Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
A Freed Reporter -- and Blogging Ethics
So early this morning, a New York Times reporter taken captive in Afghanistan was freed by ISAF commandos. (His interpreter, Sultan Munadi, was killed in the rescue attempt, as was what was likely a member of the 22 SAS. Correction: the soldier appears to have been a member of the special operations support unit [1 PARA]. Sorry.) For what I thought to be understandable reasons, the Times kept quiet about the kidnapping.
Until now, the kidnapping had been kept quiet by The Times and most other news media organizations out of concern for the men’s safety.
“We feared that media attention would raise the temperature and increase the risk to the captives,” said Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times. “We’re overjoyed that Steve is free, but deeply saddened that his freedom came at such a cost. We are doing all we can to learn the details of what happened. Our hearts go out to Sultan’s family and to the family of the British commando who gave his life in the rescue.”
The rescue of Mr. Farrell came about 11 weeks after David Rohde, another reporter for The Times, escaped and made his way to freedom after more than seven months of captivity in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In that case as well, The Times and other news organizations kept Mr. Rohde’s kidnapping silent out of fear for his safety. An Afghan journalist colleague who was kidnapped along with Mr. Rohde, Tahir Ludin, also escaped, but their captured driver did not.
Last weekend, a military blogger I know posted an item on the reporter's kidnapping. Thinking this would be a relatively easy request, I emailed the blogger in question and cheerfully asked him to take the post down for much of the same logic articulated above by Bill Keller. The blogger refused, and then got quite angry with me, accusing me of arrogance -- which, let's be honest, is a little like accusing an orange of being round -- and a patronizing tone. His counter-logic to Keller's was as follows:
- It's either news or it isn't. It's not the job of a blogger to protect the media or soldiers or anyone else, and this was news.
- You cannot prove that a blog post is going to further endanger the life of the captive.
- The press hardly respects soldiers in the same way. Just look at the AP and the way they broadcast the image of that dying Marine.
I happen to agree with Tom Ricks and others that the AP's decision to display that that picture was reprehensible. How that then justifies some kind of tit-for-tat retribution, though, is beyond me. The other two objections are something else. Personally, I still consider the blogger's decision to leave his post up on his website to have been at best foolish and at worst morally irresponsible. And I addressed the first point in another equally poorly-received email. But that's my opinion -- what do you think? Should bloggers or the media refrain from reporting these kinds of kidnappings? Do bloggers have any responsibility here?
"I happen to agree with Tom
"I happen to agree with Tom Ricks and others that the AP's decision to display that that picture was reprehensible."
I'm confused. I can't remember reading the same concern from Tom Ricks or you when the press publishes pictures of dead Iraqis or Afghanis. Why is it so much different when a picture of a dying US soldier gets published? Isn't this implicitly or subconciously saying that an American soldier and his family's feelings have more value than, say, an Iraqi or Afghani who gets killed?
A fair question and one that
A fair question and one that demands thought, but not really an answer to the question I asked.Here's what I find really
Here's what I find really curious about the whole deal: point number 3 wasn't even just a retrospective justification, but was cited in the original post. I'm not going to link to it here, but this is what he said:
The media has not afforded the US military the courtesy of a news blackout when US troops have been captured in Iraq and Afghanistan.
WTF? It almost sounds like he's rooting for things to go badly. There doesn't seem to have been any point besides demonstrating insider knowledge and "highlight[ing] the deteriorating security situation in the northern province of Kunduz." (You know, in case the hijacking of two NATO fuel trucks wasn't demonstrative of that.)
Anyway, to the substantive questions: I'm not sure that publicizing this information on a blog makes anything more difficult for anyone, but I can't fathom for the life of me why anyone would make the decision to publish if there was even a remotely plausible argument to be made that you'd endanger lives. He's right that it's "not a blogger's job to protect anyone," but let's consider the cost-benefit for a second. What exactly is the benefit of publishing this information? An ego boost?
I'm confused. I can't
I'm confused. I can't remember reading the same concern from Tom Ricks or you when the press publishes pictures of dead Iraqis or Afghanis. Why is it so much different when a picture of a dying US soldier gets published?
I have mixed feelings about the AP story, and I know you're just trolling here, but I think this specific instance is different simply because the AP consulted the family and then ignored their wishes (and those of the SECDEF). As Secretary Gates has said, it's not so much a matter of free speech as one of compassion and decency.
(But why take this off topic?)
I can understand Keller's
I can understand Keller's desire to protect his reporter. But I'm not sure that I understand how it helps the reporter to keep news of his capture quiet. Is the theory that his captors don't know that he is a reporter and are therefore unaware of the extra leverage or propaganda value he gives them over an "ordinary" captive? I find it hard to believe that even the most ill-informed Afghan militant won't quickly figure out that a captive is a civilian reporter as opposed to a solider, diplomat or aid worker. But maybe I'm wrong about that.
I agree that the AP photo is not remotely a good parallel. Maybe a better one would be the Times' decision to print stories about intelligence sources and methods or the names of CIA interrogators. But please note that I am not offering those alternative examples to argue that Keller is not entitled to try to keep news of the reporter's capture quiet. Just pointing out that there are closer parallels to draw, even if those still don't fit well.
I can understand Keller's
I can understand Keller's desire to protect his reporter. But I'm not sure that I understand how it helps the reporter to keep news of his capture quiet. Is the theory that his captors don't know that he is a reporter and are therefore unaware of the extra leverage or propaganda value he gives them over an "ordinary" captive? I find it hard to believe that even the most ill-informed Afghan militant won't quickly figure out that a captive is a civilian reporter as opposed to a solider, diplomat or aid worker. But maybe I'm wrong about that.
I agree that the AP photo is not remotely a good parallel. Maybe a better one would be the Times' decision to print stories about intelligence sources and methods or the names of CIA interrogators. But please note that I am not offering those alternative examples to argue that Keller is not entitled to try to keep news of the reporter's capture quiet. Just pointing out that there are closer parallels to draw, even if those still don't fit well.
bloggers are essentially no
bloggers are essentially no different things than other media in the dissemination of information among audiences. just like about anyone who does so by word of mouth. elaboration on that would lead me astray here, but what seems obvious is that credibility and newsworthiness of an information creates status in the informational foodchain, thereby gaining also (social) status and/or revenue. I find a moral judgment easy here: if you don´t care about the influence of your words altogether it is quite cynical. just like passing a rumour in a village that your neighbor works in a brothel.
I'm also fascinated/appalled
I'm also fascinated/appalled at said blogger's commenters, who displayed a rather virulent and distasteful hatred for all media, especially the Times. The Times has printed some of the best reporting about the war, and about the Americans fighting it. But because it's not universally praised (or worse, because it has published reports critical of the war on terror), therefore they are traitors and who cares what happens to them?
I think it's more than a tit-for-tat, Andrew.
Also, it says something that the Times has reporters who are not 100% reliant on the military for movement and access. While that carries obvious risks -- two reporters abducted in less than a year -- it's also why I tend to trust the Times' coverage of the country more. It's not even implicitly filtered through a PAO.
I'm also fascinated/appalled
I'm also fascinated/appalled at said blogger's commenters, who displayed a rather virulent and distasteful hatred for all media, especially the Times.
With you here, but I just attributed that to standard Blackfive/Captain's Journal/Michelle Malkin-esque distaste for the media establishment as enemies of real Americans. After all, you have to "choose a side in this war," according to these guys. It's just demonstrative of a real misunderstanding of the role of the media, or of the media's responsibility to be a mouthpiece for American/western/coalition IO.
The author of the blog in question seems to evince similar convictions. All of which is to say that I think the decision to reveal this information was one that was made in bad faith, with the intent to make a statement and prove a point, and that any talk of the legitimate mandate for blogs to bring news to the masses and so on is just so much cynical justification for a decision that was fundamentally informed by distaste for the "liberal media establishment."
This century: 8 years of
This century:
8 years of bloody war in Afghanistan.
6 years of bloody war in Iraq.
Tens of thousands dead, mostly civilians.
Last century:
100 years of nearly continuous warfare.
Tens of millions dead, mostly all civilians.
How far we've come:
Still debating whether or not it's "moral" to publish a photo of one dying soldier.
Progress:
Ask Nero.
"Alcohol has been banned
"Alcohol has been banned from Nato's headquarters in Afghanistan in the wake of an airstrike that killed up to 70 civilians.
US General Stanley McChrystal, head of the International Forces in Afghanistan (Isaf), decided to bar boozing after launching an investigation into the bombing in northern Afghanistan.
Staff at the Kabul headquarters were 'either drunk or too hungover' to answer his questions.
He slammed forces for 'partying it up' as German Chancellor Angela Merkel also found herself under attack for the strike."
Read more: http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1211736/U-S-forces-...
I recommend this post by
I recommend this post by Charli Carpenter at Duck of Minerva, and the subsequent discussion in the comments. As Charli states:
...if the US government wished to lend support to the family's cause, it could not have chosen a worse spokesperson than the Secretary of Defense. Now this family's genuine wish for privacy has been associated in the public's mind with the DoD's agenda to maintain war's legitimacy - and has undermined both.
My thought is
My thought is reporters/bloggers intitially should publish NO stories about kidnappings, whether Soldier or Civilian, in order to deny the kidnappers as much leverage as possible. It also allows the Allied forces time and space to operate to try to effect a rescue.
After a mutually agreed length of time (which would be something some a lot smarter than me would have to figure out) reporting/blogging coudl occur if no rescue appearred possible/likely.
What is the "job" of a
What is the "job" of a blogger? Since when does whatever capacity in which we are operating, typing on a keyboard or resting our index finger across the trigger guard, excuse us from some consideration of the consequences of our actions on humanity? What exactly do we gain from the knowledge of the journalist's ongoing captivity as opposed to learning of his abduction in the same moment we discover he was rescued?
If I ever get taken by HiG, the Haqqani Network, AQ, the Taleban, or the random gun-toting Pathan, I pray that someone is doing some soul searching before blurting it out onto the Web.
I'm really saddened by the
I'm really saddened by the fate of the translator, a father of two. Maybe he died accidentally in the crossfire or shot down by the talibs, but I fear he fell to SAS bullets as he ran towards rescue; that they were looking for a British hostage and Munadi, running in front of Ferrill, wasn't. Probably we'll never know but either way its another sad chapter in the story of our translators and intermediaries, whether working for the military or the press.
The AP's decision was still
The AP's decision was still the more egregious of the two, though. Neither party is helping things by their actions, true, but the blogger did not sign an agreement to accept armed forces protection in exchange for some limitations on his posting behaviour that he then violated. Nor was he approached, that I am aware of, by the NY Times or anyone directly involved in the situation to remove the item in question. (Andrew being only a concerned third party to this.)
As a blogger who is covering
As a blogger who is covering the Levant, I see it as my job to report on things that the "mainstream media" does not. But, like anything, it comes with responsibility.
I had no problom blastin' Jaerock Lee, the Evangeical Korean cult leader, at his rally in Jeruslem last Monday night. I mean, he claimed to my face that he was "sinless" and that "God explained the Bible to him." He flew half way around the world--as a Christian--and did not even go to Bethlehem! So, I blasted him for being a "cult leader. I blasted the Israelis for forging an allyance with a crazy. Job well done.
http://bloggingthecasbah.blogspot.com/2009/09/cult-leader-jaerock-lee-le...
On the other hand, there is a fine line between covering things that no one else is and putting someone in danger. In this case, AM, you are right: it would have only given whoever captured this guy extra chips to bargin with. Kind of like how Hamas is milking the Shalit case to death.
I've been meeting people who are signing up for this Afghanistan thing and they seem a bit more shady than the peeps who did Iraq. Why is that? Perhaps this "blogger" came out to Cen. Asia for the extra hits on his site, not the integrity of blogging.
Perhaps this "blogger" came
Perhaps this "blogger" came out to Cen. Asia for the extra hits on his site, not the integrity of blogging.
I don't think there's any cause to cast aspersions like this, particularly when "the integrity of blogging," for me, is a completely meaningless concept. I think the guy in question does what he does out of a well-intentioned effort to clue people in on what's going on with U.S. forces around the world. I just differ with some of his (apparent?) politics and methods, though I think his motives are generally sound. This case marks an exception, or an example of going too far in some misguided effort to "defend the troops" or ensure equal treatment.
Well, obviously if the
Well, obviously if the reporter has information that if released would clearly result in someone's immediate death, than they should keep quiet. However, if the military command thinks that they can control the enemy's knowledge of their plans and movements by silencing reporters, than they are fools. If the press can figure out what you're up to, so can the enemy.
As far as why kidnappings are kept quiet, it's because that reduces the potential of the kidnapee being turned into a high-profile bargaining chip and increases the chances of a safe return.
The picture of the dead or dying soldier? That's a reality in Afghanistan, part of what happens in wars, which are never cost-free. The very worst wars are wars of attrition, and that's what the military wants to avoid in Afghanistan - that would be the worst-case scenario. The worry here is probably that the photo will help turn Americans against the war, and some think that is a Taliban objective, etc. Vietnam theory, right?
If so, why aren't all the blogs screaming outrage over the release of the photos from the Kabul embassy guard parties? Talk about bad PR - why were those photos released, if the image is all?
It doesn't look like the
It doesn't look like the soldier killed was a member of the 22 SAS. It looks like the soldier killed was a member of 1 Para.
In the interest of balance,
In the interest of balance, this is patently absurd:
If the press can figure out what you're up to, so can the enemy.
Is the enemy embedded with coalition forces? Does the enemy have the same access as members of the media who are provided with active protection by their subjects?
This latest reporter to be
This latest reporter to be kidnapped, sadly for me an Irish/ British dual citizen, was seemingly warned specifically not to travel to the area as it was too dangerous and willfully ignored this advice. His reckless ambition to get a scoop has caused the death of his Afghan stringer, a British 'special forces support' unit soldier and 2 civilians. It reminds me of Norman Kember who travelled to Iraq, against advice, got kidnapped and had to be rescued by the SAS. He then complained about the rescue as it went against his pascifist beliefs.
The French have got it right by announcing they may start charging for rescues of tourists if the victim has been warned not to travel to the area: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090818/ap_on_re_eu/eu_france_dangerous_tourism why not reporters aswell.
First point -
First point - irrelevant.
Second point - I suppose that we cannot prove that a blog post would endanger a captive's life. Likewise, I cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow. But with the help of a little common sense...
Third point - blaming one reporter (Steve Farrell) for the sins of his "profession" is like killing Nick Berg because you don't like America.
"The journalist, who went to
"The journalist, who went to talk to villagers in Omarkhel village in the Chardarah district was kidnapped by Taliban militants, Mohammad Omar, the provincial governor, told the German Press Agency dpa.
"The journalist, who works for New York Times, and his translator were blindfolded by the militants and taken to unknown location" the governor said, adding that Afghan security forces have began a search operation in the area to track down the kidnappers.
"A Taliban commander in Chardarah district confirmed to dpa that their fighters caught the journalist along with his translator in Easakhel village of the district on Saturday morning.
"He said the Taliban leadership would decide on their fate."
That's from the English language news report that appeared the day prior to our blogging friend putting up his post. Changes the discussion just a bit, I believe - but that bit may be worth noting.
The kidnapping of the NYT
The kidnapping of the NYT reporter was announced by the Afghan province governor Eng. Mohammaed Omar as soon as it happened.
It was mentioned in the German media and I bet in other languages too. It was public news. The NYT kept it secret only from its U.S. readers while everyone reading wider news, and especially the folks in Afghanistan, could get the information.
What is the purpose of that?
FOCUS, Sept 5 (in German)
/quote/
Am Samstag wurde ein Journalist entführt, der offenbar für die US-Zeitung „New York Times“ arbeiten soll. Er sei in dem Dorf Omarchel gewesen, um mit den Bewohnern über den Luftangriff und die Opfer zu sprechen, als er von Taliban entführt wurde, sagte Provinzgouverneur Mohammed Omar. Der Reporter und sein afghanischer Dolmetscher seien von den Taliban an einen unbekannten Ort verschleppt worden.
/endquote/
This is, like the AP picture discussion, idiotic censorship.
Did the guy the AP pictured ask the reporter embedded with his unit not to picture him? No. So it is a legitimate picture and it certainly deserves publicly. The U.S. people do not see the wars waged in their name. How can they make sound democratic decisions if they are unable to see what their votes are about?
If you want a democracy you do need free information, not censorship for this or that crappy reason.
The kidnapping of the NYT
The kidnapping of the NYT reporter was announced by the Afghan province governor Eng. Mohammaed Omar as soon as it happened.
It was mentioned in the German media and I bet in other languages too. It was public news. The NYT kept it secret only from its U.S. readers while everyone reading wider news, and especially the folks in Afghanistan, could get the information.
What is the purpose of that?
FOCUS, Sept 5 (in German)
/quote/
Am Samstag wurde ein Journalist entführt, der offenbar für die US-Zeitung „New York Times“ arbeiten soll. Er sei in dem Dorf Omarchel gewesen, um mit den Bewohnern über den Luftangriff und die Opfer zu sprechen, als er von Taliban entführt wurde, sagte Provinzgouverneur Mohammed Omar. Der Reporter und sein afghanischer Dolmetscher seien von den Taliban an einen unbekannten Ort verschleppt worden.
/endquote/
This is, like the AP picture discussion, idiotic censorship.
Did the guy the AP pictured ask the reporter embedded with his unit not to picture him? No. So it is a legitimate picture and it certainly deserves publicly. The U.S. people do not see the wars waged in their name. How can they make sound democratic decisions if they are unable to see what their votes are about?
If you want a democracy you do need free information, not censorship for this or that crappy reason.
It's worth exploring a
It's worth exploring a little more why Mr Kellor, the NYT editor, should request that other media hold back on their reporting. I think it's probably more to do with form than having a real purpose. After all, the positive effects of such a request are quite minimal, if not non-existent. The reach of such a request is going to be mostly confined to the US and, as I found on the day Mr Farrell was captured, his name was contained in news reports from outlets around the world. Further, as has happened repeatedly in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the captors are first going to carry out a search of personal effects followed by a Google search of their captives name and, if a journalist, will even explore the quality of his/her coverage - not unlike a PAO would do......
As to the commenters on Mr Roggio's blog: I'm always quite astonished at the willingness of some to ascribe such base motives to journalists (apparently the photographer who took the photo of the wounded Marine was out there chasing a Pulitzer) and to then allow what they have imagined to become a reason for intense hatred. Mr Roggio (whose motives I'm sure, are the very epitome of purity), for some reason, seems to encourage such sentiments. It was worth noting that one of Mr R's fans declared that he only reads Roggio and Yon for his news from the front.
AJM, why do you believe Farrell was acting upon some reckless ambition do get a scoop? Perhaps he was just out there doing his job as he has done for many years in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Given that you have made such a comment, on what basis do you do so? Do you have the sheer nuts to go to a potentially hostile bombing site to find out what happened, armed only with a notebook and pencil? Are you holding your manhood cheap or something?
This career security manager
This career security manager has protected his share of SAPs and ACCMs...And I keep seeing them on the front page of the New York Times. Why is that?
Pray tell: why is it kosher for NYT to leak classified information, then complain when a blogger refuses to keep something secret because they said so? Many of the leaks from the NYT were active, compartmentalized programs. This reporter? All over Google News. People with SIPR knew about Daniel Perle for over a year. The reason THEY didn't say anything, was because it was classified. What a novel idea.
As far as I'm concerned, DIA DCHC and the FBI need follow and investigate every single NYT reporter and blogger. They've been leaking classified information for years and many of it could and should be tried as treason. Fortunately, he survived the rescue attempt (by Brits, no less, I guess CJSOTF-A doesn't like rescuing traitors). Now he go back to the NYT offices and inform them that yes, Virginia, there is a war on terror. The TB and AQ, LTTE, AQIM, et al don't care if you're liberal or conservative. If you're American, you're a target. I'm glad he got captured and I'm glad he got rescued. This needs to happen domestically. Perhaps if we had a kidnapping or attempted (but foiled) plot here in the US the policymakers and the public will start being cognizant of the threat.
Why would you say he was 22
Why would you say he was 22 SAS. Special Forces Support Group is not the same as Special Forces. Moreover, 22 SAS are not the only British special forces. Also what on earth are 'ISAF commandos' when they are at home??! Credibility can hinge on small things sometimes.
The TB and AQ, LTTE, AQIM,
The TB and AQ, LTTE, AQIM, et al don't care if you're liberal or conservative. If you're American, you're a target.
This is only one of several WTF?! moments in this post.
I won't call you arrogant,
I won't call you arrogant, but I will call you righteous.
http://www.eliteukforces.info
http://www.eliteukforces.info/sfsg/
If you're part of the
If you're part of the enlightened, NYT fan-boy crowd, then, yeah I could see why I'd confuse you Gulliver.
Let me make it simple to understand for you:
- NYT has committed treason. Multiple times.
- Those that don't understand why should not be employed by the government nor government contractors.
- the NYT reporter went to Afghanistan because he wanted to. No one forced him to. His choice, his risk.
- He's lucky anybody rescued him. I would have left him there.
FORAC, using acronyms
FORAC, using acronyms doesn't make you seem better informed, especially when they are wrong. What does LTTE have to do with the Taliban, al-Qaida, or targeting Americans? In what world does CJSOTF-A have responsibility for missions like this? (Answer: an imaginary one.) And why would you assume that the British force was not operating as part of an American task force (as British SOF have almost always done in Iraq and Afghanistan)?
Also, I'd suggest to you that when an NYT reporter reveals classified information, it always comes from somewhere -- very often a senior officer who thinks the public ought to know. The NYT's correspondents are in the habit of breaking into the Pentagon and making off with classified information. They are given that information, and if you're angry it being published, you ought to direct as much of it toward their sources -- say, battalion and brigade commanders who are out in the fight and know what's OPSEC and what's not -- as toward them.
Legacy of Abu Mus'ab
Legacy of Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi in Iraq
FORAC, Reading between your
FORAC,
Reading between your lines I get the impression you'd be most comfortable with government control of the media - some form of censorship perhaps, or even taking over the means of production?
I'd strongly recommend you read Artyom Borovik's "Hidden War: A Russian Journalist's Account of the Soviet War in Afghanistan." You may be particularly interested in his account at the beginning of the book of the government/military approved reporting from the war and how that exacerbated the political conditions concerning the conduct of the war and, ultimately, led to the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan.
A bunch of NYT
A bunch of NYT apologists.
Let me guess: you're prior Navy. Or worse - State/USAID.
No, Connors, I don't
No, Connors, I don't advocate government control of the media. There are plenty of Communist advocates in Washington that are pushing that agenda just fine without my help.
I do condone summary executions for treason. Especially of compartmentalized information (I confused you with real acronyms by someone who really protects classified information on a daily basis. Didn't want to confuse you again.)
This is a two-way street:
if the White House, or the Pentagon knows NYT, the Post, are going to leak something, and they ask them NOT to, the answer is almost always "no."
Why should Bill Roggio, or anyone else, NOT report something because the NYT says so? What; is the NYT the gold standard on ethical reporting? How hypocritical is that? I want you to answer my question in my original post. Why should they? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
In summation, Connors and "Visitor-I-can-spell-SOF-guy":
I don't care what your credentials are, or why you can't understand this. But I hope you're not a senior policymaker. I know they frequent this blog, and many are bright, inquiring minds.
Yours may be the latter, but not necessarily the former.
"The NYT's correspondents
"The NYT's correspondents are in the habit of breaking into the Pentagon and making off with classified information."
While I'm sure this was an unintentional spelling error, it's illuminating. Deflecting blame, eh?
Mr. Visitor-I-cannot-understand-simple-acronyms-guy, you're right. They don't break into the Pentagon to steal information.
People like you give it to them.
A bunch of NYT
A bunch of NYT apologists.
Let me guess: you're prior Navy. Or worse - State/USAID.
I'm pretty sure this guy is doing a bit.
Here's FORAC's perfect world: Sri Lankan Journalist Given 20 Years in Prison.
A Sri Lankan court Monday sentenced an ethnic Tamil journalist to 20 years in prison under the island's harsh anti-terrorism law for publishing articles critical of the government's war on the Tamil Tiger rebels.
Now THAT's the way to defeat an insurgency! (Shhh, don't tell Elf, or he'll show up talking his "Fonseka Approach" nonsense!)
"Let me guess: you're prior
"Let me guess: you're prior Navy."
Former Navy (corpsman) here. Good to know my service does not count and I am excluded from having opinions on what is proper conduct by my government. Please list the appropriate true patriotic services.
Steve
http://www.chroniclesmagazine
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/2009/09/09/u-s-hypocrisy-ast...
you're wrong about the AP and Paul Craig Roberts tells it like it is.
The Times (UK) is reporting
The Times (UK) is reporting it was a joint SAS-SBS op with the latter taking the lead...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6828248.ece
FORAC - easy Tiger, no one
FORAC - easy Tiger, no one likes getting foamy residue on their monitor.
As to the larger and more important debate - ( I have to disclose I work for a media company in Australia 'Fairfax' and that these views are my own)
Journalists and bloggers alike have amoral responsibility to withhold information that may be harmful.
Increasingly the media is submitting to the pressures of their readership for more salacious news and currant affairs. This means that the conversation they have to have with management may involve them declining to print stories that they know to be harmful. Media Manager like wise have a duty to respect that regardless of the advancement of the bottom line, some stories are best left unprinted, or left unprinted until events have resolved themselves.
News reporters in the field may now of events that are newsworthy and of financial value to their companies, but they may also know the people involved.Some blogs are simply recycled news stories posted wiht opinions, very little actual fact finding going into the mix.
As to AP and the dying Marine, some of those photos will haunt us for years, and they damn well should. War is an ugly brutal madness that all the high talk of strategy and tactics cannot disguise. If we are to sit back at home and comment we should at least be reminded of the actual cost whenever we can.
And yet the Times freely
And yet the Times freely publishes accounts of kidnapped soldiers (I blogged this twice at Winds of Change). I have an issue about this as ' professional courtesy' - it's the Kantian question of whether we all play by the same rules.
Marc
I for one am enjoying FORAC.
I for one am enjoying FORAC. He's fun like the guy who used to comment in bold face.
And yet the Times freely
And yet the Times freely publishes accounts of kidnapped soldiers (I blogged this twice at Winds of Change). I have an issue about this as ' professional courtesy' - it's the Kantian question of whether we all play by the same rules.
You might take into account the fact that they do so after the Defense Department notifies the family and releases the name. (But then how would you publicize your blog?)
The New York Times has
The New York Times has printed countless articles, leaked secrets and such that have put our soldiers lives in grave danger too many times to count. I find it hypocritical, and laughable, that they should expect anyone to do anything but treat their requests with the same disdain that they've displayed over and over again.
Should they decide at a future date to think twice before releasing state secrets that put our troops' lives in danger, perhaps this line of thinking should be re-examined. Until that time, tough $hit.
"The New York Times has
"The New York Times has printed countless articles, leaked secrets and such that have put our soldiers lives in grave danger too many times to count"
Links please.
Hey, FORAC, if everyone says
Hey, FORAC, if everyone says we're dutifully impressed and convinced that you're hard as nails and a real goddamn American, will you stop writing your Tom Clancy meets Rush Limbaugh screeds? Thanks.
I'd echo the question about the LTTE, but then you'd be forced to pretend I don't know how acronyms work, and I'm quite sensitive about that. Earlier today I saw the terms scuba and radar and spent the next twenty minutes crying.
Add your comment