Definitely soapbox material

Paul Watson

Trollslayer wrote: _Reporting on the gulf war http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate\_adie030310.htm\[^\]_ Come on TrollSlayer, that sounds like utter garbage to me. Pure dramatised, de-contextualised nonsense. No Pentagon "officer" is going to say "Who cares.. ..They've been warned." Even the bluntest Pentagon chap is going to be more tactful than that. Plus those ".. .." worry me. What else did he say between those two quote parts? He could have said "Who cares? We care that reporters could get themselves in harms way, that they could become a burden on US pesonell and that Iraqis could use them as hostages in tense situations. However we have spoken to the Iraqi's and told them not to think of using reporters in any way, they've been warned." Plus judging from the rest of the site (one article claims the BBC is an alien news-harbinger, yeah, right!) it is highly dubious...

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

benjymous

I think she did, it's just not audable in the interview There's a link to play the interview, but I refuse to let RealPlayer anywhere near my computer -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!

Doug Goulden

Looks a little slanted to me. American troops don't go around targeting civilians, and reporters are civilians. If that reporter believes that the US does maybe she's been listening to to much propoganda. US military spokesmen wouldn't be dumb enough to say "Oh well we warned them". Thats just ignorant. One question though, does the reporter really think she should be standing in the Iraqi diinformation Ministry while bombs are falling? Kind of sounds like she wants to be dancing safely across the sand dunes while reporting on the pretty explosions and that awful blood. I think that reporters do need to be able to see what is going on to report on it, however, they should remember what they say can accidently pass on information to the enemy when they report on operational information. Case in point: What if a reporter standing by a runway in Kuwait reported that the US was launching bombers on their way to Baghdad. If the Iraqi's use that info (they have to be watching CNN ) and down that plane the reporter is at least partially responsible. Thats why access is controlled. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Lost User

"Another guest on the show, war author Phillip Knightley, reported that the Pentagon has also threatened they: "may find it necessary to bomb areas in which war correspondents are attempting to report from the Iraqi side." Hello? If it happens, it will be WAR!! If you're anywhere in Iraq (particularly on Iraqi controlled soil) you're in a precarious situation. How many reporters were reporting from the "other" side during WW1, WW2, etc...?? This reporter is completely nuts. Mike Mullikin :beer:

Times change, politicians don't. - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe - Soapbox 10/03/2003

Jason Henderson

The US military wants to blackout the entire country. Haven't you heard of the E-bomb? If they notice a satelitte uplink, how would they know its a reporter or if its Saddam's forces trying to communicate after the blackout? If you're willing to stand in the line of fire, expect to get shot.

Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

articles profile

Doug Goulden · Times change, politicians don't. **- Anna-Jayne Metcalfe - Soapbox 10/03/2003**

Sounds like a human shield to me ..... ;) This just proves that the media has no clue Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Chris Maunder

There is media control in every war. cheers, Chris Maunder

Nitron

The title of the article is in stark contrast to the first sentence... [snip] PENTAGON THREATENS TO KILL INDEPENDENT REPORTERS IN IRAQ The Pentagon has threatened to fire on the satellite uplink positions of independent journalists in Iraq,... [/snip] so that article implies: satellite uplink positions == INDEPENDENT REPORTERS So assuming the article is un-biasedly true, today's weapons are more than capable of destroying a satellite uplink with marginal threat to anything nearby. (save for the reporter climbing up the antenna to save it :~ ) - Nitron

"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb

Lost User

Michael P Butler wrote: Whilst it may sound harsh, operational security is paramount If you read, the journalists are already aware of this. if in doubt, find out more about Kate Adie. She's been on the firing line more than most soldiers. The tigress is here :-D

KaRl

Michael P Butler wrote: In War, the first casualty is always the truth Nice quote :)

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons

Bruce Duncan

I've always found it odd that war can have rules.

Bruce Duncan, CP#9088, CPUA 0xA1EE, Sonork 100.10030
Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
Baldrick: Yeah, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made of iron.

Michael P Butler · Times change, politicians don't. **- Anna-Jayne Metcalfe - Soapbox 10/03/2003**

Mike Mullikin wrote: How many reporters were reporting from the "other" side during WW1, WW2, etc...?? The world has changed a lot since the last World War, there is a greater flow of information and a greater freedom of movement. I'm quiet sure if reporters had been able to get into Occupied Europe then they would have reported from Berlin - however old Adolf didn't much believe in the freedom of the press. The current crop of dictators have learnt a lot and know how to manipulate the media to their own ends. You just have to remember that both sides will only let journalists report what they want them to report during wartime. (Or what can be sneaked out on the back of a camel) Journalists know the risks, they accept them in the (vain) hope of giving their audience a clear balanced picture of what is happening. Of course, some just want to make a name for themselves and get a cushy anchor persons job ;-) Michael He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious - Sun Tzu (The Art of War)

Lost User

Michael P Butler wrote: The world has changed a lot since the last World War, there is a greater flow of information and a greater freedom of movement. I'm quiet sure if reporters had been able to get into Occupied Europe then they would have reported from Berlin - however old Adolf didn't much believe in the freedom of the press. So has warfare and it's related technologies. A small military unit can use the same exact technology that a reporter might use to uplink a story. Therefore anyone using said technology in a theater of war must assume the risks and not make it look like they are being specifically targeted. Mike Mullikin :beer:

Times change, politicians don't. - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe - Soapbox 10/03/2003