Controversial Apache attack that resulted in death of journalists released

[jmcquate]

Back in the late 80s, PBS ran a series of panel discussions entitled “Ethics in America”. The final episode was about ethics in war entitled “Under Orders, Under Fire”. I can’t find the video clip but one of the scenarios set forth by the moderator was to put Peter Jennings as an embedded journalist with an enemy force and inquire if he would attempt to warn US Marines of an impending ambush. At first Jennings said that he would and was quickly scolded by Mike Wallace and changed his mind, reasoning that his job was to cover the story and not be a part of it. He was a journalist, not an American journalist.

The moderator then inquired of a USMC Lieutenant Colonel what he thought about Jennings answer. He said that he was disgusted. He then stated if Jennings were wounded behind enemy lines that he would have to send Marines in who may die to save Jennings life.

Jennings was speechless.

The full episode may be found here.

http://www.learner.org/resources/series81.html

 

[Picaroon]

The notion that a journalist embedded with insurgents is a combatant and so should be shot is just stupid.

You're with us or you're against is an infantile jingoistic slogan.

I agree. However, carrying a camera does not grand immunity. Terrorists and insurgents are always making propaganda videos of themselves. Additionally, not firing on enemy combatants threatening our troops because someone in their midst has a camera puts American lives in danger. Plus, the guys in the Apache clearly had no idea that anyone down there was a journalist. That much is patently obvious because we have the video and can hear what they are saying.

 

[Pariel]

The Army 15-6 investigation pushed out by Centcom provides much of the context. They were approx 100 feet away from a Humvee and the recovered camera had pics showing their proximity to US forces. The Bradleys that arrived recovered AK's, RPG's, as well as two telephoto Canons, and administered aid to two fatally wounded children. There is also an unedited video floating around via torrent.

http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/...nd Brigade Combat Team 15-6 Investigation.pdf

From the 2nd BCT investigation you've linked, both children survived.

I thought it was pretty clear that they did the best with a crappy situation.

 

[mmx1]

I agree. However, carrying a camera does not grand immunity. Terrorists and insurgents are always making propaganda videos of themselves. Additionally, not firing on enemy combatants threatening our troops because someone in their midst has a camera puts American lives in danger. Plus, the guys in the Apache clearly had no idea that anyone down there was a journalist. That much is patently obvious because we have the video and can hear what they are saying.

Sure, but the linked analysis went further to equate "embedded with terrorists" with becoming a terrorist and concludes that those journalists were enemy combatants. Journalism is neither a shield - they accepted the risks - nor a badge of association. Their deaths are regrettable but explainable, but that doesn't mean they were legitimate targets, either.

Pariel - thanks for the correction.

 

[SynixMan]

I hope, once the dust settles, this will come up in future discussions of journalism ethics (do they even have those classes anymore?). War reporting ain't all glory, roses, and candy. War, and reporting on it, is a nasty business and if you embed with the bad guys, don't be surprised when things go bad.

 

[Flash]

Back in the late 80s....Peter Jennings ...He was a journalist, not an American journalist.

At the time Peter Jennings was not American, he was Canadian. Details......

 

[jmcquate]

At the time Peter Jennings was not American, he was Canadian. Details......

I know. The point he was trying to make was that journalists should not "take sides" based on nationality.

 

[helolumpy]

I hope, once the dust settles, this will come up in future discussions of journalism ethics (do they even have those classes anymore?). War reporting ain't all glory, roses, and candy. War, and reporting on it, is a nasty business and if you embed with the bad guys, don't be surprised when things go bad.

Ethics in journalism died a long time ago. It used to be 'get it first and get it right', now it's just 'get it first'.

If the media screws up a report then they'll do a correction later on but without the sensationalism that they used for reporting inaccurate facts.

For example (I only use this because it's recent, no endorsement of either side is intended)

When Rush Limbaugh wanted to be a minority owner of the Rams, the media ran mulitple racist comments attributed to Rush Limbaugh.
When Rush challenged the media on the veracity of those quotes, very few, if any were verifiable. Most were circular reports by media reporting on what other media members said or have written without able to cite a source/date.

The racist comments were all front page or front of the sport section. The retractions are buried in the back of a section under the OP-ED pieces.
The media should hold itself to a higher standard since they have the protections specified in the Constitutional. Now, however the 4th estate has sold its soul for profits in today's infotainment world.

I remember an old list of VietNam helo pilot quotes. One was; "Don't fear the enemy, they can only take your life. Fear the media because they can steal your honor."

 

[wlawr005]

Was wondering when this was going to pop up.

You know what? This tape is great. As a Rorschach test. Since you see it completely without context, you're able to ascribe motivations, ideologies and even back stories to people who you have not met that are in a situation that you can't possibly comprehend from the 12 minutes of footage here.

The tape is just a mirror.

Completely agree. People that don't know any better will think some of those radio calls are redneck cowboys out to slaughter the herd. There were a lot of ums, of course there was confusion while building SA, and even some laughter while trying to neutralize squirters.

Just one more reason why people who don't know don't need to fucking watch.

Oh and by the way, we don't have the luxury of little fucking arrows pointing at the good guys.../rant

 

[exhelodrvr]

Sure, but the linked analysis went further to equate "embedded with terrorists" with becoming a terrorist and concludes that those journalists were enemy combatants. Journalism is neither a shield - they accepted the risks - nor a badge of association. Their deaths are regrettable but explainable, but that doesn't mean they were legitimate targets, either.

Pariel - thanks for the correction.

They absolutely were legitimate targets, because they weren't identified as journalists at the time of the shooting.

 

[nittany03]

The tape is just a mirror.

Which makes the comments I've read online just that much more depressing. People just don't get aviation, or combat. And I say that with experience in only one of the two; it's that freaking obvious. Too many Hollywood movies resulting in "ZOMG ITS A GOVERNMENT COVERUP!!!!!11!!!"

Panem et circenses.

 

[picklesuit]

More proof that there are idiots out there who fail to put what they see in context...
Good job by the helo pilots, good kill on terrorists, and maybe it is a wakeup call to journalists trying to get that story by using their camera as a shield...it doesn't work...
It used to be an honor to die bringing the valor of your military to the public

Not a political soapbox to stand on...

Maybe some journalists need to reconsider who they embed with...

If you are taking this photo...you are wrong...

 

[jtmedli]

Maybe some journalists need to reconsider who they embed with...

If you are taking this photo...you are wrong...

Agreed. These guys were stupid to even be hanging out with the terrorists. Sorry, but I have no pity for them.

 

[scoolbubba]

The following was the most disgusted I've been with a camera crew/journalist. Seeing a guy stick a camera in a dying persons face, completely detached to his subject's suffering made my blood boil. Hiding behind objectivity and getting the message out to the masses doesn't carry much weight IMHO.

These guys were concerned only with the scoop. For some reason, the story would not have sold as well if they had aided or comforted a dying man, so they didn't. They used him, instead. Inhumane and disgusting, and a sad commentary on the current ethics of journalism. The Apache kill tape doesn't surprise me, after seeing the shenanigans mainstream media openly pulls.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/01/21/haiti.police.shooting/index.html

 

[Pepe]

The following was the most disgusted I've been with a camera crew/journalist. Seeing a guy stick a camera in a dying persons face, completely detached to his subject's suffering made my blood boil. Hiding behind objectivity and getting the message out to the masses doesn't carry much weight IMHO.

These guys were concerned only with the scoop. For some reason, the story would not have sold as well if they had aided or comforted a dying man, so they didn't. They used him, instead. Inhumane and disgusting, and a sad commentary on the current ethics of journalism. The Apache kill tape doesn't surprise me, after seeing the shenanigans mainstream media openly pulls.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/01/21/haiti.police.shooting/index.html

I agree to some extent. It kinda goes back to being in with the wrong crowd. Remember the guys in the van? They were trying to help the wounded too. Help the man, ehhh, maybe. Turn the camera off, definitely.