Another Topic That Fell Through the Cracks

[Guest MikeSC]

Do US Troops Target Journalists in Iraq?

 

Davos, Switzerland from the WEF 2005

 

This fiery topic became a real nightmare today for the Chief News Executive of CNN at what was an initially very mild discussion at the World Economic Forum titled "Will Democracy Survive the Media?".

 

At a discussion moderated by David R. Gergen, the Director for Public Leadership, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, the concept of truth, fairness, and balance in the news was weighed against corporate profit interest, the need for ratings, and how the media can affect democracy. The panel included Richard Sambrook, the worldwide director of BBC radio, U.S. Congressman Barney Frank, Abdullah Abdullah, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan, and Eason Jordan, Chief News Executive of CNN. The audience was a mix of journalists, WEF attendees (many from Arab countries), and a US Senator from Connecticut, Chris Dodd.

 

During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience (the anti-US crowd) and cause great strain on others.

 

Due to the nature of the forum, I was able to directly challenge Eason, asking if he had any objective and clear evidence to backup these claims, because if what he said was true, it would make Abu Ghraib look like a walk in the park. David Gergen was also clearly disturbed and shocked by the allegation that the U.S. would target journalists, foreign or U.S. He had always seen the U.S. military as the providers of safety and rescue for all reporters.

 

Eason seemed to backpedal quickly, but his initial statements were backed by other members of the audience (one in particular who represented a worldwide journalist group). The ensuing debate was (for lack of better words) a real "sh--storm". What intensified the problem was the fact that the session was a public forum being taped on camera, in front of an international crowd. The other looming shadow on what was going on was the presence of a U.S. Congressman and a U.S. Senator in the middle of some very serious accusations about the U.S. military.

 

To be fair (and balanced), Eason did backpedal and make a number of statements claiming that he really did not know if what he said was true, and that he did not himself believe it. But when pressed by others, he seemed to waver back and forth between what might have been his beliefs and the realization that he had created a kind of public mess. His statements, his reaction, and the reaction of all in attendance left me perplexed and confused. Many in the crowd, especially those from Arab nations, applauded what he said and called him a "very brave man" for speaking up against the U.S. in a public way amongst a crowd ready to hear anti-US sentiments. I am quite sure that somewhere in the Middle East, right now, his remarks are being printed up in Arab language newspapers as proof that the U.S. is an evil and corrupt nation. That is a real nightmare, because the Arab world is taking something said by a credible leader of the media (CNN!) as the gospel, or koranic truth. What is worse is that I am not really sure what Eason really meant to communicate to us, but I do know that he was quite passionate about it. Members of the audience took away what they wanted to hear, and now they will use it in every vile and twisted way imaginable.

 

To me, what was said can not be put back into the genie's bottle. So here is my request as a U.S. citizen, and really only a minor, minor player in the whole WEF scheme of things: Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd, you both seem like good and honest men, and Congressman Frank especially seems like someone with a bit of courage (I'm sure Senator Dodd is brave as well). Clear up this mess, use your power and authority as elected leaders, and make transparent what really happened. You must do this to respect the 12 journalists killed and let the world know how and why. Here is another challenge, and this one is for the CNN and the BBC: What the hell happened? Is Eason right or is he wrong?  Good journalism calls for digging into and revealing all of the facts (or was everything that was said in the mild part of the discussion about fair coverage and seeking the truth just verbage?).

 

If what Eason originally said was true, exactly what happened and why needs to become known to the American public and world at large. If it is not, it is an example of how "news" is created by the heat of the moment, without any bearing to reality. If it is true, we need to know if it was official or if it was just some random disgruntled soldiers. The dark scenario, what the rest of the world would love to believe, is that the U.S. is sinister and evil and this is just another example of Darth Bush. Is this the same U.S. that I know and love, or was this just someone accidentally becoming swept up in the anti-U.S. feeling that is all pervasive in Davos (but they love us too, especially Clinton).

 

The cherry on the whipped cream of this cowpie sundae was poor Abdullah Abdullah, a shining new, fresh scrubbed member of America's grand experiment to export democracy to the Middle East. Here is someone who seemed to be idealistic, full of hope and vigor. What is he thinking about all of this? What kind of role model are we presenting to the fragile new democracies of Afghanistan and Iraq? What we can do, what we must do, is show them how democracy works, and how in an open and free country the truth will get out, and those responsible will be held accountable. The U.S. makes no claims about being perfect - we only make claims that we are open enough to correct our problems, and to admit freely to ourselves and the world if we are wrong.

 

As a last note, I think that this article is a good pointer to the future of the news: average people, freely saying what they want, as they saw it, for anyone to see. To me, that is freedom of the press.

http://www.forumblog.org/blog/2005/01/do_us_troops_ta.html

So, Eason Jordan --- THE CHIEF NEWS EXECUTIVE OF CNN (so, yes, he has remarkable influence as to what YOU see on CNN) accused of the military of INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians. He then backed off --- before CONTINUING the accusation.

 

And kudos to Rep. Frank for actually calling him on it.

Just got off the phone with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who spoke with me about Easongate. Rep. Frank was on the panel at Davos.

 

Rep. Frank said Eason Jordan did assert that there was deliberate targeting of journalists by the U.S. military. After Jordan made the statement, Rep. Frank said he immediately "expressed deep skepticism." Jordan backed off (slightly), Rep. Frank said, "explaining that he wasn't saying it was the policy of the American military to target journalists, but that there may have been individual cases where they were targeted by younger personnel who were not properly disciplined."

 

Rep. Frank said he didn't pay attention to the audience reaction at the time of the panel, but recalled that Sen. Dodd was "somewhat disturbed" and "somewhat exercised" and that moderator David Gergen also said Jordan's assertions were "disturbing if true." I have a call in to Sen. Dodd's office and sent an e-mail inquiry to Gergen.

 

I asked Rep. Frank again if his recollection was that Jordan initially maintained that the military had a deliberate policy of targeting journalists. Rep. Frank affirmed that, noting that Jordan subsequently backed away orally and in e-mail that it was official policy, but "left open the question" of whether there were individual cases in which American troops targeted journalists.

 

After the panel was over and he returned to the U.S., Rep. Frank said he called Jordan and expressed willingness to pursue specific cases if there was any credible evidence that any American troops targeted journalists. "Give me specifics," Rep. Frank said he told Jordan.

 

Rep. Frank has not yet heard back yet from Jordan.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001447.htm

Yes, it's from Malkin, but she's the only one that I know of who's even spoken to Frank about this.

 

It is odd that the press thought the general's comments about people being fun to shoot was worth comment --- but the chief news executive of CNN accusing the US military of intentionally killing journalists was not.

 

A videotape of the entire conference was shot, but it will likely never be released, due to the rules of the conference.

 

So, does nobody think that the chief news executive of a major news network openly slandering the US military might be a bad thing? I mean, the MSM clearly doesn't think too much of it (odd that Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post was taking on-line questions and, somehow, 9 of the questions he answered were about Deep Throat and none were about this story --- which is quite the rage in conservative circles).

 

Oh, and for a differing view:

Statement of Richard Sambrook

Director of BBC World Service and Global News

 

Eason's comments were a reaction to a statement that journalists killed in Iraq amounted to "collateral damage". His point was that many of these journalists (and indeed civilians) killed in Iraq were not accidental victims--as suggested by the terms "collateral damage"--but had been "targeted", for example by snipers.

 

He clarified this comment to say he did not believe they were targeted because they were journalists, although there are others in the media community who do hold that view (personally, I don't). They had been deliberately killed as individuals-- perhaps because they were mistaken for insurgents, we don't know. However the distinction he was seeking to make is that being shot by a sniper, or fired at directly is very different from being, for example, accidentally killed by an explosion.

 

Some in the audience, and Barney Frank on the panel, took him to mean US troops had deliberately set out to kill journalists. That is not what he meant or, in my view, said; and he clarified his comment a number of times to ensure people did not misunderstand him. However, they seem to have done so.

 

A second point he made, which in my view is extremely important, is that when journalists have been killed by the military in conflict it has been almost impossible to have an open inquiry or any accountability for the death on behalf of families, friends or employers. Very little information is released, we know investigations do take place but the results are not passed on.

 

This culture of "closing ranks" coupled with hostile comments about the media from senior politicians and others, has led some in the media community (not necessarily Eason or myself) to believe the military are careless as to whether journalists are killed or not and to no longer respect the traditional right to report.

 

As yet, for example, there has been no adequate explanation for the attack on the media hotel in Baghdad, the Palestine, which killed one Ukrainian Reuters cameraman and one cameraman for Spanish TV in 2003. The US tank commander suggested he had come under sniper fire from the building. That is now clearly not the case; it was well known, including in the Pentagon, that the Palestine was used by the media and yet it was attacked directly and purposely. Why? An absence of explanation unhelpfully feeds suspicion in some quarters.

 

More than sixty journalists and media workers have been killed in Iraq since march 2003. Reporting from conflict zones appears to be more dangerous than ever. Check these reports from NewsSafety and the Committee to Protect Journalists.

 

I am leading an international committee of inquiry into the reasons for the major increase in journalist fatalities around the world. It will make recommendations for improving safety and reducing risk and possibly suggest some changes to international law which ensure that when journalists are killed we can get a proper and open investigation and sense of accountability.

 

Finally, some people say, if it's so dangerous don't go. I'm afraid I believe that bearing witness, first hand reporting from wars, is a fundamental duty of news organisations. We need to do all we can to ensure we can continue to bear witness, but to do so without carelessly losing lives.

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/...7/samb_esn.html

While I do not question his veracity, it seems odd that Frank would not defend him at all if he had any question. Also, Eason's comments go with comments he made earlier.

 

And, just to remind folks, Eason Jordan is ALSO the guy who told the NY Times he covered up Iraqi atrocities to keep the CNN Baghdad bureau open while Saddam was in power.

 

Yes, the link is to a blog --- NYTimes requires registration and I do not know if one is able to access older articles free of charge.

-=Mike

...Toodles for now...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

The thing is, if it happened on a blog originally -- even if it's a popular blog -- chances are that big media isn't going to pick up on it. If I read it wrong and it was widely reported, then carry on.

[Guest MikeSC]

The thing is, if it happened on a blog originally -- even if it's a popular blog -- chances are that big media isn't going to pick up on it. If I read it wrong and it was widely reported, then carry on.

It happened at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The initial link was the blog OF the event.

 

Not exactly a small event.

 

Sen. Dodd, Rep. Frank, etc would not have been there if it was a blog event.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Fair enough, I didn't realize that at first. I just saw the link to a blog.

[NoCalMike 0]

In the documentary "Weapons of Mass Deception" they showed some footage of a Coalition Tank, across the street from a journalists hotel, with the cannon pointed at the hotel. It fired on the hotel, killing two or three international journalists. The Coalition said it "misfired on accident" but questions queries into why the Tank was there with the cannon aimed at the hotel in the first place, were never answered.

 

EDIT: my bad, I just remembered, the Coalition claimed that machine guns were fired onto the tank, but after several reviews of the camera footage, it was pretty clear no such "machine gun" fire took place. Also, it still stands to be questioned why the tank was there pointed at the hotel in the first place.

[Guest Cerebus]

You can't assume video evidence is the end all be all. Far from it. Especially when its on a "documentary," the video could easily be edited, manipulated, or misinterpeted (on purpose or by mistake) to make it look far worse (several of the "documentaries" on the seige at Waco were known to do this).

 

At any rate, I had not heard of this particular event. Do you have a link or at least the name of the hotel?

[NoCalMike 0]

You can't assume video evidence is the end all be all. Far from it. Especially when its on a "documentary," the video could easily be edited, manipulated, or misinterpeted (on purpose or by mistake) to make it look far worse (several of the "documentaries" on the seige at Waco were known to do this).

 

At any rate, I had not heard of this particular event. Do you have a link or at least the name of the hotel?

I will try, but right now I am at work, so it may have to wait for about four hours until I get home and can actually put an effort into the search.

[Justice 0]

NoCal, you never cease to amaze me with the crap you say. Do we really have to bring up the "RPGs and Camera look VERY VERY similar from the front" debate? Or shall you just spew horrid conspiracy theories about soldiers trying to eliminate international journalists for absolutely no gain?

 

Edit: I just realized, are you talking about the Incident where the Arab news agency had a cameraman set up on the top of a building overlooking one of the bridges, and was fired upon by the Tanks with their 50 Cals? I remember watching that live, and I frankly didn't see how it they were that at fault for anything in that one.

[NoCalMike 0]

NoCal, you never cease to amaze me with the crap you say. Do we really have to bring up the "RPGs and Camera look VERY VERY similar from the front" debate? Or shall you just spew horrid conspiracy theories about soldiers trying to eliminate international journalists for absolutely no gain?

 

Edit: I just realized, are you talking about the Incident where the Arab news agency had a cameraman set up on the top of a building overlooking one of the bridges, and was fired upon by the Tanks with their 50 Cals? I remember watching that live, and I frankly didn't see how it they were that at fault for anything in that one.

Nope, it isn't that incident. Has nothing to do with it. It was a hotel, with international press, not local arab reporters. I know what you are referring to, and it isn't that at all.

 

And Justice, this isn't a conspiracy theory buddy. A Coalition tank fired on a hotel with nothing in it but journalists. The reason given was that the tank was "fired upon by machine guns" and they were returning fire, after initially the reason given was that the tank "misfired" . When asked why the tank was there in the first place with it's cannon pointed at the hotel, no answer was given, besides "hot spot"

 

It never ceases to amaze me how naysayers resort to "OMG CONSPIRACY THEORY" when they hear or read or see things they have no intention to want to know about or believe are true.

 

Oh and for the record. Read the initial post in this thread. There is an article suggesting that international reporters deaths may not be accidental. Notice, I didn't post that or start the thread. I am simply adding to the thread with something I saw in a documentary covering the same topic as the thread starter. Once I get off work I can try and look up the specific incident I am referring to.

[Justice 0]

Nope, it isn't that incident. Has nothing to do with it. It was a hotel, with international press, not local arab reporters. I know what you are referring to, and it isn't that at all.

Okay, fair enough.

 

And Justice, this isn't a conspiracy theory buddy. A Coalition tank fired on a hotel with nothing in it but journalists.  The reason given was that the tank was "fired upon by machine guns" and they were returning fire, after initially the reason given was that the tank "misfired" .  When asked why the tank was there in the first place with it's cannon pointed at the hotel, no answer was given, besides "hot spot"

 

Yes, it is a conspiracy theory. It was a tank in a battlezone under attack. It came under enemy fire, which could easily have been identified as the hotel. It's not that hard to believe. Do you really think that B'aathists would have any qualms about using a hotel that had civilians in it as a base of fire?

 

The problem is with dealing an adequate answer: The military probably doesn't want the Tank Commander crucified for what was probably an honest-to-God mistake. It costed lives, but so would not immediately trying to identify and eliminate a threat. What good would come of this if he followed standard procedure and simply had bad info? How much can you punish him besides the fact that he'll have to live with killing 3 innocent people for the rest of his life?

 

Okay, how about this: Can you give us a plausible motive for why they would want to fire on International Reporters if they knew they were there?

 

It never ceases to amaze me how naysayers resort to "OMG CONSPIRACY THEORY" when they hear or read or see things they have no intention to want to know about or believe are true.

 

Pot, kettle.

 

Oh and for the record. Read the initial post in this thread. There is an article suggesting that international reporters deaths may not be accidental.  Notice, I didn't post that or start the thread.  I am simply adding to the thread with something I saw in a documentary covering the same topic as the thread starter. Once I get off work I can try and look up the specific incident I am referring to.

 

That doesn't make them any more credible, nor does it absolve you from pushing the stupidity of a view like this. Yeah, I'm really sure that we have Snipers targetting civilians and journalists, because that nets us so much in the long run.

 

Seriously, if Bush and Co are completely profit driven people, what do they have to profit by killing these people? It doesn't add up, even under your own views.

[NoCalMike 0]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/...l?oneclick=true

 

April 9 2003

By Hamza Hendawi

 

Related links:

Media deaths spark outrage

Press caught in the crossfire

 

Media organisations today questioned the judgment of US soldiers after the killing of three journalists in Baghdad, and even suggested the Americans were deliberately targeting reporters.

 

US-led military strikes in the Iraqi capital yesterday hit a hotel housing hundreds of journalists and an Arab television network, killing three journalists and injuring three others.

 

US military officials denied claims two Arabic-language television networks had been intentionally targeted.

 

"This coalition does not target journalists," Brig Gen Vincent Brooks said in Qatar.

 

A US Defence Department spokeswoman said while she regretted the deaths of journalists, "war is a dangerous, dangerous business"

 

"We've had conversations over the last couple of days, news organisations eager to get their people unilaterally into Baghdad," Victoria Clarke told reporters. "We are saying it is not a safe place; you should not be there."

 

The US-based Committee to Protect Journalists has demanded US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld investigate the firing on the Palestine Hotel and attacks that hit the Baghdad office of the Qatar-based al-Jazeera satellite network and damaged the nearby office of Abu Dhabi TV.

 

Amnesty International also called for an independent investigation, saying the Palestine Hotel was protected under international humanitarian law and should not have been attacked.

 

In Belgium, the International Federation of Journalists said it appeared the attacks may have deliberately targeted journalists. "If so, they are grave and serious violations of international law," said Secretary-General Aidan White.

 

An American tank fired on the Palestine Hotel early yesterday, where foreign journalists have been covering the war from balconies and the roof.

 

Less than 2km away, a reporter for Al-Jazeera television was killed when US-led forces bombed his office. Nearby, coalition artillery battered the Baghdad office of Abu Dhabi television, trapping more than 25 reporters who phoned for help from the basement.

 

"I'm astonished and shocked," said Art Bourbon, news director of Abu Dhabi. "We've been in this office for more than 2-1/2 years. Anyone going into military operations would have known our location."

 

Early today, the network announced that it had been unable to broadcast live video from Baghdad overnight, saying American tanks were posted outside its offices. Its live shots are often used by television networks, including those in the United States.

 

Al-Jazeera, whose offices are alongside Abu Dhabi television, also did not broadcast live scenes of Baghdad overnight.

 

Yesterday, Al-Jazeera chief editor Ibrahim Hilal said the US military has long known the map coordinates and street number of his network's office. Witnesses "saw the plane fly over twice before dropping the bombs. Our office is in a residential area, and even the Pentagon knows its location," Hilal said in Qatar.

 

Military officials offered different explanations for the attacks.

 

Brooks initially said the hotel was targeted after soldiers were fired on from the lobby. Later, he told reporters, "I may have misspoken."

 

US Army Col David Perkins, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade, which deployed the tank, said Iraqis in front of the hotel fired rocket-propelled grenades across the Tigris River. Soldiers fired back with a tank round aimed at the Palestine Hotel after seeing enemy "binoculars", Perkins said.

 

More than 50 news cameras were set up on hotel balconies when the tank fired, according to Associated Press photographer Jerome Delay. "How can they spot someone with binoculars and not (see) cameras?" he asked.

 

Journalists said they heard no gunfire coming from the hotel or its immediate environs. They had been watching two US tanks shooting across the al-Jumhuriya bridge, more than a kilometre away, when one of the tanks rotated its turret toward the hotel and fired.

 

The round pierced the 14th and 15th floors of the 17-storey hotel, spraying glass and shrapnel across a corner suite serving as Reuters' Baghdad bureau.

 

Killed were Taras Protsyuk of Ukraine, a television cameraman for the Reuters news agency, and Jose Couso, a cameraman for Spain's Telecinco television. Spain asked its journalists to leave Baghdad following Couso's death.

 

Tareq Ayyoub of Jordan died at al-Jazeera's office, located in a residential neighbourhood fronting the Tigris. In all, 10 journalists have been killed since war began on March 20.

 

The wounded, all Reuters employees, were identified by the company as TV technician Paul Pasquale of Britain, Gulf Bureau Chief Samia Nakhoul of Lebanon and photographer Faleh Kheiber of Iraq.

 

Pasquale underwent surgery yesterday at a Baghdad hospital for serious leg injuries, according to colleagues. Nakhoul suffered shrapnel wounds and may require surgery.

 

"Clearly the war, and all its confusion, has come to the heart of Baghdad," said Reuters Editor in Chief Geert Linnebank. "But the incident nonetheless raises questions about the judgment of the advancing US troops who have known all along that this hotel is the main base for almost all foreign journalists in Baghdad."

 

-AP/Reuters

[Guest Cerebus]

Wacky online documentary aside, there is no evidence that there were ever journalists targeted (the Army cleared the troops of the incident by the way). Jordan also claimed that there were also journalists arrested/kidnaped and tortured by the Army as well. You can read Captain's Quarters for more info if you'd like and he's got more links than I could dredge up.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

This Chickenhawk fellow is quite the prolific poster.

[Guest Cerebus]

Not for long he won't be...

[NoCalMike 0]

Wacky online documentary aside, there is no evidence that there were ever journalists targeted (the Army cleared the troops of the incident by the way). Jordan also claimed that there were also journalists arrested/kidnaped and tortured by the Army as well. You can read Captain's Quarters for more info if you'd like and he's got more links than I could dredge up.

what "online documentary" and I did post an article awhile ago to go with the documentary. I mean short of calling up Oliver North and having him showcase this issue on Hannity & Colmes this week in a feature, what else can I do to give this issue SOME credence. I am not looking for everyone to say "Damn them they did it" all I am saying is that this isn't merely a "OMG CONSPIRACY THEORYLOLO~!"

[Justice 0]

Perhaps it wouldn't be a conspiratorial thing if 1) You could prove a motive for why they would want to target any journalists, and 2) Give some credibile proof that they deliberately targeted the journalists in question.

[NoCalMike 0]

Perhaps it wouldn't be a conspiratorial thing if 1) You could prove a motive for why they would want to target any journalists, and 2) Give some credibile proof that they deliberately targeted the journalists in question.

Well the article said that the hotel that housed the journalists had them there for well over a year, and there is no way possible that the army did not know of their location. As far as motive, I dunno I am not a lawyer and I am not putting them on trial, but maybe because the Coalition or strategic folks even higher wanted to intimidate the international press core, who are definately interested in covering the War more closely and non-filtered then the american media? I am not even trying to say they purposely KILLED journalists perse, but possibly just fired on the hotel as a means of intimidation or scare tactic, and then there happened to be the few journalists in the wrong place at the wrong time. Nonetheless, the international press's hotel was fired upon.

[Justice 0]

I am not even trying to say they purposely KILLED journalists perse, but possibly just fired on the hotel as a means of intimidation or scare tactic, and then there happened to be the few journalists in the wrong place at the wrong time. Nonetheless, the international press's hotel was fired upon.

Hmm... why does this sound so damn familiar...

 

Just what was I defending? What did I claim to offer proof of? I contributed photos that were about the topic and then just pointed out things that seemed strange about them and then when people offered explanations I just lightly played devil's advocate here and there because I was looking for more proof.

 

Again, you avoid the question: What does the military have to gain by killing innocent civilians, and isn't just as possible that it could have been a combat mistake? You act as though it would be IMPOSSIBLE for Saddam to EVER use a civilian building for a firebase, and Lord knows the insurgency has demonstrated that enough.

[Guest Cerebus]

Getting back to reality about Jordan...

 

Mickey Kaus has more info on Jordan and the cover-up and spin.

 

PS: PB, I think its time we finally kick the Wisdomblog back into gear. What say you?

[Justice 0]

Considering I actually have, well, TIME now, sure.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The director of the BBC spoke about the Jordan incident:

 

Eason's comments were a reaction to a statement that journalists killed in Iraq amounted to "collateral damage". His point was that many of these journalists (and indeed civilians) killed in Iraq were not accidental victims--as suggested by the terms "collateral damage"--but had been "targeted", for example by snipers.

 

He clarified this comment to say he did not believe they were targeted because they were journalists, although there are others in the media community who do hold that view (personally, I don't). They had been deliberately killed as individuals-- perhaps because they were mistaken for insurgents, we don't know. However the distinction he was seeking to make is that being shot by a sniper, or fired at directly is very different from being, for example, accidentally killed by an explosion.

 

Some in the audience, and Barney Frank on the panel, took him to mean US troops had deliberately set out to kill journalists. That is not what he meant or, in my view, said; and he clarified his comment a number of times to ensure people did not misunderstand him. However, they seem to have done so.

 

Sounds like it was just a case of misunderstanding.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

So I was gonna mention the Jeff Gannon incident. So, this guy with no journalistic credentials is admitted to the White House press corps and routinely softballs Bush & McClellan with conservatively-slanted questions such as

 

Since there have been so many questions about what the president was doing over 30 years ago, what is it that he did after his honorable discharge from the National Guard? Did he make speeches alongside Jane Fonda, denouncing America's racist war in Vietnam? Did he testify before Congress that American troops committed war crimes in Vietnam? And did he throw somebody else's medals at the White House to protest a war America was still fighting?

 

And

 

Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the US economy," Gannon said. "[Minority Leader] Harry Reid was talking about soup lines, and Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet, in the same breath, they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you said you're going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?

 

By the way, Reid never said anything about soup lines, that was a quote jokingly attributed to him by RUSH FUCKING LIMBAUGH.

 

So some bloggers did some research into Gannon's background and it turns out he runs some gay military escort sites (some weird military prostitution ring) and posts provocative pictures of himself scantily clothed online. Keep in mind that he wrote lots of "articles" bashing gay marriage and all.

 

He has since stepped down because of "threats".

[Guest MikeSC]

The director of the BBC spoke about the Jordan incident:

 

Eason's comments were a reaction to a statement that journalists killed in Iraq amounted to "collateral damage". His point was that many of these journalists (and indeed civilians) killed in Iraq were not accidental victims--as suggested by the terms "collateral damage"--but had been "targeted", for example by snipers.

 

He clarified this comment to say he did not believe they were targeted because they were journalists, although there are others in the media community who do hold that view (personally, I don't). They had been deliberately killed as individuals-- perhaps because they were mistaken for insurgents, we don't know. However the distinction he was seeking to make is that being shot by a sniper, or fired at directly is very different from being, for example, accidentally killed by an explosion.

 

Some in the audience, and Barney Frank on the panel, took him to mean US troops had deliberately set out to kill journalists. That is not what he meant or, in my view, said; and he clarified his comment a number of times to ensure people did not misunderstand him. However, they seem to have done so.

 

Sounds like it was just a case of misunderstanding.

Yes, they have a different view. Frank stands behind what he said and has not backed off. Several others back what Frank said.

 

And it STILL doesn't explain why Arab leaders would applaud him for "speaking the truth" if this view on his comments is accurate.

So I was gonna mention the Jeff Gannon incident. So, this guy with no journalistic credentials is admitted to the White House press corps and routinely softballs Bush & McClellan with conservatively-slanted questions such as

You can mention it. I don't really see the relevance to this issue. Perhaps a new topic so you can express the huge problem with a journalist who lobs softballs at people.

So some bloggers did some research into Gannon's background and it turns out he runs some gay military escort sites (some weird military prostitution ring) and posts provocative pictures of himself scantily clothed online. Keep in mind that he wrote lots of "articles" bashing gay marriage and all.

How is that relevant to anything? It reeks of being, well, some primo gay-bashing. A guy who lobs softball questions at Bush and who might be gay while posting articles opposing gay marriage is bad for what reason? Can you provide a reason why somebody should be outraged by this?

 

I honestly don't quite get the outrage over this Gannon fella running gay military websites.

He has since stepped down because of "threats".

So, people demonizing him over possible homosexuality causing him to step down is applauded? Sounds a bit odd.

-=Mike

[jesse_ewiak 0]

Let me get this straight...

 

So apparently, a CNN news executive, at worst repeats something false at a conference, none of which was recorded, was aired, or was printed on any site. So at worst, Jordan was a victim of the Right's new speech code for playing to the audience with a lie. More likely, the CNN guy exaggerated. This is what is such s huge "scandal".

 

Ironic, but the Right has become the new champions of Political Correctness.

 

So, um, the GOP guy was a fake reporter who got White House press credentials with a fake name to lob softballs at Bush and McClellan, registered website names dealing with gay prostitution while writing stories advancing the Right's anti-gay agenda, and when he cowardly quit, purged all his stories from the sites in which they lived.

 

I mean, let's just say for example, if some guy with alleged ties to male prostitution were given unprecendented access to the White House, and given a White House press pass that didn't even have his real name on it, in order to throw fake softball questions at the press briefings to help make the president look good.

 

Now imagine that president were named Bill Clinton.

 

Now imagine what would happen next?

 

* Congressional hearings in the House and Senate.

* Demands for a Justice Dept. investigation - how did this man get past security, who let him in, what were his ties to these male prostitute URLs, and who else on the White House staff may have done something?

* Demands for a slew of firings of White House staff.

* Never-ending questions about Hooker-gate directed to the White House staff and the president from the Washington media.

* And non-stop 24-hour coverage on CNN and FOX.

[Vyce 0]

So, um, the GOP guy was a fake reporter who got White House press credentials with a fake name to lob softballs at Bush and McClellan, registered website names dealing with gay prostitution while writing stories advancing the Right's anti-gay agenda, and when he cowardly quit, purged all his stories from the sites in which they lived.

 

You're right, that's clearly worse than the head of the CNN news department making the false claim that journalists are being assassinated by the United States military. MUCH worse. I don't even know why we're all having an argument here.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

So it's okay to use an alias to obtain a White House press corps pass for a FAUX news organization that served as a proxy for a partisan political operation? Riiiight.

 

And prostitution, for those of you who didn't know, is illegal. The fact that "Gannon" was entangling his homosexual escort service with the US military whilst supporting anti-gay legislation is fucked up and hypocritical to the Nth.

[Vyce 0]

Frankly, I didn't know about this press corps guy until recently, and I don't think I've ever said that what he did was right.

 

I'm just pointing out how bat-shit you are for hyping his actions, whatever they may be, up as a supreme injustice upon humanity while at the same time completely triviliazing the fact that a man who has considerable influence over a news network that provides information to MILLIONS of people is insinuating - erroneously and utterly without proof - that American soldiers have murdered civilian journalists.

 

I'm not saying that one is right and the other is wrong; but I'm damn sure going to mock you if you don't think Jordan's remarks aren't something to be concerned about - and not in the sense because they are true.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Frankly, I didn't know about this press corps guy until recently, and I don't think I've ever said that what he did was right.

 

I'm just pointing out how bat-shit you are for hyping his actions, whatever they may be, up as a supreme injustice upon humanity while at the same time completely triviliazing the fact that a man who has considerable influence over a news network that provides information to MILLIONS of people is insinuating - erroneously and utterly without proof - that American soldiers have murdered civilian journalists.

 

I'm not saying that one is right and the other is wrong; but I'm damn sure going to mock you if you don't think Jordan's remarks aren't something to be concerned about - and not in the sense because they are true.

If Jordan really said what Barney Frank

 

 

said he did, then I think he should probably resign. At this point, though, it's a case of he said/she said.

 

Going by their pictures alone, I would lean more toward trusting the director of the BBC's (below) interpretation

 

 

And maybe you're right--maybe these two issues shouldn't be discussed alongside one another. But I do think the "Gannon" incident warrants discussion, especially given the recent rash of "pundit payola" in the Bush administration. How the hell did this guy get a WH press corps pass (4 days after his "Talon News Service" came into existence)? Even if this was an honest mistake, it was obvious by his questions that he was making no attempt at objectivity in his questioning.

[Guest MikeSC]

Let me get this straight...

 

So apparently, a CNN news executive, at worst repeats something false at a conference, none of which was recorded, was aired, or was printed on any site. So at worst, Jordan was a victim of the Right's new speech code for playing to the audience with a lie. More likely, the CNN guy exaggerated. This is what is such s huge "scandal".

 

Ironic, but the Right has become the new champions of Political Correctness.

No, he apparently made claims that the military intentionally targeted journalists. That's a bit of a bad thing for the head of a news division to begin saying.

 

Especially the head of a news division who covered up Saddam's atrocities to keep his Baghdad bureau open in the 90's.

So, um, the GOP guy was a  fake reporter who got White House press credentials with a fake name to lob softballs at Bush and McClellan, registered website names dealing with gay prostitution while writing stories advancing the Right's anti-gay agenda, and when he cowardly quit, purged all his stories from the sites in which they lived.

True. We should applaud the left for outing a gay man. KUDOS!

I mean, let's just say for example, if some guy with alleged ties to male prostitution were given unprecendented access to the White House, and given a White House press pass that didn't even have his real name on it, in order to throw fake softball questions at the press briefings to help make the president look good.

 

Now imagine that president were named Bill Clinton.

 

Now imagine what would happen next?

 

* Congressional hearings in the House and Senate.

Because having journalists proclaim that they'd blow Clinton for keeping abortion legal couldn't POSSIBLY be a problem in terms of coverage...

* Demands for a Justice Dept. investigation - how did this man get past security, who let him in, what were his ties to these male prostitute URLs, and who else on the White House staff may have done something?

* Demands for a slew of firings of White House staff.

* Never-ending questions about Hooker-gate directed to the White House staff and the president from the Washington media.

* And non-stop 24-hour coverage on CNN and FOX.

I think Ace of Spades wraps up the Ganon "get the gay man" sweepstakes the best.

 

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/067063.php

-=Mike

[BUTT 0]

I agree. The liberals are pretending that they are upset by this man's phony press credentials and links to prostitution, but they can't fool me. Fucking homophobes.