Army report: Shooting of cameraman justified

Reuters | 23 MArch 2004 | Not listed

[Enduring Freedom]

Kerry=Democrat=Socialist=Terrorist

[Ichneumon]

Reuters said it could not agree that the death of Dana, a prize-winning Palestinian cameraman, was justified and called for the urgent implementation of recommendations in the report to improve the safety of journalists in war zones.

Um, okay, how about this recommendation then: "Journalists in war zones should either be embedded with the troops (so that the troops know who/where they are), or else take cover until the shooting stops, so that they won't appear to be a combatant."

Either that, or make sure your life insurance is paid up, and take your chances.

[Ichneumon]

WTF? I agree that a filming journalist in the heat of battle could be mistaken for a soldier about to fire an AT4 but what has Palestinians got to do with it?

The dead cameraman and his wife are Palestinian, and I believe Betaille was responding to the wife's comments faulting the US military and the results of its investigation. If I get his point, it's that Palestinians seem to have a double standard when it comes to non-combatants caught in the crossfire, depending upon which side they're on.

[Ichneumon]

What do they want, paintballs, and hope the enemy plays fair by falling over when splatted?

"Do over! Do over!"

[Thunder 6]

Particularly if the gunner was using the thermal sight (which most gunners are taught as the standard).

regards,

[American_Centurion]

There is no solution to this, safety rules for those not within the command structure of a unit in combat is assinine.

If they want to be safe, then they can ride with our troops under our control, then we can better assure their safety.

If they want to walk around, filming whatever they want, whenever they want, they have to understand that a war zone is a dangerous place.

I feel no remorse for a dead journo, he joined up same as a soldier, except he can quit if he really doesn't want to go.

[SkyPilot]

Why does the media have to be in these combat zones?

I believe the media have a right to report, under certain rules of course. During WW II, the media operated under overt censorship by the military--and they even censored themselves!! They understood this was necessary.

Vietnam changed all that--and we began to see a media that had "a score to settle."

The "press pool" during the Grenada operation and Operation JUST CAUSE in Panama infuriated the media? The pool allowed the press to be escorted into the combat zones under full military transportation and protection. Why did the media squawk?

In a word--glory. Only a select few got to go into the combat zone. They were to share their stories with the rest of the media left behind. One thing we have to understand--the media treat wars like the winning the lottery. To them, it is big news, exciting, and a chance to make their mark and improve their career. You think I am kidding? I am not. Watch the movie "The Killing Fields" and pay attention to the part where the NYT reporter yearns for the applause and awards dinner by his collegues back home.

By and large the "embeds" did a good job--and that only ticked off the press even more. They felt they "went Native" and supported the troops too much.

[SkyPilot]

Bonaparte--by the way, I didn't mean a ? mark after the word media in that sentance:

The "press pool" during the Grenada operation and Operation JUST CAUSE in Panama infuriated the media?

I meant an !. They way I wrote is implied you asked a question that I refuted, which is not true. Sorry about that.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Sounds like a raw deal for GIs. If journalist are sacrosanct, suicidal terrorists will masquerade as journalists. Reuters wants to trade the lives of many GIs to make things safer for twits running around in a war zone pointing cameras. You may notice that although there are 1000's of hours of WW-II footage available, very little shows live hostile fire. When the shooting started, the camera men took cover.

[Bonaparte]

No problem, SP. Excellent post in 27! I couldn't agree more.

Sherman considered reporters to be no better than spies. They were unwelcome in his camp and his outriders ran them off. During Vietnam, the nightly news reports (especially Cronkite) directly contradicted everything the guys in country were saying in their letters home. It was nothing but a communist propaganda campaign. Since that time, I always assume the media are lying unless it's proven otherwise. The NYT made a huge deal of the Jayson Blair mess, devoting many inches of column space to their tedious apologia. But it wasn't just damage control. It also served to give the false impression that dishonest reporting is rare and that the media care about "journalistic integrity." Balderdash! They care only about their leftist ideology, political clout and personal enrichment. The rest is strictly for show.