From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon May 12 2003 - 18:39:43 MDT
--- Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote,
> > I would bet that the facts would show that the embedded reporter
> filed
> > the more accurate report in the vast majority of cases, while the
> > non-embedded reporter was filing based on second and third hand
> > information, generally Iraqi propaganda or that of sympathizers.
> > Embedded reporters filed live video from the scene while
> non-embedded
> > reporters filed from a hotel balcony in Amman or Kuwait or Bagdad.
>
> Strange, but I have the opposite interpretation. The embedded
> journalists usually were kept out of combat and out of harm's way.
This is inaccurate. Several embedded journalists were engaged in combat
operations. Specifically, Ollie North engaged in helicopter operations
in which his chopper was damaged by enemy fire, they landed and
repaired a fuel line, and took off again. Greg Kelly was wounded in the
face by glass fragments blasted by enemy fire. Several other embedded
reporters had similar experiences.
> They filed live
> reports from the aircraft carriers hundreds of miles away from the
> real action. Whereas those reporters on the balconies of the hotels
> were often in the very buildings being bombed. They seemed to have
> a better view of the battleground than the embedded reporters most
> of the time.
>
> > The
> > nonembeds were of two sorts. They were either in bed with the
> > enemy: from non-coalition countries and cooperated with the Baath
> > regime, or they were of the old school cocktail set that thought
> > covering a war meant spending more time around a hotel pool than
> > anywhere else. Only the embeds, in my opinion, deserve the title
> > Journalist.
>
> Wow! Do you realize how close to endorsing a government-controlled
> media this is? Only those reporters sponsored, approved and fed
> information from the military government are real journalists,
> while independents, unapproved journalists are automatically suspect
> and maybe even enemy sympathizers if
> their stories don't match the official government releases.
An embedded reporter reporting live from the battlefield cannot have
his story changed, manipulated, or hand fed by military handlers. I do
not count pool reporters who stayed in Kuwait and relied on handouts
from Press Officers as 'embedded'. Nor did the embedded reporters.
> Without even arguing the accuracy of this, even the theory of what
> you are proposing seems about as anti-liberty as one can get. Since
> when did the free press become the enemy of liberty and pro-
> government-controlled-media become the
> politically correct position? Who are you and what have you done
> with Mike Lorrey? :-)
I don't necessarily think that you have to be embedded to do accurate
reporting. What I saw, though, was that those reporters with integrity,
who wanted to get front lines action, went into the embed program.
Those who were already hopelessly biased against the US government, who
were determined to paint a negative picture of US military operations,
it seems to me, went independent, and those who are nothing but yellow
bellied elitist chickenshits stayed in their hotel rooms, reported off
of US OR Iraqi government handouts, and thought a papercut from the
dining service was deserving of combat pay.
>
> > The classic example was Greg Kelly of FOX reporting from the front
> > steps of Saddam's new palace in Bagdad at the same time that Bagdad
> > Bob, aka Comical Ali, was claiming a few blocks away to
> > international reporters that there were no Americans in Bagdad.
> > Nobody today will now claim to have been present at Bagdad Bob's
> > news conferences and taking
> > his pronouncements as fact, though many did so at the time.
>
> True, but there are similar cases in reverse. The famous image of
> Saddam's statue being pulled down by Iraqi citizens are now known
> to have been staged by the military using ex-Iraqis that we shipped
> in.
An Iraqi exile is not an 'ex-Iraqi'. Trying to delegitimize someone
because they were lucky enough to escape Saddam in the past is
dishonest. That they went back and are trying to rebuild their homeland
is indicative of whether they are really 'iraqis'.
>
> > Please, Harvey, document any actual instance where an embedded
> > reporter was ordered to report facts not in evidence.
>
> You will probably object that these examples don't prove the
> reporters were
> "ordered" to lie, but they certainly were fed information which later
> turned out to be false.
That isn't really what I asked, then, is it?
>
> Read "The Military's Media" by Robert Jensen
> <http://www.progressive.org/may03/jen0503.html>. The first paragraph
> claims
> that reporters were given specific orders on what to say and not say
> intheir news broadcasts. He even quotes one reporter saying "we have
> been given orders" and changing it to "the soldier have been given
> orders" later.
Depends on the context. If the reporter or soldiers around him have
been given orders not to disclose their exact location or where they
plan to advance to, that isn't false reporting is it? All it is is
operational security, which you should be fully aware of given your
experience.
>
> The toppling of Saddam's statue was a staged event reported exactly
> as the military told the reporters to report it.
> <http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm> Wider
> pictures show the obviously staged small event in a cordained off
> area. It is hard to imagine that anybody involved thought this was
> a real event being reported. They reporters and camera crews all
> helped stage the events, crop, edit the pictures to make it appear
> like a large crowded event, and
> then presented the desired result as independent, objective news and
> not a military PR event.
The problem is that you are comparing the event to peoples memories of
things like the Tianenmen Square demonstrations or the Berlin Wall
coming down. Popular opinion is that these were spontaneous events when
the facts are that they were highly staged and orchestrated and local
groups had a lot more opportunties for locals to get organized into
large masses.
>
> Looting in Bagdad was often encouraged (or at least not discouraged)
> by U.S. soldiers and then fed to the reporters as evidence of the
> populace rising up against Saddam.
> <http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3311.htm>
Many US soldiers have said that it's like the people getting their own
back. The left has reported the looting as if it has been massive and
widespread, but it turns out that it has been highly focused on
government facilities and the homes of very wealthy Baathist leaders.
An example of fake reporting by the left is the whole museum looting
episode. The left bought the claims of the Baathist director of the
museum that 170,000 priceless antiquities had been looted without any
fact checking. It turns out that most all items had been securely
stored across town as per government plan. The actual number of items
stolen: 27. Yup, 27. And this isn't counting the many items made of
precious metals and gems which are now suspected to be fake
replacements for items looted by Saddam over the last several decades.
>
> This report lists a number of instances where independent reporters
> were intimidated by the U.S. military trying to block their stories
> when they disputed the official military version.
> <http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0401-10.htm>
If I were a soldier who saw a reporter reporting a story I knew to be
absolute horseshit, I'd be a little intimidating too. Nothing pisses
off a soldier more than a civilian talking shit about him.
My personal experience with reporters is that they are liars, and the
more liberal ones lie the most, and especially when it comes to the
military, and to other things they dislike, like the Second Amendment,
but thats another discussion.
>
> The rescue of Jessica Lynch seems to have been highly fictional
> according to
> <http://timesargus.nybor.com/Story/64568.html>. It describes the
> embedded reporters as being hand-picked by the military and too
> dependent on reports fed to them from their military handlers. It
> also lists a whole bunch of other stories that turned out to be
> inaccurate. All of these seem to have been fed to the reporters who
> dutifully reported them, and then later turned
> out to have no basis in fact or no supporting evidence besides the
> military press release.
Military operations are intrinsically foggy. Vision is tunnelled by
adrenaline, and events happen so fast, while communication is muddled,
that inaccuracies are an unavoidable hazard. "The Fog of War" is a real
phenomenon. Being a veteran, and knowing lots of veterans who have
expressed their opinions of this war, the veterans opinion is that
people got a far more accurate idea of the progress of the war from the
embeds than from any other source, and their reporting was far better
than they'd seen from reporters in previous wars.
Those reporters who were 'too proud' to be embedded are generally the
type who disgust veterans to begin with. Even worse are those embedded
with the enemy, like Peter Arnett.
> One particularly obvious story is the article written by
> Times reporter Judith Miller, who later admitted that she was not
> allowed to see any of the evidence or interview the people.
> She just repeated what the
> military handlers told her to say. This probably has the longest
> list of specific examples.
Judith Miller was not an embedded reporter, she was one of the hotel types.
=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
Blog: Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.blogspot.com/
Flight sims: http://www.x-plane.org/greendragon
Pro-tech freedom discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exi-freedom
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 12 2003 - 18:50:41 MDT