The Liberators Teach Iraq, Part 1: Freedom of the Press

[Chris Alger]

It could have been worse. They could have been French.

From today's Ha'aretz:

U.S. troops in Iraq detained two Israeli journalists and Portuguese colleague on suspicion of espionage and beat one of them, relatives said Friday. They were released after 48 hours.

The journalists, Dan Scemama, of Channel One Television and Boaz Bismuth of the Yedioth Aharonoth entered Iraq without proper accreditation. Scemama said earlier in the week that he had been denied accreditation because he represented Israeli television.

The two teamed up with the Portuguese TV reporter, rented a jeep, and entered Iraq on their own, driving alongside American convoys. They phoned in reports based on conversations with U.S. troops and Iraqis.

Speaking to Channel One news from Kuwait, Dan Scemama said Friday that the Americans treated them as spies and terrorists for the 48 hours of their detention. "We were humiliated for many hours. They did not let is eat and they took all the means of communication we had on our persons."

Scemama's girlfriend, Shlomit Yarkoni, said the journalists were forced to stop Tuesday, beside six tanks, because of sandstorms. "They couldn't see the road... [and] the Americans advised them not to move because they would not be identified in the dust and... [troops had] orders to shoot at almost anything that moves."

Early Wednesday, soldiers woke them up at gunpoint, and accused them of espionage. The reporters were told to pick up their shirts and let down their pants to prove they were not carrying bombs.

Scemama's sister, Dina Harel, told UPI they were told to drop to the sand, face down. They were later kept in a closed jeep for 36 hours.

The Portuguese journalist asked to phone home and was beaten, the two said. His ribs were broken and he is now hospitalized.

Yedioth Aharonoth, concerned about loss of contact with the journalists, had asked the Pentagon to help find them.

After 48 hours, a helicopter flew the reporters to an American military base in Kuwait, where they were released and given their phones back. Their rented jeep was impounded, Harel said.

But also in Kuwait, "they treated us as suspects," Scemama said. "We were in the hands of soldiers who were only concerned with keeping us from speaking to each other."

He added that he had received the impression that the American army had done everything it could to ensure that not one independent journalist was reporting from Iraq.

[Jimbo]

You certainly are desperate to dig up this puny ammunition to demonstrate suppression of freedom of the press Chris. It must have been all the more difficult considering the reporters were from Israel. Couldn't you find a lot more material outlining the Iraqi government's actions in this regard? I really liked the last statement:

"He added that he had received the impression that the American army had done everything it could to ensure that not one independent journalist was reporting from Iraq.

If I did not know better I would say that was added by you. I do know better, right???

[HDPM]

So these guys go into a war zone with no credentials and start following Americans around and also talk to Iraqis and wonder why people treat them as spies? I am only concerned that our troops spoke to them and let them hang around as long as they did. I think it highlights the fact that our army is catering to journalists too much. And these particular journalists are idiots. Total Darwin Award potential. Maybe beating them crossed the line, but they all should have been dope slapped and sent packing. They should be detained and their identities verified with full background checks done to detect any connection to intelligence agencies. If they were in fact reporters, their media outlets should bear the cost of their detention and helicopter transport out. Not that folks who don't bother with credentials but do make sure to have means of communication in a war zone could be spies or pose a danger to soldiers or anything.

[Chris Alger]

Read the link for yourself:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&oi=news&start=0&num=1&q=http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/278175.html&e=2436

I wouldn't be interested in adding to the volume of information about the bad acts of the Iraqi government because they're already well-known. Few people, however, realize that US troops are capable of beating journalists in order to stifle press freedom.

[Chris Alger]

The article didn't say they had "no credentials," but that they were denied "proper accredation," probably by Kuwait, only because they were Israeli. Being confined for two days and expelled from the country for lack of credentials doesn't ring true, especially since their identities and employers could have been confirmed in less than an hour with a phone call and a fax. It seems more likely that the army didn't like what these guys were reporting.

[Cyrus]

Those idiots don't wanna be liberated !

[Jimbo]

Thanks for providing the link Chris. After reading the article in full context I find 90% hearsay from "relatives" and a girlfriend. Below is the substance of the article:

"We were humiliated for many hours. They did not let is eat and they took all the means of communication we had on our persons." and this "they treated us as suspects," and this "We were in the hands of soldiers who were only concerned with keeping us from speaking to each other."

The rest of the article seems a bit suspect and was creative journalism at best.

[Mark Heide]

Chris,

Very entertaining article. Here's an article that you may find entertaining: /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=focusIraqNews&storyID=24585 17

I'm only presenting this for entertainment value.

Mark

[Billy LTL]

He added that he had received the impression that the American army had done everything it could to ensure that not one independent journalist was reporting from Iraq.

Sorry but that statement is complete crap. Without going into a lot of detail there are many, many journalists in Iraq who are NOT embedded with the U.S. or British military. Same deal, their organisations hire a (usually) armoured suv, a top driver/minder - often Iraqi, and off they go, hopefully to hunt down some stories the embedded journos can't get access to.

From what I'm hearing the treatment they receive at the hands of the military varies when they run into them. Some unit commanders are very hositile, like "Get the eff out of here now" while others let them tag along with the convoy. Understandably in a war no officer wants unknown elements added to his responsibilty.

As for the censorship issue, why would the U.S. military be concerned with it when they are allowing embedded journos to file pictures like this? Just use common sense.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030329/170/3np0t.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030329/170/3nozj.html

And here's a story about covering the war as a unlateral (ie not embedded with the military) journalist. Check out the picture half way down. There's quite a few unilaterals out there.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/890712.asp?0cb=-h1l143917 Check out the picture of all the unilaterals halfway down the page. There's more than just a few.

Billy

[Cyrus]

"As for the censorship issue, why would the U.S. military be concerned with it when they are allowing embedded journos to file pictures like this?"

The U.S. military controls what the embedded journalists report. On occasion, the military may be allowing out some pictures or stories that do not seem to serve its side's arguments ; this may be done either on purpose or through carelessness. The point, though, is that an embedded journalist has placed his safety and his reporting (and, thus, his integrity) in the hands of the military unit he is in bed with. If the journalist wants to stay embedded, he must report things "right".

The U.S. military would obviously prefer that all journalists are in bed with it in one unit or another.

[MMMMMM]

There's more to it than that; reporting of certain information could easily jeopardize our troops' safety or nullify their element of surprise. Realistically speaking, there has to be some control of reporting from the actual battlefield. That's censorship but it isn't only to support one side's arguments; some of it's for necessary strategic or tactical reasons. Actually, the military is allowing a lot more battlefield reporting now than it did in the first Gulf War, isn't it?

[Billy LTL]

The U.S. military controls what the embedded journalists report.

No it doesn't. At least not more than Mmmm suggests, ie sometimes not permitted to file an exact dateline.

Would you like a little friendly wager on this Cyrus?

As to this sentence -- If the journalist wants to stay embedded, he must report things "right".

If your usage of the word "right" means "accurate", then i have no beef with you. If, however, you are implying the the military is insisting that the journos must file slanted stories then you are stone cold wrong. You're obviously not in the business and, i mean no offense here, but you are talking out of your ass. Bests, Billy

[Parmenides]

The soldiers could have just as easily killed them and blamed it on the Iraqis. They could have killed them and said nothing. The soldiers didn't commit any war crimes here. The fact that a man's ribs were broken indicates that something took place. It doesn't mean he was beaten without justification. It's just one side of an incident.
The reporter should realize that he is lucky to be alive.

[Cyrus]

" No [the U.S. military does not control what the embedded journalists report].At least not more than Mmmm suggests, ie sometimes [the journalists are] not permitted to file an exact dateline."

You mean the journalists are free to send anything they want short of operational plans and positions?? Then where is the report from an embedded reporter showing casualties from his unit, pix an' all? I don't claim to be watching everything on TV so I might have missed any of it. But I haven't seen any shot of an American soldier covered in blood yet. Or flies.

"Would you like a little friendly wager on this ?"

What exactly do you have in mind?

"You're obviously not in the business and, I mean no offense here, but you are talking out of your ass."

None taken. Actually, I didn't know I was talking to someone who's in the business.

..Been there long? What's the pay like?

[Jimbo]

Cyrus, I see you do not know Billy's profession. You had better cut your losses on this thread and tangle with a less worthy adversary such as myself.

[Cyrus]

"I see you do not know Billy's profession. You had better cut your losses on this thread and tangle with a less worthy adversary."

I ain't tanglin'. Just anglin' for a free medical. Billy diagnosed I'm talkin' out my ass about military reportage -- can't be a military man or a reporter.
Gotta be a proctologist.

[Chris Alger]

I agree the statement is hyperbole. Clearly the US military hasn't everything within its power to prevent independent reporting. But if the Ha'aretz story is true, they're willing to occasinally use brute, illegal methods to prevent it.

The issue isn't whether journalists are embedded or unilateral, it's whether the coverage is objective and newsworthy or unduly weighted by official viewpoints. All three links you provided are good examples of the latter.

The first has the following caption:

"A wounded Iraqi girl is treated by U.S. marines in central Iraq March 29, 2003. Confused front line crossfire ripped apart an Iraqi family on Saturday after local soldiers appeared to force civilians towards U.S. marines positions. The four-year old girl, blood streaming from an eye wound, was screaming for her dead mother, while her father, shot in a leg, begged to be freed from the plastic wrist cuffs slapped on him by U.S. marines, so he could hug his other terrified daughter."

It's poignant, but note that she's described has being "treated" by Marines, not as having been wounded by them. Note that the civilians that were hurt by some unnamed force -- "confused frontline crossfire" -- after they only "appeared" to have been forced by Iraqi soldiers to act as shields, keeping open the chance that the Marines made a mistake. OTOH, the report mentions some "crossfire," although "confused," which makes the reference to "appearances" inexplicable. The obvious question, which the reporter on the scene with availble facts doesn't hazard to answer, was whether these civilians were hurt because of some error by the US.

The second link is more of the same: A Marine doctor holds a girl hurt by the same "confused frontline crossfire." Again, the message is that the Marines are there to help civilians hurt by an unspecified actor, suggesting that no one side can be blamed.

These pictures reflect an ambivalence the US military prefers: generic war sadness for which it is not responsible, and for which it does it's best to prevent and amelieorate. Perhaps the ultimate US preference is for pictures of injured civilians to never be shown. Since that isn't possible, these captions have the permissible spin.

You won't see captions like the following unless and until the war gets out of control, which will then open the floodgates to legitimate self-doubt about whether the war is winnible and worth the cost:

"A 4-year old girl, wounded by US Marines, screams for her dead mother, killed by Marines, while her father begs to be freed from plastic shackles in order to comfort her. The Marines shackled the father after shooting him in the leg. The Marines fired on the civilians under the apparently mistaken impression that they were shooting at Iraqi troops. After the shooting stopped, the Marines treated the wounded."

The above isn't necessarily what happened in the first photograph, although it is plausible given the inconsistencies in the actual report. My point is that the circumstances of htis war makes things like this utterly inevitable, yet we are not likely to read about them in a manner that places any moral responsibility on the US until there's more of a division about the cost of the war.

Even then, you will never see the same incident described in the mainstream press as a war crime due to violations of the UN Charter and other international law. Nor will you see the same kinds of pictures accompanied by text like the following, from an article in yesterday's NY Times that was mostly about how US troops try to avoid killing civilians:

"“‘We had a great day,’ Sergeant Schrumpf said. ‘We killed a lot of people.’ ... ‘We dropped a few civilians,’ Sergeant Schrumpf said, ‘but what do you do?’ ... more than once, Sergeant Schrumpf said, he faced a different choice: one Iraqi soldier standing among two or three civilians. He recalled one such incident, in which he and other men in his unit opened fire. He recalled watching one of the women standing near the Iraqi soldier go down. ‘I'm sorry,’ the sergeant said. ‘But the chick was in the way.’”
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/29/international/worldspecial/29HALT.html?ex=1049994124&ei=1&en=9f94054ab2cb60c2

The last story you linked is interesting because the reporter's ultimate point, a good one, is buried within an innocuous story bout how war is unsafe.

In a controversial war of "liberation," a basic dispute about which people want news is whether the beneficiaries desire liberation. Whether the battlefield is a safe environment is hardly news.

Yet the story "The Limits of Journalism" concentrates on the battefield safety factor, hardly interesting. It's only 5 pargraphs down that you get to his real point: this war is less safe to journalists than others because the civilians don't like us:

"Crowds started gathering wherever we stopped, and the mood was getting more and more ugly. People complained about the shootings, the lack of aid, even the shortage of water because electricity had been shut down and water pumps didn’t function. Arab journalists with us were accused of being Kuwaiti and threatened with death."

Even then, he leads the paragraph with the euphemistic phrase that things are "not quite right" in the "hearts and minds department."

Why do you suppose he didn't lead the story with: "Iraqi Civilians Show Hostility Toward US After "Liberation?'" Isn't that more newsworthy, more capable of shedding light on a controversy, than how reporters are courageous and brave? Maybe he's just being self-promoting. My guess is that he was worried that if he led with it the story would be spiked by his politically sensitive employers.

[Chris Alger]

<ul type="square"> "The U.S. military controls what the embedded journalists report."

"No it doesn't. At least not more than Mmmm suggests, ie sometimes not permitted to file an exact dateline." [/list]
The agreement limits what a journalist can report. "The following cannot be published or broadcast because it could jeopardize operations and endanger lives: specific numbers of troops, aircraft, ships, and equipment; specific geographic location (unless released by the Department of Defense); information about future operations; rules of engagement (the circumstances under which a unit may fight)."
http://216.239.33.100/custom?q=cache:_t1Bozrz5_kJ:www.crf-usa.org/Iraqwar_html/iraqwar_press.html+"department+of+defense"+embedded+agreement+iraq+journalist&amp;hl=en&amp;start=3&amp; ie=UTF-8 (http://216.239.33.100/custom?q=cache:_t1Bozrz5_kJ:www.crf-usa.org/Iraqwar_html/iraqwar_press.html+)

Clarence Page in the Washington Times quotes the language of the agreement as referring to an "ongoing engagement." "What constitutes an "ongoing engagement?" Under the guidelines, it is whatever the commander on the scene says it is."

[Jimbo]

Chris it appears to hurt you to provide complete facts. For those who will not read the entire article in the link I have copied the portion to the current war below. See for yourself Chris's distortions and additions.

Policy #3: Embedded Journalists

For the war in Iraq in 2003, the U.S. military devised new press rules. Responding to criticism that it did not allow journalists contact with fighting troops, the Pentagon's new rules allowed reporters to travel with U.S. military units as long as they followed strict rules. About 500 reporters (one-fifth of them from foreign countries) were placed, or embedded, in military units. They could remain with units until the end of the war or until they decided to leave. The Department of Defense stated the reasons behind this policy: "We need to tell the factual story—good or bad—before others seed the media with disinformation and distortions, as they most certainly will continue to do. Our people in the field need to tell our story—only commanders can ensure the media get to the story alongside the troops."

The media will be given access to operational combat missions, including mission preparation and debriefing, whenever possible. The media will be briefed as to what information may not be broadcast because of its sensitivity to military operations. For security reasons, commanders may impose news embargos and temporarily block communication transmissions.


The military cannot exclude reporters from combat areas to keep them safe. All reporters must sign an agreement waiving any legal action against the armed forces. Reporters are not allowed to carry firearms, use their own vehicles, or use lights at night (without permission).


Reporters can bring whatever communication equipment they want, but they must carry their own equipment. Reporters are encouraged to use lipstick and helmet-mounted cameras on combat missions.


The following information can be published or broadcast: approximate troop strength, approximate casualties, information and location of previous military targets and missions, names and hometowns of military units, service members' names and hometowns (with their permission).


The following cannot be published or broadcast because it could jeopardize operations and endanger lives: specific numbers of troops, aircraft, ships, and equipment; specific geographic location (unless released by the Department of Defense); information about future operations; rules of engagement (the circumstances under which a unit may fight).


Any violation of these rules will result in a reporter being sent away from the unit. These rules do not ban contact with reporters who are not embedded with the troops.

[Chris Alger]

What have I supposedly distorted?

How does this any of this additional language detract from my statement that the embedded guidelines allow the military to limit what's being reported?

[Jimbo]

This final sentence of yours struck me as unduly biasing the facts. Clarence Page in the Washington Times quotes the language of the agreement as referring to an "ongoing engagement." "What constitutes an "ongoing engagement?" Under the guidelines, it is whatever the commander on the scene says it is."

Perhaps I over reacted but you are so tricky I felt it best to display the applicable provisions.

[Chris Alger]

Thanks.

The bombing of Iraqi state TV violates the Geneva Convention prohibitions of targeting civlian property, even when it's owned by the state. One might justify it if it had been broadcasting military orders, which was the reason given for bombing the media in Kosovo. OTOH, I'm not aware of any military pretext for the bombing that has been offered. Given the apparent deliberate bombing of al-jazeera's office in Kabul (a direct hit that barely missed the BBC and other media, after months of the US complaining of al-jazeer's "biased" coverage; what are the odds?), it looks more like an attempt to use military force to limit the unwelcome information. It's another weird parallel with Israeli practices, where the IDF routinely roughs up and detains reporters, and "accidentally" shoots about one a month. http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=1486&amp;Valider=OK

Predictably, some of the biggest instigators for what Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have called a war crime came from those famous guardians of the first amendment, the corporate-owned "free" press. You can imagine their reaction of Iraqi terrorist war criminals had blown up CBS HQ in New York.

From FAIR:

"Prior to the bombing, some [U.S. journalists] even seemed anxious to know why the broadcast facilities hadn't been attacked yet. Fox News Channel's John Gibson wondered (3/24/03): "Should we take Iraqi TV off the air? Should we put one down the stove pipe there?" Fox's Bill O'Reilly (3/24/03) agreed: "I think they should have taken out the television, the Iraqi television.... Why haven't they taken out the Iraqi television towers?"

MSNBC correspondent David Shuster offered: "A lot of questions about why state-run television is allowed to continue broadcasting. After all, the coalition forces know where those broadcast towers are located." On CNBC, Forrest Sawyer offered tactical alternatives to bombing (3/24/03): "There are operatives in there. You could go in with sabotage, take out the building, you could take out the tower."

On NBC Nightly News (3/24/03), Andrea Mitchell noted that "to the surprise of many, the U.S. has not taken out Iraq's TV headquarters." Mitchell's report cautioned that "U.S. officials say the television headquarters is in a civilian area. Bombing it would further infuriate the Arab world, and the U.S. would need the TV station to get out its message once coalition forces reach Baghdad. Still, allowing Iraqi TV to stay on the air gives Saddam a strong tool to help keep his regime intact." She did not offer the Geneva Conventions as a reason to avoid bombing a media outlet.

After the facility was struck, some reporters expressed satisfaction. CNN's Aaron Brown (3/25/03) recalled that "a lot of people wondered why Iraqi TV had been allowed to stay on the air, why the coalition allowed Iraqi TV to stay on the air as long as it did." CNN correspondent Nic Robertson seemed to defend the attack, saying that bombing the TV station "will take away a very important tool from the Iraqi leadership-- that of showing their face, getting their message out to the Iraqi people, and really telling them that they are still in control." It's worth noting that CNN, like other U.S. news outlets, provides all these functions for the U.S. government.

New York Times reporter Michael Gordon appeared on CNN (3/25/03) to endorse the attack: "And personally, I think the television, based on what I've seen of Iraqi television, with Saddam Hussein presenting propaganda to his people and showing off the Apache helicopter and claiming a farmer shot it down and trying to persuade his own public that he was really in charge, when we're trying to send the exact opposite message, I think, was an appropriate target."

According to the New York Times (3/26/03), Fox's Gibson seemed to go so far as to take credit for the bombing of Iraqi TV, suggesting that Fox's "criticism about allowing Saddam Hussein to talk to his citizens and lie to them has had an effect." Fox reporter Major Garrett declared (3/25/03), "It has been a persistent question here, why [Iraqi TV] remains on the air."

For the Kabul al jazeera bombing, see http://216.239.51.100/custom?q=cache:MJCxa_xMXEQC:www.dawn.com/2001/11/21/int1.htm+al-jazeera+kabul+bombed&amp;hl=en&amp;start=3&amp;ie=UTF-8

[Chris Alger]

Then your complaint is with Page, not me. But I don't see anything in the language you quoted that limits the discretion of local military commanders, other than a short list of expressly authorized bare facts (numbers killed, etc.).

[Mark Heide]

Chris,

I have found the print media on the web to be more informative sources of news information. Futhermore, corporate television media is boring and uninformative mouthpiece for government and corporations, except I did find the CNN live broadcasts of the Umm Qsar battle on our local WTTW PBS channel entertaining, but PBS decided this weekend to switch back to cooking, traveling, etc. Overall, TV media is pretty limiting, and I find it boring, just my opinion, and everyone should already know my opinions by now (since I'm set in my ways anyway). /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

Mark

[Jimbo]

Then your complaint is with Page, not me. But I don't see anything in the language you quoted that limits the discretion of local military commanders, other than a short list of expressly authorized bare facts (numbers killed, etc.).

Chris I don't see anything in the language that says they are passing out pastel Easter Eggs to the reporters either. Do you think this is true as well?
SHEESH!!

[John Cole]

Mark,

You mean you've missed Ollie North breathless reporting? Last week on C-Span, a reporter who had written a book on Iran-Contra was asked about Ollie's reporting. He screamed, "North's a mouthpiece; I'm a reporter. Let's get that straight."

I read recently that according to unconfirmed marine lore, Ollie North was found naked, brandishing a .45, and running through a suburban neighborhood yelling, "I'm no good. I'm no good."

A few years later he had top level security clearance in Reagan's White House.

John

[Billy LTL]

Chris - you bring up some valid points and I'll respond as best I can. Please pm me for more detail if you wish.

As to this - It's poignant, but note that she's described has being "treated" by Marines, not as having been wounded by them. Note that the civilians that were hurt by some unnamed force -- "confused frontline crossfire" -- after they only "appeared" to have been forced by Iraqi soldiers to act as shields, keeping open the chance that the Marines made a mistake.

I know the photographer personally and I know the organisation he works for. No reason that should affect your opinion of course. After all, you don't know me.

But fwiw, if he had witnessed that the U.S. military had indeed been responsible for the deaths and injuries to this family, he would certainly have reported it as such with the full backing of his organisation.

He doesn't work for either CNN or Al Jazeera after all. It may surprise you to learn that the great majority of journalists out there actually feel some pride in unbiased reporting.

Further, if he had written the caption you want him to write and HAD had his crentials pulled and sent back to Kuwait, well, what a story that would be.

Why do you suppose he didn't lead the story with: "Iraqi Civilians Show Hostility Toward US After "Liberation?'"

I linked that story for only one reason - to demonstrate that most major news outlets also wanted coverage of the war from sources that were not embedded with coalition military. I suspect the journo in that story had nothing much else to write about that day.

Maybe he's just being self-promoting.

Now there's a real possibilty. Ratbag journalists are all the same.

But if the Ha'aretz story is true, they're willing to occasinally use brute, illegal methods to prevent it.

I don't have much doubt that the story IS true. Shitt happens. If you've been in a war you'll know the truth of that statement. I'm neither condemning nor condoning such behaviour. And worse will happen too, as far as freedom of the press goes. But these are isolated incidents at moment, to be protested against by the relevant agencies. My point is that it's wrong too make sweeping generalisations about U.S. military censorship because of isolated incidents.

Billy

[Billy LTL]

can't be a military man or a reporter

Was and is.

[Cyrus]

C : "can't be a military man or a reporter"

Billy : "Was and is.

Yeah, I thought so. About the military man, I mean.

How about the proctologist part?

[Billy LTL]

How about the proctologist part?

You nailed me, man. Guilty as charged.

Peace, Billy

[Mark Heide]

John,

I couldn't watch it because I'm too cheap to get cable. There's enough garbage on the regular free channels. But, I think Reagan's crew is mild compared to the current administration (even though some of them are the same).

I get to watch BBC World News on our City colleges station. The big PBS station in Chicago kisses corporate butt, but they did broadcast CNN News coverage of the war for the first week late at night. I hope they bring it back, because I'm tired of watching those gourmet cooks that make stuff I'd never dream of eating. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Good Luck

Mark