 

[Taryn]

Thank you for your post Geoff...

It appears this thread relates to specific incidents that I was not fully aware of. I appriciate you filling me in.

I work out of Canada and was speaking from that perspective. We don't have embedded reporters and it seems I have missed some of the previous dialogue on the original subject.

Friday evening was a really scary time for my co-workers and as I admitted above, I am probably more sensitive than I should be.

So again, thank you for your informative post.



AFR ~ It seems I didn't have all the information... I hope you won't continue to hold it against me...

I'm usually really nice and sane. Times are just crazy lately, the sentiments regarding the media were just building and building. Perhaps this was not the correct time to me blow...

Thanks...

I am just sick of fighting...

 

[Laz]

Taryn,

If you have been reading my posts on this site, I am sure you realize that I am one who has harsh words for the media. I will restate my reasons;

First of all, any loss of life is sad. I greive for any person who loss their life over in Iraq. Yes, even the enemy. Their are a few like Saddam that I can only say "God is merciful, but God is just." I pray every day that all Iraqis lay down their arms and return to the loving arms of their families because that me one less life that is loss. This is where I grow mad at the media in general.

As soon as the bombs started flying, so should politics--out the window. It became strategy and tactics, life and death. The tatics include gain ground on many fronts, including physical, mental and emotional. If you can gain the high ground on these, you have a great advantage. Media plays a crucial role in the physical and emotional fronts because this how the world sees the war. Look at how arab media can effect the arab world. Western media has a similar effect. When they put their own editorial(mainly anti Bush, anti war) spin on their reports, it helps the enemy. When they show us having problems, talk about over extended supply lines colateral damage, and things like that, it provides an emotional boost to the enemy. When they spend extra time show home protest against the war, but hardly any time show people rallying for the troops, the enemy feels like they are winning. When the show or print words from Hollywood stars (that the enemy has watched in movies) that the war is evil and bad--more fuel for the enemy Our media likes to show the bad side of everything. I believe they feel that is provides more viewers. I will tell you that the enemy is watching. It may get one more Iraqi to pick up a gun and make a suicide run. It may cause one more arab to go to Iraq to fight. That could lead to one more coalition body bag. Even when the American flag went over the statues head, it was a bad thing--showing the arab world that the evil americans are invaders. It was only later that FOX interview the soldier who told us that flag came from the Pentagon and was flying on 9/11!

This is war and it is serious business. Thier are lives at stake. If it is bad for our troops, don't report it until after the war. I will understand if it saves lives.

 

[Taryn]

Laz,

Thank you for taking the time to explain your concerns in this well thought out and concerned way. It helps me understand your original post.

I admit that I am not always familiar with the kind of coverage you are receiving in the States. I made an error and my comments and my anger reflect my ignorance. Obviously our coverage in Canada is a bit different given our role, or lack thereof, in the current conflict.

I based my rant on what we have produced and what I have seen here. I think we may have been comparing apples to oranges... *smiles* Neither is better or worse... just different.

I agree that your corncern is valid and I do appriciate the perspective you have given me. Thanks again for responding...

That you have taken the time to reply leads me to believe that there might just be some hope for responsible journalism. *small smile*

I hope we can continue to discuss these issues in this way and again I apologise for jumping to conclusions. I hope you can understand how personal this has come to be for me with my friends in harms way. I don't normally freak out.

I'm off to check out some of your posts and links because I have no problem putting my mouse where my mouth is (or should not be).. *smiles*

Update: Yikes... some that stuff is scary! If you are interested in the kind of stuff we are producing and getting up here I'll send you our url... just ask.


Leanne

 

[Laz]

I too, must ask forgivness for thinking ALL media editorializes (sp?) when they report. As a teacher, I know how I feel when someone criticizes my teaching (yes, I am a teacher AND a bad speller ). I do believe that media is important. It keeps us imform and that leads to knowledge which in turn leads to better decision making. Yes, it also protects us many times over when it comes to uncovering corruption, crime, etc. But thier are times when we the public don't need to know --at least not right away.

Just to let you know, I have former students in Iraq, but no relatives.

Thanks for you patience and understanding.