Watch out!

[Marcus_Perkins]

Not really anything to do with Canon equipment, but if any of you planning on covering the war in Iraq as an independent journalist (read as not adding to the US administration's propaganda) you might want to read this

Marcus Perkins

Pentagon threatens to kill independent reporters in Iraq

By Fintan Dunne

GuluFuture.com
10 March 2003

url: http://www.GuluFuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm

The Pentagon has threatened to fire on the satellite uplink
positions of independent journalists in Iraq, according to veteran
BBC war correspondent, Kate Adie. In an interview with Irish radio,
Ms. Adie said that questioned about the consequences of such
potentially fatal actions, a senior Pentagon officer had said: "Who
cares.. ..They've been warned."

According to Ms. Adie, who twelve years ago covered the last Gulf
War, the Pentagon attitude is: "entirely hostile to the the free
spread of information."

"I am enormously pessimistic of the chance of decent on-the-spot
reporting, as the war occurs," she told Irish national broadcaster,
Tom McGurk on the RTE1 Radio "Sunday Show."

Ms. Adie made the startling revelations during a discussion of media
freedom issues in the likely upcoming war in Iraq. She also warned
that the Pentagon is vetting journalists according to their stance
on the war, and intends to take control of US journalists' satellite
equipment --in order to control access to the airwaves.

Another guest on the show, war author Phillip Knightley, reported
that the Pentagon has also threatened they: "may find it necessary
to bomb areas in which war correspondents are attempting to report
from the Iraqi side."

Transcript follows below.

Audio of this very frank discussion of the problems facing reporters
in Iraq.

Guests: Kate Adie, BBC; Phillip Knightley, author of The First
Casualty, a history of war correspondents and propaganda; Chris
Hedges, award winning human rights journalist, and former Irish
Times Editor Connor Brady on the Sunday Show, RTE Radio 1 9th March,
2003.


Tom McGurk: " Now, Kate Adie, you join us from the BBC in London.
Thank you very much for going to all this trouble on a Sunday
morning to come and join us. I suppose you are watching with a
mixture of emotions this war beginning to happen, because you are
not going to be covering it."

Kate Adie: " Oh I will be. And what actually appalls me is the
difference between twelve years ago and now. I've seen a complete
erosion of any kind of acknowledgment that reporters should be able
to report as they witness."

" The Americans... and I've been talking to the Pentagon ...take the
attitude which is entirely hostile to the free spread of
information."

" I was told by a senior officer in the Pentagon, that if uplinks
--that is the television signals out of... Bhagdad, for example--
were detected by any planes ...electronic media... mediums, of the
military above Bhagdad... they'd be fired down on. Even if they were
journalists ..' Who cares! ' said.. [inaudible] .."

Tom McGurk: "...Kate ...sorry Kate ..just to underline that.
Sorry to interrupt you. Just to explain for our listeners. Uplinks
is where you have your own satellite telephone method of
distributing information."

Kate Adie: " The telephones and the television signals."

Tom McGurk: " And they would be fired on? "

Kate Adie: " Yes. They would be 'targeted down,' said the
officer."

Tom McGurk: " Extraordinary ! "

Kate Adie: " Shameless! "

" He said.. ' Well... they know this ... they've been warned.' "

" This is threatening freedom of information, before you even get to
a war."

"The second thing is there was a massive news blackout imposed."

"In the last Gulf war, where I was one of the pool correspondents
with the British Army. We effectively had very, very light touch
when it came to any kind of censorship."

" We were told that anything which was going to endanger troops
lives which we understood we shouldn't broadcast. But other than
that, we were relatively free."

" Unlike our American colleagues, who immediately left their pool,
after about 48 hours, having just had enough of it."

" And this time the Americans are: a) Asking journalists who go with
them, whether they are... have feelings against the war. And
therefore if you have views that are skeptical, then you are not to
be acceptable."

" Secondly, they are intending to take control of the Americans
technical equipment ...those uplinks and satellite phones I was
talking about. And control access to the airwaves."

" And then on top of everything else, there is now a blackout (which
was imposed, during the last war, at the beginning of the war),
...ordered by one Mr. Dick Cheney, who is in charge of this."

" I am enormously pessimistic of the chance of decent on-the-spot
reporting, as the war occurs. You will get it later."

-------------------
Further reading:

http://argument.independent.co.uk/co...p?story=381438

[Dan_Creighton]

As a journalist I believe in reporting the news and having the freedom to do it. But if we go to war it is war. Plain and simple. Journalists that decide to enter the fire zone of Iraq know that they may be in danger. The Pentagon has told them what they should expect (zero broadcast capability) and what not to do to reduce the chance of being targeted. If an E-Bomb is used, and one probably will be in Baghdad, it won't matter if they are targeted or not their electronics won't work. In this day and age of smart munitions and reduced civilian casualities it is pretty amazing that many think that the bombs can be targeted around them and that the military can even decipher friend or foe message uplinks before eliminating them. I found it really strange that during an interview one of the TV journalists talked about the warning and said they were setting up old used uplink and studio equipment so that the station doesn't waste the good new stuff in case of attack but didn't mention anything about the danger to themselves should they be bombed while using the equipment. Think about personal safety first, equipment and employer happiness second or third. I think a smart journalist will still find a way, albut an old fashioned way, of getting the news out of Iraq. Part of being a journalist is using your head and finding ways around tricky and sometimes dangerous situations. I for one have no interest in covering the war from Iraq and I'm glad I'm state side. May we kick butt and do it quick so that the info and news frees flowly as quickly as possible from both sides.

[digitalseniors]

The choice of subject line says it all about political persuasions. This doesn't suggest to me objective journalism. I'm all for being patient and holding of before going to war, and then only if necessary. But if we do, then I think its responsible behavior to respect security restrictions that could place our troops in jeopardy if not followed.

[Chad_Dahlquist]

yes scary as it is
its war
how can you have rules for killing people ???

this is like if you see Mike Tyson and you walk up to him and try to do something you will pay the price.

to me journalists are not what they used to be most have a agenda on one side or the other
ones that want to know or demand to know are usually the worst at hidden agendas
also seems that nowadays the press is the one that loves to sensationalize stories without real proof etc...
I am loosing my respect for journalists like this which is sadly affecting it for those that are trying to cover the story in a fair manner.

I say if you want to cover it you go into it with the same knowledge that you can be killed by either side.
if you are warned that this is not a game war kills people and we are going to target these types of things then be warned !!!

things like sat uplinking etc.. wasn't around in wars like WWII, Korea or Vietnam.

the game has changed

[Marcus_Perkins]

The truth never damages a cause that is just. So why black out the media so ruthlessly?

[digitalseniors]

Simple, American (and presumably British) forces could die if sensitive data is revealed either intentionally or inadvertantly by journalists. These restrictions have been imposed in every war in the last century.

[Marcus_Perkins]

I think you will find it is to protect our leaders from criticism when civilians die - 15,000 in Afghanistan, but probably not reported on Fox or CNN. Lets face it, the might of the US military against the Iraqi military will result in a turkey shoot.

I agree there are definitely responsibilities for journalists, but as I said - the truth never damages a just cause, and will ultimately save lives of soldiers and civilians alike.

The Monster of Baghdad is responsible for some pretty atrocious acts, but why is there so much bickering with a seemingly open and closed case? What exactly is most of the world suspicious of?

It is really worthwhile reading up on the geo-politics of the Middle East over the last 50 years (from truly independent sources). If you insist on getting info from CNN or Fox News, then at least take the time to look an Arab source too. No doubt it will be equally biased, but it will give you some balance. At the very least, most decent people will find there is a certain amount of hypocrisy going on.

Arab News:

http://www.cursor.org/toc.htm

http://www.cursor.org/aljazeera.htm

http://electronicIntifada.net/new.shtml

It's been a pleasure discussing this, but I suspect this thread may be cut pretty soon for obvious reasons. By all means reply, but I will finish here.

Marcus Perkins