chinook crash: journalists removed from scene

[zimv20]

link (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=459906)


Minutes after the attack, American Black Hawk helicopters swarmed over the scene to rush survivors to hospital while soldiers secured the site, ordering journalists to leave and confiscating film.


bush complained of the 'media filter.' i guess it doesn't work both ways.

[pseudobrit]

I wonder if they escorted them into the city to show the "progress" happening elsewhere.

Of course, the building across the street would blow up, the reporters would start filming that and have their film confiscated again and be moved to an area where more "good things" were happening.

Wash, rinse, repeat until the American people buy your ************ or you run out of untainted "progress" to show.

[toontra]

As I understand it the WH isn't going to allow ANY media coverage of bodies returning to the US.

This sort of controlling of information is commonplace in totalitarian regimes. So much for the land of the free.

[mactastic]

Yeah there has been virtually no footage of the crash site shown anywhere despite the presence of reporters on scene. That media filter is really something ain't it? Of course, maybe the deaths of 16 soldiers isn't newsworthy to the administration.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by mactastic
Yeah there has been virtually no footage of the crash site shown anywhere despite the presence of reporters on scene. That media filter is really something ain't it? Of course, maybe the deaths of 16 soldiers isn't newsworthy to the administration.

Yeah, and they're only dead because the evildoers are really upset about all the progress we're making.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by toontra
As I understand it the WH isn't going to allow ANY media coverage of bodies returning to the US.

This has been SOP for several administrations.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Yeah, and they're only dead because the evildoers are really upset about all the progress we're making.

Well you know we are only being attacked because our enemies hate freedom. They hate the fact that we live in a free society blah blah blah.

[pseudobrit]

Evildoers. Terrorists. Killers. Enemies of freedom. Thugs. Tough characters. Former thugs of the regime, or I should say current thugs of the former regime.

Spin spin spin. Who's using focus group buzzwords on the campaign trail (aka the past three years of his "presidency")?

[mactastic]

Don't forget the dead-enders. And as you can see they are getting increasingly desperate. So desperate they are using SAMs against us now. I'd hate to see what things would be like if they wern't so desperate.

[Desertrat]

So what's gonna be learned from footage at the scene? That dead, maimed and burned bodies are ugly? That guys scream when they're in pain?

Let the dead and the wounded have at least a modicum of dignity. Not that dignity ever mattered to a newsie. If it bleeds, it leads.

Effing ghouls. "How does it feeeeeelllll?"

Spare me that self-righteous pap. I've cleaned up behind too much blood to tolerate it.

:(, 'Rat

[pseudobrit]

How about we take the cleanliness out of war and show it for what it really is?

Ugly. Bloody. Disgusting. Savage. Murder. Too many people in this nation think war is a good thing.

Let's show them what it's like when you can't just walk out of the theatre after two hours, where the "hero" doesn't always survive with just a scratch, where the "villains" are simple men with families just like yours, where there's no pause, rewind or reset.

Let's make war as real for Joe War-Supporter as it is for the guy sucking blood out of the hole where his face used to be before an RPG hit him.
--
I don't think these journalists were your typical American nightly news "how does it feel" types.

Most likely, they were predominantly foreign press (non-US) due to the fact that American news outlets would rather have cheaper talking heads in studios talk and argue about the events than pay for correspondants to dig up real stories. Professional international journalists aren't quite the muckrakers and accident chasers that we think of them as.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Desertrat
So what's gonna be learned from footage at the scene? That dead, maimed and burned bodies are ugly? That guys scream when they're in pain?


These guys are volunteers, aren't they? In a public war fought with public dollars.

Now, I don't want to hear every fart or see every bloody limb, but when they are killed by what seems to be a rather primitive weapon, I do want to know about it. I'm not a watcher of TV so the images are less important to me than the printed word but why can't a reporter do his job? This is the biggest single disaster since the war started, and believe me just 'cuz gw says it's over, doesn't mean it's over. The soldiers were on their way to SDA for a flight back to the US for R & R. To me that is news and I want to hear about it from someone other that the military propaganda machine.

BTW, does anyone know if they're going to rename Saddam International Airport? I'm sure they are but the irony of those three letter airport codes is that they are unchangeable. BOM (for Bombay) hasn't changed despite the new name of Mumbai. The same with SGN for Saigon or Ho Cho Minh City,.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat
So what's gonna be learned from footage at the scene? That dead, maimed and burned bodies are ugly? That guys scream when they're in pain?


no, people would learn this:

Villagers and local farmers showed their delight by waving pieces of the smoking wreckage.


(from article linked to at top)

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
So what's gonna be learned from footage at the scene? That dead, maimed and burned bodies are ugly? That guys scream when they're in pain?

Let the dead and the wounded have at least a modicum of dignity. Not that dignity ever mattered to a newsie. If it bleeds, it leads.

Effing ghouls. "How does it feeeeeelllll?"

Spare me that self-righteous pap. I've cleaned up behind too much blood to tolerate it.

:(, 'Rat

Lets see what we learn from footage of the scene, instead of taking journalist's film and see ok.

I'm not suggesting that we show pictures of the dead and wounded up close and personal. I don't need to hear the audio of them dying (although as others have pointed out it might help the rah-rah war supporters see just what war is like) but I don't think we should be prevented from seeing some edited footage.

Nice to see some self-righteous anger from you 'Rat. Now apply it to Iraqi citizens as well as our own. We might make more friends than enemies that way.

And if you think newsies are ghouls, how do you feel about a chaplain who prays to god for help killing the enemy? That sounds pretty ghoulish to me.

[Desertrat]

Must be a new kind of Chaplain. Most I ever knew prayed that our guys survived, not that the enemy died.

It's less the filming of mayhem, which is purely factual, than it is the use to which the film is put. Watching the pious blatherings of the talking heads makes me want to throw up. Knowing that it increases ratings is even worse...

What will never stand out in print, or come across in TV footage, is the smell. Bodies and pieces of bodies on a battlefield are dead meat--and smell like it.

I dunno. I grew up with combat journalists like Mauldin, Pyle, and later, Maggie Higgins. They showed the reality without slobbering.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Must be a new kind of Chaplain. Most I ever knew prayed that our guys survived, not that the enemy died.

It's less the filming of mayhem, which is purely factual, than it is the use to which the film is put. Watching the pious blatherings of the talking heads makes me want to throw up. Knowing that it increases ratings is even worse...

What will never stand out in print, or come across in TV footage, is the smell. Bodies and pieces of bodies on a battlefield are dead meat--and smell like it.

I dunno. I grew up with combat journalists like Mauldin, Pyle, and later, Maggie Higgins. They showed the reality without slobbering.

'Rat

Funny that someone who so despises government secrecy would not only encourage it here, but denounce those who object as well.

Link (http://msnbc.com/news/988070.asp?0cb=-213190131)
SOON THE TROOPS will swoop down on a house in Fallujah’s northern outskirts, where a Baathist named Taha and 30 comrades are holding a meeting, allegedly to plan roadside bombings. “Go out and grab Taha,” says the company commander, Capt. Matthew Mobley. “He’s gonna have a helluva treat for Halloween.” Then the battalion’s chaplain asks the men to join him in a short prayer. “Lord, there are bad guys out there,” he says, bowing his head. “Just help us kill ‘em.”
New breed of chaplain?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat

It's less the filming of mayhem, which is purely factual, than it is the use to which the film is put.

i'd add that preventing it from being seen is also a form of use.

[Desertrat]

Gotta admit I'm startled at the Chaplain's comment.

I just don't see this as "government secrecy". Sorry about that. I see it as nothing more than wanting film of body parts.

You think other soldiers don't think of those dead guys as brothers? What would your reaction be if you go to the scene of a car wreck where a family member was all chopped up, and here comes Channel X? Were it my son, that cameraman might have a whole new suppository.

'Rat

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat
What would your reaction be if you go to the scene of a car wreck where a family member was all chopped up, and here comes Channel X?

you're reducing the point of this thread to a comment on mere sensationalism.

i say it boils down to: a government that's supposed to operate in a transparent manner is hiding aspects of its unfavorable performance from the public. how does a misinformed public serve the good of the country?

[mactastic]

Not government secrecy, just a nifty double standard by the administration that claims the media is "filtering" the news. That chopper crash was news like it or not. And no one here has suggested showing gory footage of someone's kid dying. The media only rarely shows anything that's even bloody. Should we have shut off our cameras on 9/11 because it might disturb some relative? Should battlefield news reporting end because reporters have to fear having new cornholes ripped in them from people like you?

You know how car wrecks are shown on TV? There's some footage of the mangled vehicle, but nothing that identifies the person, or shows them suffering. I'm fine with that level of detail. Leave the other photos for the morgue guys.

[Desertrat]

zim, I'm not "reducing" anything.

Secrecy, to me, would be an official refusal to admit the chopper went down, or that guys died. Lord knows, the whole deal has been widely reported.

Re-showings of the WTC collapse, and shots of people falling, have been "spiked" due to concern for the sensitivity of the families. Seems to me a reasonable view to have the same concern for GIs and their families...

'Rat

[mactastic]

Difference here 'Rat, is that the footage of 9/11 exists and can be seen/used at an appropriate time in the future. Here there is no such historical record due to military suppression of information.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat

Re-showings of the WTC collapse, and shots of people falling, have been "spiked" due to concern for the sensitivity of the families. Seems to me a reasonable view to have the same concern for GIs and their families...


in your WTC example, the media made that decision, based on public input. in the chinook case, the gov't made that decision.

i don't want the gov't deciding which of its activities i'm allowed to see. i want to decide for myself.

you're arguing that the ends justify the means.

[g5man]

I don’t see the big fuss. Everything that the broadcast news and cable showed was accurate and enough. One could see the wreckage smoldering, soldiers being carried by stretchers and locals looking at the activity.

There were several stories from the home towns of the those killed along with coverage of the wounded being treated in Iraq and Germany.

Given this is an active war zone I would suspect there are things the Army does not want the rest of the world to see. There are tactical issues to address following an attack, therefore they don’t want the bad guys to see everything the army does following an attack.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
I don’t see the big fuss. Everything that the broadcast news and cable showed was accurate and enough. One could see the wreckage smoldering, soldiers being carried by stretchers and locals looking at the activity.

There were several stories from the home towns of the those killed along with coverage of the wounded being treated in Iraq and Germany.

Given this is an active war zone I would suspect there are things the Army does not want the rest of the world to see. There are tactical issues to address following an attack, therefore they don’t want the bad guys to see everything the army does following an attack.

thank you for a wonderful example of willful ignorance

we are indeed doomed

[Desertrat]

Just for some perspective: In WW II, all letters home from GIs were censored. Nothing could be said about where they were, for one thing.

News reporters' copy was censored for "sensitive information", as well as all their photos.

For instance, all we knew about my stepfather's location was that he was in "the Pacific", somewhere. He "sneaked" it past the censors that he was "above the turkey's back" and "talk to my uncle"--whose name was Solomon. That's how we figured out he was on Guadalcanal, north of turkey-shaped New Guinea.

Times have changed...

'Rat

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Just for some perspective: In WW II, all letters home from GIs were censored. Nothing could be said about where they were, for one thing.

News reporters' copy was censored for "sensitive information", as well as all their photos.


I don't believe there was any censorship during the civil war and I wonder how much there was during WWI or the Spanish American War, or..... Yes times have changed and WWII was not the be all and end all of American military prowess. Just because censorship had reached a peak then does not mean that it is normal or desirable. We all know why this is happening now. Every elected official out there is afraid of any and every military involvement turning into another Vietnam.

I was on the young side during that war but the one thing I do remember was the nightly body count on the news. That turned people off the war more than anything else and seems to be doing the same thing now.

I'm all for censorship of identifying individual soldiers killed in combat at the scene, but to withhold the fact that Iraqis downed a chinook with a primitive weapon is pretty horrifying. The military's embarrassment is much less important than the fact that a bunch of guerillas are making significant dents in America's effort to tame the untameable.

The embedded journalists gave gw a modicum of success in the beginning but the reality is, it's not going well from a military standpoint. The American people deserve to see that.

[toontra]

An interesting article in today's Guardian - LINK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1079709,00.html)

I see another US helicopter was downed yesterday - this time hardy a mention of it in the papers at all. Are events of this nature going to become so commonplace that they slide under the radar of media coverage, either by designed WH control or as a result of public apathy?

How long do people think this policy of containing public disquiet can hold up?

[mactastic]

Well we aren't allowed to see the bodies coming home to Dover either. Haven't been for quite some time now.

[Desertrat]

"to withhold the fact that Iraqis downed a chinook with a primitive weapon is pretty horrifying."

Ugg, that's not a fact that I would want withheld, either. But that's not my point, not at all. I do not object to the reporting of the incident, nor discussion of it. I do object to the rushing in of the camera people for photographs which add nothing to the discussion, but predominantly provide ghoulish entertainment. Scrap metal around a hole in the ground conveys no useful information to anybody but those involved in crash analysis.

Those newsies are no different from those individuals who stop at the scene of a car wreck, hoping to have arrived before the ambulance so they can tut-tut over the horrors of all that blood and gore...

'Rat

[mactastic]

So where's your line 'Rat? Print reporters only in a war zone? Cameras only when the military deems it permissable? The gov't was certainly encouraging of the cameras during the "shock and awe" phase of the war, yet suddenly when the images won't benefit them, access is denied.

As you stated before, images have the power to sway public opinion. Suppressing them is most definetly a form of government control, something I thought you were firmly against. Is it because the images might change people's opinion? And shoudn't we be encouraging people to make decisions with all available information? And why aren't the news media allowed to film the coffins arriving at Dover? Again, because of the possibility of affecting public opinion? What does that say about our government? (And I understand that Clinton was a fan of this policy as well, it seems to serve the serving administration well to not have photos of the body bags)

[Desertrat]

mac, my concern is for the dignity of the dead and wounded or injured, insofar as it's possible. Video of a scene after the dead and wounded are removed isn't important to me, or to the men involved.

Similarly, there's no loss of dignity to the men in the coffins being returned. I have no objection to filming of their return to that final resting place, whether it be Arlington or elsewhere. The country has a right to know of casualties.

But anybody who doesn't know that our soldiers suffer as well as die is indeed living in a dream world. I see no point in belaboring the obvious, just for people to slobber over.

'Rat

[mactastic]

I think to too many people the horrors of war aren't real, they only see gun-camera shots of smart bombs and sanitized footage from "embeds". It's almost like a giant video game. We don't see the real thing, the pain and suffering of our troops and the people of Iraq. Maybe if we did, fewer people would be ready to rush to war as an option. Maybe more of an effort would be made to avoid war. Maybe that is what worries those in power about these kinds of pictures.

[toontra]

Originally posted by Desertrat
... there's no loss of dignity to the men in the coffins being returned. I have no objection to filming of their return to that final resting place, whether it be Arlington or elsewhere. The country has a right to know of casualties.

That is precisely what is being denied to US citizens. To be honest, I think it will prove counter-productive in the long term. For people to be aware of increasing numbers of casualties is one thing; to suspect you are being hood-winked (as with the justification for war in the first place) is quite another, and may lead to greater anger and resentment.

[Frohickey]

Why not?

Let the media televise the dead bodies of the soldiers coming back from Iraq.

Just make sure that the media also televises the brother of the dead soldier punching out the reporter and the cameraman when they ask him how it feels to have his brother die.

[mactastic]

And the ensuing arrest for assault.

No one is suggesting that the media act in such a way as to cause undo pain to the families of the casaulties. Just give us the facts.