Partners In Terror?

Posted By Joatmoaf

Of all our civil rights, none is more precious to us than freedom of speech. It is part of our lexicon, a legacy of our English legal heritage. Phrases like "climb up on your soapbox" hark back to Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park where soapbox orators have harangued one and all with impunity since 1872.

Americans are uniquely unwilling to accept limitations to our freedom of speech. Restrictions the governments of European nations regularly impose on their press corps and citizens would never fly on this side of the Atlantic. But is absolute freedom of speech desirable in time of war? What happens when the right to speak freely conflicts with other, more basic rights (such as the right to be secure in our homes)? What happens when our speech imperils others?

During the Gulf War and the more recent fights in Iraq and Afghanistan, DOD granted unprecedented access to the media. Embedded reporters now eat, sleep, and travel with our troops. They go where the military goes, see what they see, and report back to us all the news they deem fit for our ears.

I say that, because we don't always get the full story. As I noted more extensively last week, for some inexplicable reason we hear far more about the disasters, vicissitudes, and horrors of war than about our successes. War news comes to us through an odd filter. Somehow the Medal of Honor winner, the fallen hero rarely if ever makes the front page. His exploits are not passed from father to son to inspire dreams of similar deeds in a generation still growing to adulthood.

When we win a battle in some dusty, Godforsaken border town the bolded headline is more likely to read, "10 Marines killed".

Yet when we make a mistake, even if the story is unsubstantiated, the tale is bruited far and wide, often with deadly consequences for those on the front lines:

May 10, 2005: Anti-American rioting broke out in Jalalabad, when local Islamic radicals became aware of a story in an American newsmagazine, accusing U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay prison, of flushing pages of the Koran down a toilet as a way to intimidate Afghan prisoners, and get them to reveal information about Taliban or al Qaeda operations. Jalalabad is a pro-Taliban town, and many locals are still upset that the Taliban is no longer running the country.

May 11, 2005: American and Afghan troops put down the rioting in Jalalabad (east of Kabul, near the Pakistani border), killing four protestors and wounding sixty others. Hundreds of protestors tried to attack American and Afghan troops, and did destroy some government, UN and NGO buildings. There were smaller demonstrations in other towns, as the pro-Taliban Afghans now have a cause to rally around. American officials say they are investigating the accusations about desecrating the Koran. American interrogators are not supposed to do this sort of thing, and the American reporters who came up with the story don't have much in the way of evidence.

May 12, 2005: Anti-American protests have spread to the capital, sparked by an unsubstantiated accusations by a U.S. newsmagazine. Newsweek magazine published a hearsay item about American interrogators at Guantanamo desecrating the Koran to intimidate suspected terrorists. The Taliban has been trying to spread similar stories, but have no credibility. American media has more clout, even if the story in question is basically a rumor. The pro-Taliban groups will push this story as much as they can, but the Taliban support is basically restricted to some Pushtun tribes in southern and eastern Afghanistan.

This is America. On our highways drivers of Volvos and small Japanese imports, seemingly devoid of the capacity for irony, sport bumper stickers proclaiming post-911 America a police state. We do not yield our right to speak lightly, nor should we.

But it is not unheard of for speech to be limited. So-called 'fighting words' that incite immediate violence have long been denied the protection of law. The rationale for this limitation is that when speech crosses a certain line, when it actively harms others, it ceases to be protected by our Constitution. If the entirely foreseeable effect of Newsweek's "speech" was not to incite violence, what was it?

Not so very long ago it was widely accepted that the government could limit information during time of war in the interest of national security, or with the express purpose of protecting our troops from harm. Nowadays that line of thinking has fallen into disfavor.

Journalists claim the absolute right to report anything and everything they see and hear, whether substantiated or not. Or more correctly, anything and everything they choose to report. Images of bodies falling from the burning World Trade Center were judged "too inflammatory" for our tender eyes. Images of Abu Ghuraib, though undoubtedly inflammatory in nature, were not - they were paraded before us 24/7. Videos of hostages, bound and pleading for their lives, filmed with the express purpose of pressuring us into submission and weakening our will to fight are not judged too "upsetting" to air, though money is paid to our enemies in exchange for this disturbing and dehumanizing footage.

Any positive news released by DOD is quickly dubbed "propaganda" by the media. But what name should we give to a constant barrage of negative news coverage that only presents one side of the story? And what do the networks who pay American dollars to our enemies for terrorist videos tell themselves? What is the management at Newsweek saying to itself this week, when good men have died because of an unsubstantiated story they published without considering the consequences?

They will, undoubtedly, tell themselves that this is not their fault. That in the service of truth, a few eggs must be broken. But it is certain that, were there government malfeasance involved, Newsweek would not be so quick to minimize the heartbreak of these men's families.  We'd see in-depth cover stories of the anguished widows. Their grief would be exposed for our entertainment.

We would be manipulated to a suitable level of outrage.

I do not want to see the press muzzled, nor anyone hauled off to jail. But I cannot help but wonder: who was served by publication of this story? In their exercise of that freedom of speech we hold most dear, was there no thought for those who guarantee that right?

And have we grown so self-centered as a nation that we think only of our rights, and never of our responsibilities?

CWCID: Instapundit for the StrategyPage link.

- Cassandra
Villainous Company

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/2448720

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Partners In Terror?:

» Friday Blog Round-Up from Iowa Voice
Since I'll be knocking off for the weekend, I thought I'd do a blog round-up. That's where I post some links and comments about what's happening around the blogosphere, for all you lefties out there. =D Ace of Spades has some comments regarding Senato [Read More]

Comments

[Ogre]

Letting the press in with the military was a HUGE mistake that can be remedied -- throw them the heck out, they don't belong there.

[armynurseboy]

That's the problem with the media. They have an agenda and they are going to do business according to that agenda. Unfortunately, right now, I think that agenda is at odds with what we are trying to accomplish.

[JarheadDad]

I'm still waiting for the journalists and pro-media group that hangs out here to defend this Newsweek article. It's funny, you get massive defense of guys like Sites et al but when it comes to something as blatant as this there is not a peep. Not a sound.

I've been about as much a moderate on the topic of the media as anyone here. I try to weigh the balances and generally side on some sort of moderation. That has changed dramatically in just the past six months. The agenda set by the MSM is no longer subtle. No longer something that you can simply pass off as left wing rhetoric. Now they have geared up to a level of trying to make the news that hasn't been seen since Vietnam. Not only is it offensive to those serving or those having loved ones serving but in fact it is killing Americans.

The MSM has been trying to push comparisons to Vietnam since the very beginning of Anaconda. Well, they've finally succeeded. Not through any military actions but through their own agenda of defaming the common soldier and creating news through rumor and innuendo. I, for one, will no longer give them the benefit of the doubt. I will not subsidize their willingness to get Americans killed. Much as the Left has been taken over by the fringe so too has the MSM boardroom all across this country.

Our answer? Quit buying their product! Pay more attention to online news sources. Scrub the embed program. The biggest argument made for embeds on this very site was that if we did not have our reporters embedded with our side than we would only get the side of the enemy. Well? I have seen the enemy and they are us! The antiwar agenda of the MSM has now crossed the line. Time to pull the plug and take away their revenue.

There's my line in the sand. Step across it! :-(

"The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards." --Sir William Francis Butler

[Lisa Gilliam]

Hey guy,I do agree with your above posts,but I've been saying since 9/11 that the President and Congress should reign these people in because they don't know how to keep their mouths shut.It seems this genertion doesn't know the meaning of "Lose Lips sink Ships"mantra.I've have maintained that the President and Congress are so stuck on stupid regarding this issue or either he's scared to death about taking this position, we are going to continue to have problems such as this.We don't have any Ernie Pyles in this generation as a whole;they problably never even heard of Ernie Pyle to honest.I've complained to My Congressman about it he doesn't like it but we got a bunch of numskullls who are just as bad as the media is about sensitve leaks of information.This would not have happned under FDR beucause the people back then knew what was at stake and they also now that retribution would be forthcoming if they did this.I believe if enough people raised enough hell about it something would be done.

[Cassandra]

I've been saying the same thing Lisa, however I doubt the majority of Americans agree.

Just looking at the vast sea of ignorance about the Patriot Act is enough to make you lose your lunch. No one has read it and everyone agrees it's the Second Coming of Stalin. Give me a break... Apparently it's OK for the feds to use the same measures against the mafia, but not against terrorists.

The mind boggles.

[Uncle Jimbo]

The only good thibg about this is it is not happeneing in a vacuum and the press is being held accountable, by all of us shining a light on 'em.

The media had a monopoly for a long time, it is fun to see them scurrying under the fridge these days when they write something outrageous.

Cordially,

Uncle J

[Rita]

I no longer watch the Nightly News, just my local news. I no longer believe what I read in the Baltimore Sun, or many other newspapers or magazines and I think that blogs such as these and others tell the real stories, and the truthful stories, and honor the good that is being done by our men and women in the military all over the world. It saddens me when free speech is reckless. And it makes me mad when news organizations, and journalists twist and malign the truth just for their own purposes. It's maddening, and it betrays and damages those people who risk their lives. How soon they forget about the beheadings, the mass graves, the tortures, and the genocide. But they continue to show pictures of Abu Ghuraib. It's insane, and the politicans in this country are absolute idiots when it comes to this as well.

[MarkM]

This is indeed an outrage. The situation in all the emerging democracies is volatile, and they are all fragile. For the editors of a major news publication to allow such an inflammatory piece to be published shows either great ignorance, or a frightening agenda. I completely agree with JarheadDad above, and have long since stopped watching or reading MSM. My news comes entirely from FNC and the blogosphere.

Keep up the good work!

[Don Quixote]

http://northamericans4peace.blogspot.com/2005/05/go-and-feel-love-america.html

Hope I'm not buttin' in and buggin' too many. This may be trite to some of you, I'm not sure. There's a bit of a "battle" of words goin' with some Canucks. If anybody's bored and wantin' to get in a dig here and there come help, okay? Click on the above link and follow it to the "action". Okay, I admit it. I'm pathetic!

You all here are a fine bunch, and I follow along as much as I can. I wish we had something like "blogs" when I served. Good job, men. Keep it up! The only things workin' on me anymore are my freakin' fingers! (except when I get a chance to talk ;) ) Semper Fi!

[Tink]

This one hits a very personal note..so please excuse my rant.....

Our local NG company is in J-Bad, not my husbands company, but still a company full of my friends and neighbors.

It's been relatively quiet there all year, the PRT has accomplished some wonderful things. The entire company is still intact.

I was with that companies FRG last week. Their wives, their children, babies who have yet to meet their fathers. They're planning homecoming. They've been tying fresh yellow ribbons to every lamp post in town and on every store front..can you imagine how they must be feeling right now?

Two weeks left, ...and now this?

At the beginning of this deployment I was skeptical of the media, when we lost a member of our platoon and I got bombarded with phone calls from the media BEFORE the family had been notified, I was angry. When they showed up at the funeral and began asking questions of those in attendence even though they had been asked to remain OFF the church premises, it went beyond anger.

Now, I just can't stand them. I've seen first hand how words have been distorted and manipulated to say what they want them to say...

Many don't give a damn how what they do affects us as human beings, they don't see us as people, they only see us as "the military", a story, a headline..how high up on the page their byline appears.

If I sound bitter, it's because I am.

People ask me all the time if I'm angry about my husband being deployed..if I'm angry because "Bush sent your husband to war".. Umm..no, that happens to be my husbands job. He didn't join to "get an eduation", he didn't enlist because he had "no other options" He knows what a contract is, and he fully understands what the words Armed Forces mean, he knows what the risks are. He may bitch at times, but he sure as heck doesn't whine. There is a difference.

I KNOW what the task force has accomplished in the last year. I KNOW what advances have been made. I've heard it from those who are there, from those who have lived it every day. I have the pictures. I've seen the notes from the locals..the ones who THANK US for what we have done for them and their country. I've seen the tears shed by the locals at a memorial service for a soldier who lost his life helping them. Is that all of it? NO, but it sure makes a difference.

My husband left the FOB where he has been for the last year a week ago. There are locals who work there, they don't speak English, and my husband knows few words in Dari..yet they've learned to communicate with one another anyway. My husband went to say goodbye on the day he left that FOB..the locals cried, they cried!

Why is it that we are the only ones who hear these things? Why do *I* have to get this kind of info from the source? Why don't I see it in the paper, why don't I hear it on the news? Why are items like this shoved to some back section or buried on a military website?

Most of what I hear out of our media is how we're hated, how we are so horrible, how we abuse the locals. Cuz you know, the good that happens isn't news, it's only propaganda.

So you tell me who is "using" us.

Are there bad things that happen? Yes. They aren't angels, they're Soldiers. They aren't perfect, they are human beings with all the same feelings and emotions and shortcomings that are part of being human. They do a job that 98% of this country couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't do. Some live in horrible conditions and face things that most people don't even see in their worst nitemares. Their lives and who they are have changed forever because of it. They are grunts..it's their job. They deal with an enemy most of us can't even imagine. They do it so WE don't have to.

I am sick to death of rumors and innuendo, I am sick to death of the entire story not being told..of nothing being put into perspective. I am sick to death of distortion, but most of all, I'm sick of having someone I love being in placed at increased risk because someone wants a sensational story. This isn't politics people, this is our life.

Yes, I take this personally because it IS personal. That's my husband over there, those are my friends and neighbors, it's Jarhead Dad's son, Blackfives friends. Yes, I'm bitter, yes I'm angry..and as far as the media is concerned, I'm finished.

Jarhead Dad, I hope you don't mind an Army wife borrowing a line from the Corps..but..No better friend, no worse enemy.. I'm done being quiet.

/rant

[JarheadDad]

Hooah Tink! Outstanding!

The sad thing in this whole discussion is that we even have to have it! I really thought we had learned as a society from our mistakes in the past but I guess political correctness has simply taken too large a hold on our sensibilities!

Now it is costing lives and the anti-America crowd are wringing their hands with glee!

Do you know how many reporters I've talked to in the past six months? ONE! And I learned my lesson with that one! Let me catch them at a memorial service that I'm attending! A year ago they at least paid lip service to honoring our troops while trying to be objective. A positive from this is they are now in the open where we can identify their agenda and refute it! The old tired "no WMDs, war for oil, we're all NeoCons" has worn so thin it's worn out. They've went way beyond anything political when they began endangering troops! Time to give no quarter!

Rant your heart out Tink. We've got your six! :-)

[StratmanQ]

You are right on! I believe that the left wing in this country is still pissed that their boy didn't get into the White House, so they use their lackeys in the press to report everything they can that's negative about Iraq to villify our president, and to make us look like the bad guys. Then they run behind the constitution to defend their treasonous behavior. Nevermind that what they do is contributing to our troop casualties and emboldening the terrorists.

[Michele San Pietro]

I think free speech is holy, free offense absolutely not... to say "America is an absurd country that should not exist" is not an opinion, but a crime punishable according to the law...

[Don Miguel]

Given the general ignorance of most people in the media, it's quite possible that the reporters and editors had no clue about the possible effects of the article. These people don't understand their own country very well, so we may be giving them too much credit to think that they understand any nuances of another culture enough to foresee the consequences of what they write.

[John Gillnitz]

Ignorance is strength don't you know. I'm guessing ya'll don't read the evil liberal New York Times, but they did list a number of positive developments today.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/05/12/opinion/20050513_opchart.gif

[Cassandra]

You are absolutely right on the ignorance of the military point, but I could believe that more easily if they hadn't spent the preceding 2 years predicting that the Arab street was about to go up in flames.

I think the standard of ordinary competence and care applies here - you expect a professional journalist to apply the amount of care a reasonable professional would take. These people, even if they themselves were clueless, had editors, who at the very least should have been more experienced.

It didn't take a genius, given the reporting about Arabs as "not ready for democracy" and their predilection to view Afghanistan as a disaster waiting to happen, to foresee this, or something like it.

[Cassandra]

And John, I do read the Times - every day. I probably cite it more than any other paper.

Out of curiosity, I notice the byline is Arthur Chrenkoff, the blogger who compiles good news from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Are those all stories the NYT covered? Or things from his posts?

[JarheadDad]

HMMMMMM! I was going to read the nTrain's side of things but I got a big virus alert when I clicked on his link. Wad up wid dat?

[Sweetie]

So let me get this right. CNN looked the other way, even going as far as not warning someone that they knew was targeted for death, to protect their access to Saddam. They personally WITNESSED behavior that would have translated into greater support for taking out Saddam and saved lives if they had shared it.

Newsweek has an anonymous source with an accusation that is likely to have explosive consequences. They run it.

Two situations with one common theme: the MSM chose a path that was objectively likely to increase death and destruction. How can the MSM be trusted to 'fight the power' when they can't even be trusted to respect human life?

[vivi]

the cure for ignorance is education. If Newsweek does not understand the link between an American magazine printing unsubstantiated information that causes American casualties, the families of the killed/injured could certainly write letters - individually or as a group - to Newsweek informing them. If the families are smart, they will release a copy of the letter to local tv, newspaper, radio at the same time. And if they want to kick butt, they should sue.

[Elaine]

Good lord, you're a f***ing nutcase.

[Michele San Pietro]

There is no question about the fact that the New York Times is not a credible newspaper which tells a lot of lies, I remember that reporter who was finally given the boot after he wrote a lot of stories that turned out to be invented out of whole cloth...

[Cassandra]

Elaine, I believe the preferred term is "right-wing whack job".

Your insensitive use of perjorative labels is damaging to our inner children.

I'm *so* disappointed in you. A representative of the BushReich will be calling on you shortly to discuss this matter.

[Carl]

"During the Gulf War and the more recent fights in Iraq and Afghanistan, DOD granted unprecedented access to the media. Embedded reporters now eat, sleep, and travel with our troops. They go where the military goes, see what they see, and report back to us all the news they deem fit for our ears."

First, this is untrue. The access was hardly "unprecedented." A freer sort of arrangement was at work in Vietnam, and military correspondents lived and worked with the troops in WWII, WWI, the Spanish-American War and the Civil War.

In fact, during the Civil War so many reporters and editors were in service to both sides that newspapers printed letters from the correspondents-turned-soldiers in the field as regular stories.

If anything, the current arrangement is closer to what we saw when IFOR first went into Bosnia (if I recall, there were 32 embedded reporters, but no combat), and, of course, the Spanish-American War, where reporters (see also Somalia) appeared in country before the troops.

The problem with this statement, of course, is that it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NEWSWEEK ARTICLE. Did a combat correspondent write it? No. Did an embedded journalist write it? No.

So, where did this story come from?

According to Newsweek, it came from SOURCES INSIDE THE PENTAGON AND THE INTERROGATORS THEMSELVES. These multiple sources corroborated the original tale, which might not be true.

In other words, the entire flap came from leakers within the DoD who have reasons of their own to want this story out.

Nice to see you blame the reporters when, apparently, it was men in uniform who wanted the buzz the circulate. See also Abu Ghraid, which stemmed from leaked copies of the report being sent to CBS and The New Yorker, and the bogus Jessica Lynch story, which was handed to the Washington Post by Pentagon insiders.

"Somehow the Medal of Honor winner, the fallen hero rarely if ever makes the front page."

You have two reasons for this, and it has absolutely nothing to do with press bias against the military:

1. So far, there has been only one MOH recipient (no one "wins" the medal, especally when so many are awarded posthumously; one receives it, with all the gratitude of our nation). The very rarity of the citation, and the fact that it came two years after the initial event, means it's not as newsworthy as some would want. The event, you see, took place a long time ago in relation to the news cycle. Most dailies, however, gave it fairly large coverage nevertheless, and it made all the evening news broadcasts.

2. The "fallen hero" is rarely seen in print because the Pentagon requires embedded reporters to sign an agreement stipulating that THEY WILL NOT REVEAL THE NAME OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFY A SERVICE MEMBER WHO IS KILLED, WOUNDED OR TAKEN PRISONER until his/her next of kin is notified. This can take up to two weeks (believe it not). So reporters wait until DoD officially announces it. By this time, two weeks later, the battle is long over, and readers/viewers have less of an appetite for hearing about the "hero" (most guys in combat hate that word) killed in action.

"If the entirely foreseeable effect of Newsweek's "speech" was not to incite violence, what was it?"

The Abu Ghraid leaks, the leaks from Guantamano about other past actions that were likely illegal or, equally important, ineffective, likely came from Pentagon attorneys reviewing the work being done there. They want word of the un-American actions to become known to Americans so that they will stop happening.

You put the onus on Newsweek. Well, why would some people in the Pentagon want this out there? No. That would be too tough of a question to ask.

"And what do the networks who pay American dollars to our enemies for terrorist videos tell themselves?"

That makes no sense. The terrorist organizations would never charge money for videos, largely because that would set up a fairly easy money trail to their whereabouts. In the vast majority of cases, they either put the video on the Internet so that every news organization in the world can access the footage, or, they give it to one of the major Arab newsgathering operations. They share information in the worldwide AP pool, so the footage is provided to anybody who wants it.

A great deal of DoD footage is circulated the same way.

It would be counterproductive for a transnational terroristic organization, which is trying to spread its gospel of fear, to charge for the recorded product. By making it freely and widely available, it spreads their messages.

"The press has long been antagonistic toward the military, and the two groups could hardly be more different."

Actually, the reason they don't get along as well as might be expected isn't because they're so different, but because professional reporters and gung-ho officers are much the same.

As a former Marine Corps squadleader, and today war reporter (on vacation, happily), I can assure you I have far more in common with the LtCol on the drive to Baghdad than about any other professional.

"There is no question about the fact that the New York Times is not a credible newspaper which tells a lot of lies..."

Actually, the NY Times has had the best war coverage. Filkins and Burns have been mentioned many times on this blog as great examples of outstanding reporting about the real lives of men in the field, especially Fallujah.

As for Fox, their producers STOLE photographs I took in Iraq and used them, without paying me, while I was still getting shot at. In the community of war correspondents, this is considered the gravest insult. We risk our lives so that Fox can steal (STEAL!) our work and pass it off for commercial gain?

I know that sounds like inside baseball to a lot of people here. It would be like a boot Lieutenant getting a medal for something his PFC did, taking his heroic actions and making them his own.

As far as I'm concerned, Fox lost any respectability as a newsgathering organization the day they stole my work. If they took mine, I'm sure they stole others' work, too.

I've never watched them since.

[dick]

Carl,

The info on Abu Ghraib did not come from the Pentagon to Seymour Hersh. He got the info from the uncle of one of the men who was responsible for Abu Ghraib and was trying to get the story out so he could maybe get his nephew off. The uncle had shopped the story around to 20 democratic congressmen and senators and not one, including Boxer and Kennedy and Kerry, wanted anything to do with it. The military had already removed the men from duty and was preparing courts martial of them when Hersh wrote his article. The Pentagon had released the story 4 months before Hersh wrote his article. The only reason Hersh blew this up the way he did was because it fit his agenda and he was able to get it shopped around to Al Jazeera. Even though the military had already taken steps to keep this from happening again and to punish those responsible, Hersh never mentioned that fact and tried to make it seem as if the US was hiding it. Unfortunately you must not have followed up with those who knew what was going on because you bought the whole show. Not good!!

Now we are going through the same thing and you are still buying the whole show. Read some of the blogs and see what the troops are really doing. Read Chrenkoff. He is now apparently going to be in the NY Times. About time they put out some good news. I remember how for months all we heard from them was that Iraq was a quagmire, falling apart, no chance for democracy. Then one day we see an article about how the new government was in place and the country was pulling together. Next day, back to the quagmire story again. Did you not even wonder how these stories fit together? How something can be a quagmire for months and suddenly everything is fine and democracy is working in Iraq and then suddenly the next day it is again a quagmire? Did not that juxtaposition sound an alarm in your head about the stories you were getting?

[Cassandra]

The common definition of "win" is:

1 a : to get possession of by effort or fortune b : to obtain by work : EARN
2 a : to gain in or as if in battle or contest b : to be the victor in

Is it your contention that Medal of Honor recipients have neither expended effort to gain the honor, earned it, nor gained it through battle or contest? Interesting position. If the best you can do is to quibble over the meaning of words I suggest you find better things to do with your time sir.

"According to Newsweek"... have they, then, named their sources? I didn't think so. So you don't know, either, who they were. You are speculating. And of course I put the onus on Newsweek - they are the publisher. They put this information out there - without their action, it would not have gained worldwide circulation.

And fallen heroes are memorialized on the Marine Corps web site all the time. That's where I get the material I use to cover their stories - this is open source and freely available to the press. Hardly classified material.

And your quote on the NY Times is not mine, by the way, and FWIW, I happen to agree that John Burns overall has done a fine job of covering events in Iraq. But they have also had a lot of inaccurate and very biased coverage. Ed Wong is a great example.

"The terrorist organizations would never charge money for videos"

But there has already been one major network that did admit paying money for a video - I believe it was ABC. So you don't know what you're talking about. If cash changes hands there is no trail.

And there is also evidence of collusion between some foreign networks and Saddam's regime, up to and including exchange of Oil-for-Food coupons for favorable coverage - something I'm checking into.

Check your information.

[Tink]

Carl said :
"2. The "fallen hero" is rarely seen in print because the Pentagon requires embedded reporters to sign an agreement stipulating that THEY WILL NOT REVEAL THE NAME OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFY A SERVICE MEMBER WHO IS KILLED, WOUNDED OR TAKEN PRISONER until his/her next of kin is notified. This can take up to two weeks (believe it not). So reporters wait until DoD officially announces it. By this time, two weeks later, the battle is long over, and readers/viewers have less of an appetite for hearing about the "hero" (most guys in combat hate that word) killed in action."

Carl, as a "former Marine Corps squad leader" you know the reason for this and there is no need for me to go into all of the details here. As someone who has been through the notification process, I know it very well. I find it interesting that you only capitalize the "will not reveal portion"..and leave the "until his/her next of kin is notified" in lowercase letters.

I'm just a simple Soldiers' wife Carl, yet I find that very telling.

As to the "This can take up to two weeks" you know as well as I do, that 2 weeks is extremely rare. Most relatives are notified within a 24 hour hour period. The press is usually notified of the name within 48 hours. I get those DoD press releases in my mailbox every single day. I have read the name of every single Soldier, Marine, Airman and Sailor who has been KIA since the beginning of Enduring Freedom in October 2001. The names are not hidden, the reports are available to the public on the DoD website in a searchable database.

So 48 hours makes it ancient history? You have viewers and readers right here telling you that to us, it's not. We want those stories told.

What does it tell you about the coverage that so many Soldiers are returning home and are angry that what they have lived for the last year is not being portrayed in the coverage? What does it tell you when so many viewers and readers have no clue of what the whole picture is?

Yes, I am biased, I am a Infantry Soldiers wife, a Soldier who is still deployed by the way, a Soldier who was home on leave several months ago, and was disgusted with the coverage. Why should that Soldier ask "Are they talking about the same place I've been for the last 7 months, because it sure doesn't seem like it."

I want the truth Carl. ALL of it, not just the portions that you deem newsworthy. I hear it from my Soldier every single day, I sure as heck don't hear it from the media. This country and those who fight for it deserve better than that.

Carl said:
"As for Fox, their producers STOLE photographs I took in Iraq and used them, without paying me, while I was still getting shot at. In the community of war correspondents, this is considered the gravest insult. We risk our lives so that Fox can steal (STEAL!) our work and pass it off for commercial gain?"

May I put a slightly different face on this?

My friends and neighbors are being shot in JBad today at as a direct result of an article printed by Newsweek. They have risked their lives on daily basis for a year for YOU and this COUNTRY, so that Newsweek can put them into MORE danger for commercial gain?

You seem angry about Fox News Carl, is it any wonder at all why so many in the military community would be angry about the way that they have been portrayed in the media?

Finally, the word "hero", No, I have never heard a combat veteran mention the word in regards to their own actions. Yet, I've heard the word applied again and again to others that they have fought with. Those who have lost their lives, those who have been injured, and those who have gone on to fight another day.

You made it a point to bring it up that you risk your life. Carl, so does my husband and hundreds of thousands like him. They don't do it for commercial gain, they don't do it to make a name for themselves. They deserve much, much better than they have received.

[Bec de Corbin]

They are only interested in selling newspapers. They sell what the people buy. The real question is why do the American people buy it?

[Tink]

Greyhawk has some very intersting information regarding Newsweeks story here; http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/002827.html

[jordan]

Carl, you made one gross error early on, and that set your whole argument askew.

"According to Newsweek, it came from sources inside the Pentagon...the entire flap came from leakers within DOD who have reasons of their own to want this story out."

Magic words: according to Newsweek. You wholeheartedly accept and trust Newsweek's claim that this came from sources inside DOD,and then move to defend the "reporters" and unequivocally, as if it was unassailable truth, finger "men in uniform" who wanted this buzz to circulate. After all the documented concocting and fabricating by the MSM, you find this credible?
I don't buy ANYTHING Isikoff says about how he got this idea about the flushing until the final report comes out. Using anonymous sources for this incendiary "news" was journalistic slop on Michael Isikoff's part. And blogger/journalists don't understand the finer points of journalism tradecraft?
As others have said on B5, I see a rise in MSM hysteria toward, and desire to tarnish, the big bad military (Eason's claim about journalists being shot, the obsession with Abu Graib, the blackout on beheading videos and the burning Twin Towers, omitting some of the true depravity of terrorist acts in Iraq, constant coverage of U.S. soldiers being charged with crimes,etc...)
They know they have lost their hold on the "truth" and seem to be in full panic mode.

If this story cannot be confirmed, NEWSWEEK will have essentially created a story that caused riots and deaths, and then covered the subsequent carnage,thereby selling even more copies. I guess there wasn't enough excitement going on in the real world.

[dan bloom]

http://notenoughreaders.blogspot.com/

This is gonna get a lot worse. Newsweek should NOT have reported this at all. Post 911, we must be careful. We are dealing with suicidal fanatics who will use this rumor/story/fact to kill more innocent people. Another Twin Tower attack looms. Newsweek, repent!

[Michele San Pietro]

Personally, I don't think there will be other terrorist attacks of that kind, after more than three years the terrorist threat seems to be much less serious, thank God...

[Don Quixote]

http://northamericans4peace.blogspot.com/2005/05/canadian-recruits-favored-by-al-qaeda.html

check out the above post/link speaking of "partners in terror"...

and newsweek ought to be boycotted for what they did to incite the violence which occured because of their ineptitude, or intentional meanness..whichever the result was the same wasn't it...when will responsible journalism return?

[jordan]

Well, well, well. As of 2pm EST, Fox reports Newsweek is backtracking on the Koran flushing. Now they are saying that the "source" (if there ever was one) can't recall actually seeing it happen, and they may have made a mistake. Fifteen dead, Newsweek. Lets see you survive this one like you did Evan Thomas' withholding of key information on the Kerry's during the campaign in return for unimpeded access.

[Karl B]

Now with NEWSEEK'S Admission of guilt - I think the Editor and Story Writer should be handed over to "an Islamic Country" for punishment over the deaths and injuries they caused, after all arent they liable in the minds of the moslems, if those involved with desicrating the Crayons were going to be..

They are treasonists after all - hand em over.

[Richard Aubrey]

I must have missed something?
What official report about the Jessica Lynch story was bogus?

That she went down shooting was not an official report and, when the facts came out, nobody in the Pentagon was defending it, anyway.

I recall the dummies at Kevin Drum's site going on about how the rescue was staged and the guys used blanks. There were scores--if not hundreds--of posts demanding they put up a picture of a weapon with a blank adapter, or any blank brass. No matter.

So what is it this time?

I know that the accusation that the Lynch story was bogus will, by virtue of the help of the MSM, probably be received wisdom and solid history, although false. Still, that doesn't mean normal people who know better are required to believe it.

[JG22]

My high school Senior Forum class has to read this rag and watch "60 Minutes" every week for "education." I wonder what the instructor will have to say about this BS tomorrow...

[Carl]

So much to correct, so little time.

"The info on Abu Ghraib did not come from the Pentagon to Seymour Hersh. He got the info from the uncle of one of the men who was responsible for Abu Ghraib and was trying to get the story out so he could maybe get his nephew off."

Perhaps Sy got his tip from the uncle, but the actual report, which was classified, came from the Pentagon. He has refused to say who leaked it to him, but he received a copy of the report, then more documents, to buttress his report. This information most certainly did NOT come from the relative of a National Guard soldier, and I think you realize that.

"But there has already been one major network that did admit paying money for a video - I believe it was ABC. So you don't know what you're talking about. If cash changes hands there is no trail."

You tell me to "check" my "information," yet you can't name one network that has paid for a video from a transnational terrorist organization? But that they paid cash?

Come on! I can't imagine a terrorist group auctioning off footage to the highest bidder when that would only delay the actual transmission of their message.

This is so obvious, it's almost laughable you refuse to see it. I thought bloggers were supposed to expose the truth from the myriad falsehoods of the MSM? What happens when some of the crap a blogger tosses at the wall doesn't stick? Shouldn't we remember that your credibility (well, maybe ABC paid for terrorist tape, I don't remember) is somewhat suspect?

And, by the way, the DoD itself cautions reporters against saying a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine "won" a medal. No one "wins" anything. It's not an f-ing lottery or a baseball game. These men and women are risking their lives to bring freedom to a former despotic country, not competing for prizes.

To say they "won" anything cheapens what they EARNED.

In fact, one of the ways experienced war correspondents tell the difference between their own and the greenhorns is the use of "won." Anyone who has spent time in combat knows no one "wins" a medal. You earn it through self-less devotion to duty, care for your brother warriors and valor beyond the norm.

Tink, it's fairly obvious that I report on the very sort of men I once served with. I'm writing about things I, myself, once did.

As a writer, however, it should be noted that not being able to report directly the names of combatants who are KIA, MIA or WIA makes it tough. You want to be specific by naming names, but the notification process takes a long time. Two weeks, in my experience, has been the longest, but it happened.

Most of the time, the reporter in the field and the men there are ironically the last to hear that the NOK have been notified, so the time lag can be even longer.

I have never protested this, however, because if I were killed I would want my wife to find out from someone in the command before a reporter knocked on the door. Courtesy and respect.

It just makes it tough to do this kind of reporting, in specificity. Police beat reporters and others don't have this challenge.

By the way, you will find that most guys NEVER use the word "hero" except for the dead, and, if we're being honest, we would admit that just because your buddy bought it didn't make him a "hero." A lot of guys have died by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and didn't even know what hit them.

For me, heroes -- and I've known a few -- have risked their lives to save others in their unit. Some died, some didn't. But they distinguished themselves by their selfless conduct in combat.

By saying everyone is a freakin' hero, you devalue the word. I'd like to think it still has some meaning, and shouldn't be used to describe athletes, PTA moms or the guy who gave some money to the local university (all ways I've seen it used recently).

Rather, let's keep it in a special place for a rare breed of warriors, police officers, firemen, etc.

"Magic words: according to Newsweek. You wholeheartedly accept and trust Newsweek's claim that this came from sources inside DOD"

Actually, Newsweek contends the sources came from a "senior government source" in the Pentagon, which was collaborated by other "senior government sources." Additional reporting after the story seems to indicate that actual GITMO interrogators have voiced similar complaints, although not necessarily about this specific allegation.

You seem to imply that Newsweek just made this up. While I don't know if their allegations are false, or not, I can say the reporter, who is very well respected in his field, hardly had a motive to just invent a story.

This came from someone inside the DoD, just like the Abu Ghraid report (which was classified, mind you). The place leaks. It has always leaked. It will leak in the future.

People always have motives to get dirt out, and they're usually "anonymous." I don't use anonymous sources, but others do. Newsweek did, and might have been burned by those sources. But I doubt Newsweek made it up.

"What official report about the Jessica Lynch story was bogus?"

I never said anything about an official report. Rather, the initial story about Pvt. Lynch came from "senior government sources" at the Pentagon who said, among other things, that she went down shooting.

It was pure crap, of course, but the Washington Post didn't make that crap up. It came from "senior" sources at the Pentagon, who had some kind of motive to get out the fable.

As it turned out, Ms. Lynch (who seemed to have been fraternizing with an NCO, whom she later married) was knocked unconcious during a battle she didn't remember (her vehicle veered off the road and tipped), after her command took a right into a hotspot after the entire U.S. military took a left.

I was there, with the Marines, turning left. Perhaps Lynch's commanders were "heroes" for their gross inability to read a map, follow directions from MPs, navigate with GPS or fight their way out of a close ambush.

Perhaps Lynch was a "hero" for getting knocked out. Perhaps the Pentagon sources who invented the nonsense were "heroes" for getting utter claptrap into the mainstream press.

The irony of the Lynch story was that it blocked out stories about real heroes that could have been printed, had the Pentagon not been pushing that line of bull.

I remember wanted to write about a corpsman attached to 1/5 who risked his life, many times over, running into a kill zone to drag his men to safety, then treated them for their wounds.

A NY Times photographer with the unit didn't seem to realize that this conduct was heroic and newsworthy. But it was the first time she had ever been with the troops.

But I couldn't get it into the paper. Everyone wanted to hear about Jessica Lynch, the "hero." No one cared about a nameless corpsman who didn't even shoot back.

[Tink]

Carl,

In trying to prove your point, you proved mine.

You put words in my mouth, answered with what you wanted to say instead of addressing my points and treated me like a child who needed to have things carefully explained.

I'm done

[J. Sims]

Boy, have you got this story pegged...

Great article.

[Masked Menace©]

I don't know if these are the tapes Cassandra is talking about or not, but this is what I turned up with 5 minutes on Google.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A42500-2002Aug20¬Found=true

Second, it seems your "collaborated by other 'senior government sources.'" is nothing of the sort.

"Newsweek's Whitaker said that when the magazine first heard of the Koran allegation from its source, staff approached two Defense Department officials. One declined to comment, while the other challenged a different aspect of the May 9 story but did not dispute the Koran charge."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=760328&page=2

Unless the lack of denial (specifically, a "no comment" and a possible oversight), is the same as an admission.

"Why wouldn't I run the story, no one told me it wasn't true!"

[Michele San Pietro]

Sadly, it's true: the worst antiamericans are inside the United States, not outside, and the Newsweek clique is definitely among them...

[Cassandra]

Carl, you're really being stupid about this "win" thing. My husband is a 25 year active duty Marine and he says "win" with medals at times - I know, I asked him as soon as he got home. We're both from military families - our Dads both served in VietNam. My family's military service (not that this matters, because I can use a dictionary and look words up) goes all the way back to the Revolutionary War.

Get over yourself.

And your big idea of the right word was 'receive'??? That is a completely passive word. The definition of "win" AS I POINTED OUT includes EARN:

ONE MORE TIME, WITH FEELING, STRAIGHT FROM THE FREAKING DICTIONARY

The definition of "win" is:

1 a : to get possession of by effort or fortune b : to obtain by work : EARN
2 a : to gain in or as if in battle or contest b : to be the victor in

And regarding paying for terrorist tapes, check the other thread - try paying 30K for footing of Al Qaeda poison gas trials. The Guardian. Look it up yourself.

Oh... the network was "sure" the money didn't wind up in the hands of terrorists. Good enough for me.

[Carl]

Cassandra, I don't think you know much about reporting on combat overseas, or how the material of transnational terrorists ended up on the open market.

That you can then condemn CNN -- and by extension, the Wall Street Journal -- for legally obtaining footage from middlemen who have no apparent connection to either the Taliban or Al Qaeda is bracing.

Nice to know you feel you're competent enough on this to weigh in. Makes blogging easy, I guess.

As for "win," DoD itself asks reporters to NEVER use the word in connection with medals. You either receive them or, in my choice, you EARN them.

"Win" denotes either chance, as if it were a lottery, or competition, which the MOH certainly isn't.

Word choice in my profession is very important. The best way to honor an MOH soldier is to say he "earned" it, not "won" it.

By the way, this is Marine policy, too.

[Cassandra]

I can condemn them for running footage that you, by your own admission, admit benefits them.

They make this footage and put it out because it serves their purposes. In the WSJ, a journalist, Dorrance Smith, came to exactly the same conclusion I did: if they put this footage out there, they must have a reason for doing it.

If we cooperate with them, we are helping them do what they want.

It's called aiding and abetting *whether or not we pay them*.

It's that simple. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. John Burns of the NY Times even commented on this: noting that cameras were so important to the terrorists that even in the midst of getting ready to kill one of their victims, one of the terrorists stopped and asked, "ARE THE CAMERAS ROLLING?".

A pretty chilling detail, and one that OUGHT TO TELL ANY NON-BRAIN DEAD PERSON SOMETHING.

But I guess that depends on which side you are on.

By the way, I asked 3 more career Marines about the "won" thing and they all said exactly the same thing: "Who cares?" :)

You're making a mountain out of a molehill, Carl.

[Cassandra]

And just to remind you one ...more...time...:

1. I am not a career Marine.

2. I am not a professional journalist.

3. I am not a professional writer.

4. I am a former housewife who writes for a personal website in her spare time.

Get over it. Attempting to hold me to the professional standard of whatever you say DOD levies on you as a professional journalist is going to fall flat on its face every time.

The ordinary meaning of ordinary words is fine for an ordinary American citizen on an ordinary blog.

I don't pretend to be a pro. You a quibbling because you don't really have a point. This is really becoming rather petty and I am not going to argue over it any more.

[JAMES CASIMIR WISNIEWSKI]

btw, for the names of all the men and women who made the supreme sacrifice for us in iraq, see "doonesbury," sundays 5/28 and 6/4. as you might expect with such a long list, fine print: looks to be 4-point type.

NOTE: not available in NY times; check out washington post, many other mass circulation papers who choose to run the strip. (many publishers don't, as it may not appeal to their readership or mesh with their editorial policy, unlike, say, "the family circus" or "beetle bailey.")

odd: similar material was suppressed by numerous TV stations when ABC "nightline" wanted to show names and photos of the honored dead. seems this was considered an anti-war, anti-administration, unpatriotic message.

now i begin to understand: if you don't like the news, blame the messenger. if you don't like the weather, blame the weatherman. if you don't like the diagnosis, blame the doctor. if you don't like the verdict, blame the judge. if you don't like the score, blame the announcers.

a noble ideal, to spread freedom worldwide. (unbidden, unprovoked, unlawful, at gunpoint is another matter.) but back at home -- freedom of speech, freedom of the press: how... disloyal.

best wishes for a proud and reflective flag day. may we continue to strive to live up to the words of the old hymn:

%thy banners make tyrannies tremble
when borne by the red white and blue%

i hath spoken.

[Bud Garrett]

Good morning from Oregon. SanFrancisco north. I have my ear to the ground on the letter to the president, supposedly, mistakenly sent to the Federalist Patriot, from Ted Kennedy, posted 11/4/05. If true, this letter should bring the windbag down at last. I know it was posted with Michele Malkin's site, without comment. If true, every American should read it. The left, being in denial of the truth, would probably disregard it as sabotage, especially if Kennedy said it was.