| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| "Eyewitness" News? |
| 2004-06-04 |
| COALITION SOLDIERS QUESTION NEWS MEDIA FOLLOWING ROADSIDE BOMB MOSUL, Iraq - Coalition soldiers questioned two news media cameramen and a reporter after a roadside bomb exploded near a Coalition convoy two kilometers north of Mosul June 3. The media, who were at the scene prior to the attack, told soldiers at the scene they had received a tip to be at that location prior to the attack and they had witnessed the explosion. There was minimal damage to a Coalition vehicle, a cracked windshield, and no serious injuries. 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division soldiers requested the media accompany them to a base camp in Mosul to answer questions as witnesses to the incident. "We respectfully REQUEST that you come back to the base with us. If you do so, these guns pressed against your heads will not fire." The news media representatives left the base camp in the mid afternoon. They were seen to be chain-smoking furiously and glancing nervously in all directions. Some rushed to nearby roadside vendors to buy underwear and strong alcoholic beverages. This brings a whole new meaning to "media relations." This is not the first such incident -- though at least there was no mention of the media actually paying the bad guys to stage an attack, as has been rumored previously. |
| Posted by:Verlaine |
| #20 AC - Lol! Perfect! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-06-04 11:08:38 PM |
| #19 Here's a nifty pic to accompany this article: President Bush takes down yet another hostile regime. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2004-06-04 11:02:34 PM |
| #18 If "protecting sources" or getting a news scoop comes before saving American lives then we are not dealing with reporters but collaborators. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-06-04 9:35:08 PM |
| #17 I am reminded of an incident back in 1986, right after the bombing raid on Libya. A variety of hysterical rumors were floating around and one of my more credulous co-workers reported one of these: "Ghaddafi has rounded up all the western reporters over there and is threatening to shoot them!" I responded, "What? Has he come over to our side." Too bad it wasn't true. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2004-06-04 7:24:07 PM |
| #16 The solution's easy enough: declare that any journalists on the scene of a terrorist attack before the attack takes place has, by virtue of their foreknowledge, changed status from journalist (and protected) to illegal combatant (and not protected). Journalists, if they want to maintain their protected status, must report any information they have to authorities. They are, after all, reporters; failure to report means they are doing other work. The term for that work is, I believe, espionage. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-06-04 7:20:46 PM |
#15 Some cold justice from "Sword of Gideon" on the LGF string about this incident:"If you're ever in a position to save a journalist's life (car wreck, fire, alcohol overdose, etc.) get out your camera and take pictures instead. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2004-06-04 7:14:36 PM |
| #14 BigEd, I think the story in question took place during Vietnam. I think a large majority of the press said they would keep silent. The issue and the question came up again in the Gulf War and the three in question were now famous and thus highlighted. Needless to say its a damning admission. They consider themselves Journlists first, Americans second which is a far cry from the journalists that covered World War 2. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-06-04 3:41:45 PM |
| #13 I has to be Al-Jazzera, or Al-Arabiya, or one of those sorts. If ever American media would be caught up in something like this where American Soldiers were killed. . . . (Remember there was this story at Gulf War I. Each of the three anchors (Rather-Brokaw-Jennings)was asked if they would warn US soldiers of ambush the saw in advance. If I remember right only Brokaw said he would.) I think the reporters would dare not come home. Can you imagine a trial of some distraught family stalking and "eliminating" that reporter? Can you say, "Jury Nullification"? Or at least a string of hung juries so that the jurisdiction involved would give up trying the case? And then if the reporters family would try to sue for wrongful death? "OK, $1.00". If something like this were ever to happen. And, it may well, I think "reporting" in Iraq would suddenly "improve". |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-06-04 1:31:36 PM |
| #12 Give the Al-Jiz HQ a fright and break all the windows out thier offices with a low flying B1 going near supersonic - should perhaps get them to realise thier batting for the wrong team. |
| Posted by: Shep UK 2004-06-04 1:25:59 PM |
| #11 Charge them immediately with making training videos for terrorists. Put them in AG Prison for a few months until more information is gleaned. |
| Posted by: Johnnie Bartlette 2004-06-04 11:37:06 AM |
| #10 Charge them immediately with making training videos for terrorists. Put them in AG Prison for a few months until more information is gleaned. |
| Posted by: Johnnie Bartlette 2004-06-04 11:35:55 AM |
| #9 I think it would not be unfair to declaire them participants in the bombing if they knew about it before hand and simply watched it happen so they could spin it later. Al Jazeera should be put on notice that their reporters and cameramen are no longer going to be treated as journalists, but instead as tourists. |
| Posted by: Yank 2004-06-04 10:05:58 AM |
| #8 This could be just about anyone in the media -- they all value the 'story at any cost' (as long as they dont have to pay it)! Do you think CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC/BBC/ETC.... would give up a good video of soldiers being blown to bits? The Democrats here in the U.S. would wet themselves to get such a video to promote the 'Bush lied people died' bullshit. And yes, sad to say, I am serious..... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-06-04 9:30:54 AM |
| #7 This has been pretty common. Normally, it turns out Al-Jazerra is warned about a number of bombs, firefights, etc. so as to get maximum Arab sympathetic coverage. In fact, I think they have been taken in before and questioned after finding them at the scene. This is deja vu all over again. |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2004-06-04 9:26:30 AM |
| #6 My sense from this story is that they may not have exactly planted the bombs...they simply knew about them and wanted to get the story. And they didn't tip off the soldiers. Which is despicable in it's own right. |
| Posted by: PlanetDan 2004-06-04 8:38:27 AM |
| #5 Is there any information on who the "media" people are, or work for? |
| Posted by: Jim K 2004-06-04 7:52:00 AM |
| #4 So who do these"Aidders and Abetters"work for? The link dosen't say,what ever"news"orginazation they work for should be booted-out on thier ass'. |
| Posted by: Raptor 2004-06-04 7:35:53 AM |
| #3 US troops nabbing media who planted bombs = egggsclent story! |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-06-04 1:38:15 AM |
| #2 Agenda in action: Bomb blowing up US troops=good story, US troops nabbing bombers=bad story. |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-06-04 1:27:30 AM |
| #1 The media ARE planting the bombs! If they know what's going to happen....why don't they call and warn someone? BECAUSE THEY'RE PLANTING THE BOMBS!!! |
| Posted by: Halfass Pete 2004-06-04 12:58:47 AM |
