U.S. Army used media cover in Iraq for own ends

[NNN0LHI]

The US has just put a bullseye on every American reporters back with this stuff. No wonder the embeds got out as quick as they did.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N05387448.htm

CARLISLE, Pa., Sept 5 (Reuters) - As U.S. troops approached Baghdad last spring, senior Army officers sought to win the surrender of enemy forces by orchestrating news coverage by journalists traveling with front-line fighting units, military officers said this week.

At a three-day military-hosted conference on the media's role in Operation Iraqi Freedom, officers said the Army arranged for an embedded U.S. television crew to film airborne troops embarking in the desert in hopes that Iraqi commanders would realize how far north U.S. forces had advanced. snip

Major Gen. James Thurman, who was chief operations officer for the land war command, said a crowning achievement of the embed program was live television coverage of U.S. soldiers toppling a flag-draped statue of President Saddam Hussein after the fall of Baghdad. snip

Some media critics have said the scene gave the misleading impression that U.S. soldiers were removing the statue at the behest of crowds of cheering Iraqis.

more

[ixion]

1. indeed, they have, but at least part of the blame should

be placed on the 'embeds' themselves, and the media corps who encouraged the idea. This is one very good reason why journalism should not be politicized/militarized.

[Judi Lynn]

2. So is this our future?

Are the reporters working for the allegedly "fair and balanced" news outlets going to actually continue as weapons of the White House policy? Why?????

Looks as if it's not likely any of them will wake up and protest this, and it's a damned shame.

(snip) Journalists, who agreed to abide by a set of military ground rules, produced up to 6,000 articles a week, including many that Army officers described as "positive" contributions to the military's IO, or information operations, effort.

"If it was indeed an experiment, it was very successful from the standpoint of the military," Army Lt. Gen. William Wallace, who was V Corps commander during major combat operations, told an audience of over 100 military officers and representatives from media outlets including Reuters. (snip)

Thanks for the article.

[NNN0LHI]

4. And when the next Daniel Pearl gets killed...

...they will all wonder why did they do that? They are idiots.

Don

[Blecht]

11. "Idiot" is too kind

The media whores are evil, plain and simple. Those fuckers are responsible for allowing the BFEE to ruin our country within and without.

Too bad they'll never have to pay - only real journalists seem to be the ones who get shot.

[gratuitous]

3. I'm so old, I can remember a time

When journalists worked for the company that gave them a paycheck, and were proud not to be government functionaries. Sure, they might have kept quiet about some things in the interest of not giving away troop positions, strategy or tactics, but almost everything else was fair game.

Now, they might as well don uniforms, say "Sir" every time they address an officer, and salute when given their marching orders. Since they're getting paid for what they're doing, I guess it's okay to still call them "pros", but I wouldn't call it journalism or reporting.

[Zhade]

13. Prostitutes begin with with the phrase "pros", you know.

Explains a lot.

My mom, a blacklisted journalist, is furious over what the media has become. She told me she feels nothing but disgust for the media now.

[gratuitous]

15. In some circles, "pro" means "prostitute"

A very tangential reference at the conclusion of my post, strained almost (and perhaps beyond) the breaking point.

I just finished Chris Hedges' book War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, and he details the process whereby reporters, even the most independent ones, tend to merge with the story during combat. I guess it's human nature to some extent to identify with the troops you're covering, but the near total co-optation of the U.S. media during both Gulf Wars has been way beyond any prior levels.

What infuriates me is the conscious, almost wanton, desire of the presstitutes to be used in this fashion. Because it means the further glorification of a most inglorious enterprise, and leads to the premature death of a lot of people both in and out of the military.

[Jester_11218]

5. I have in depth coverage of this topic

Take a look:

http://tvnewslies.org/html/invasion_coverage.html

This is a collection of articles written about the media coverage of the Iraq invasion.

Peace,
Jesse

[dbt]

6. 'Crowds of cheering Iraqis,' my ass!

A wide shot of that Kodak Moment would've shown 150 Iraqis, tops.

Burn in Hell, CNN!
:argh:
dbt

Embedded = In bed with

[Ernesto]

7. Want Iraq coverage?

Try this..... http://www.occupationwatch.org

[NNN0LHI]

8. Kick

[veracity]

9. Time to start screaming....

....and kicking and making a really big noise about the complicity of the media in manipulating our lives...and the deaths of so many people.

Has the number 37,000 been anywhere on the media? That's the number of Iraq civilian deaths - counted so far. Many still not in that number. Hey, who cares...they're not Americans, - right?

Wake up America.....

[leftchick]

10. no, I have not seen 37,000 Iraqi deaths anywhere on tv...

because the reality is, it is probably way more people killed by the US(short and long term) than Saddam ever hoped to kill....

[NNN0LHI]

12. kick

[NNN0LHI]

14. kick