Comments on: Iraq Deadliest War for Journalists

By: Christopher

Christopher — Wed, 31 May 2006 00:27:28 +0000

Spencer---the press was free to go wherever it wanted in Vietnam? LOL what world are you living on?

So the reporters are just wandering around and decide "Hey, I think I will go follow those soldiers right there, I wonder where they are going. Hi guys! Oh you will be in a firefight? Great! I will tag along!"

LOL!

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Tue, 30 May 2006 16:14:10 +0000

The advent of life TV coverage has certainly upped the number of journalists exposed to danger. Where a print or radio journalist would be on his/her own in the past, it now takes a minimum of three (and usually four) to put together a TV segment:

The on-air talent, the producer (who also handles the up-link), the cameraman, and the sound person. (Sometimes the camera or producer also handles the sound.)

I'd worked with both Douglas and Brolin in the ME before and they were both good guys, easy to deal with. Dozier I knew only from phone conversations.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Tue, 30 May 2006 15:52:14 +0000

One can always hope, but the situation you describe is most certainly not what's come about thusfar.

All that has come of their exposure to the facts is that their denials of those facts have become stronger.

By: Allan

Allan — Tue, 30 May 2006 15:17:26 +0000

Attacking journalists is part of the enemy's information war strategy.

By intimidating journalists, the media reports on terrorists deferentially. And since western media do not fear US troops in the least, the media feels free to Abu Ghraib them.

I hope the media wises up to the fact the terrorists and Islamofascists want to kill and subjugate everyone who thinks differently. Maybe then, their coverage might become a bit more balanced.

Nah. Never happen.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Tue, 30 May 2006 14:54:23 +0000

True. But the troop to newsperson ratios were substantially lower in those first two instances.

Bad wording on my part... when I said the press didn't have the level of access, I wasn't speaking of the press as individuals, having greater per person access, but rather, as a group. IE: More press people in the field = more access for the press as a whole. Of course, that means a greater exposure for them to danger, too.

By: spencer

spencer — Tue, 30 May 2006 14:46:14 +0000

Bithead-- you have no idea what you are talking about.

In Vietnam, for example the press was free to go wherever it wanted and they were regularly in the front lines and battle fronts throughout the theater.

In WW II the press roamed throughout the back lines right up to the front in Europe and landed in the Pacific shortly after the first troops hit the beach. Moreover, in both Europe and the pacific they regularly flew with bomber missions.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Tue, 30 May 2006 14:06:12 +0000

Shouldn't be too much a shock, since this is also the singular instance where the press had this level of access to the front.

This is perhaps their first exposure to what the troops they're so antagonistic toward, are exposed to daily.

By: Hydrablog

Hydrablog — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Folks are always looking for reasons whey the news out of Iraq is always bad, besides, you know, that its pretty crummy over there. Well it may be because of this.

By: A Blog For All

A Blog For All — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

forces, during U.S. invasion: 3 (All are crossfire or acts of war.) • Iraqi armed forces, post-U.S. invasion: 1 (Crossfire) • Source unconfirmed: 8UPDATE: Dozier's condition is still quite serious, but she is responsive and can wiggle her toes.James Joyner makes the same point I did earlier today, though he does so far more eloquently.The fact that the lion’s share of the reporters killed in this war are Iraqis specifically targetted by the guerrillas precisely because they are Iraqi is a unique aspect