Newspaper union leader: U.S. military targets journalists

[G_j]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-lip24.html

Newspaper union leader: U.S. military targets journalists

May 24, 2005

BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB

A public statement by Newspaper Guild President Linda Foley is reviving questions about the intentional targeting of journalists in Iraq by the U.S. armed forces.

At a May 13 meeting in St. Louis, Foley said: "Journalists, by the way, are not just being targeted verbally or politically. They are also being targeted for real in places like Iraq. What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq."

The Newspaper Guild that Foley heads represents 35,000 media workers in the United States and Canada. The Guild is the largest journalists union in North America.

Candice Johnson, a spokeswoman for the Guild's parent union, the Communications Workers of America, said the comments, made at the National Conference for Media Reform, should be taken in context.

..more..
==========
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/022405A.shtml


Dead Messengers:
How the U.S. Military Threatens Journalists
By Steve Weissman
t r u t h o u t | Investigation

Part I: Hearing What Eason Jordan Said

Thursday 24 February 2005

Do American soldiers purposely kill journalists, as CNN's Eason Jordan supposedly said? Or, could the problem be even worse
<snip>

This is part one of a four-part series.
Part II | Army Failed to Probe Its Attack on Palestine Hotel
Part III | Targeting the Media the American Way
Part IV | But What About Al-Jazeera?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/022405A.shtml

[tk2kewl]

1. When the fuck are the trials going to begin?

Arrest Bush now.

[FreedomAngel82]

8. That's what I want to know

There's SO much to get him with and his whole damn administration.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Another great post. Thanks G_j.

Keep up the good work, and the good fight.

[G_j]

3. thanks

& you too!! :hi:

[BeFree]

7. Gee,

Ya think the union memebers might get a little concern under their belts? Or are we the only ones who believe this courageous lady?

[G_j]

4. kick

[G_j]

5. kick

[libodem]

6. That's right where is the outrage?!

Where is the same out and out outrage that we saw in this country over a disclaimer to conceal a stupid sex scandal, by an otherwise highly competent president. This is life and death, right and wrong, good and evil vs an indiscretion. They sanction death, wrong, and evil. I don't want it done in my name, as an American citizen, I condemn these actions.

[FreedomAngel82]

9. Yeah really

Hmm maybe if Bushie had sex with someone who wasn't Laura? Nah. They'd say "oh Clinton did it!" :eyes:

[zanne]

14. I have a horrible suspicion about our fellow citizens.

Have you ever had a moment of "terrible" realization? It happened to me while I was waiting for the media to pick up on the WMD and torture scandals. Maybe, just maybe, the media didn't go all out on these things because they realized it wouldn't boost their subscription or viewing ratings; that it wouldn't boost their ratings, because a large percentage of the American public just doesn't care about these things. (Or even worse, that they approve of these things.) I used to think of the American public as a victim of the corporate media, but I'm beginning to think that a large amount of the public is actually complicit with it.

[Nothing Without Hope]

10. Did you see this Rumsfeld statement on how the free flow of info

is so bad for US security?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1500239
Thead title: "Rumsfeld laments global reach of news in wartime"

"U.S. officials, he said, must also deal with "a global Internet with universal access and no inhibitions, e-mail, cell phones, digital cameras wielded by anyone and everyone" and "a seemingly casual disregard for the protection of classified information, resulting in a near continuous hemorrhage of classified documents, to the detriment of the country."

Yeah, those digital cameras caused ole Rummy no end of headaches - hard to deny something when there are photos being passed around. Which is eerily like what the cofounder of CNN agrees about the benefits of suppression so as to be able to lie more easily:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3730041
Thread title: "Co-founder of CNN, Says 'The Public Does Not Have a Right to Know'"

Excerpt:
GIBSON: OK, but would you have - by that same reasoning would you have not reported Abu Ghraib if somebody had brought you those pictures.

SCHONFELD: Abu Ghraib is the greatest foul up of all time. Those pictures were on the internet. The problem is not that we were - we - I only wish the Pentagon could have been able to deny that story, to be able to li - that's the right of the Pentagon to lie, when it is in the country's best interest to lie, you do lie. And when I made that statement in my book, an undersecretary - well - at Defense told me I don't have it quite right, the - uh - Rumsfeld, the Secretary can never lie but any, anybody under him can, that you have to do it when it's in the public, in the government interest.

Looks to me like the criminal neocons in the DOD have their own idea of "editing" - kill the reporter. We've known this was going on, but it has been suppressed. Is anyone surprised? One more reason the "reporters" don't like leaving their hotel rooms to actually discover the news rather than being spoon fed by the propaganda machine.

[Karenina]

12. Kick!

:kick:

[snot]

11. kick--v. impt

[tyedyeto]

13. I had remembered reading this a couple of months ago...

and found this article from the CS Monitor from February

http://csmonitor.com/2005/0218/dailyUpdate.html

World > Terrorism & Security
posted February 18, 2005, updated 12:00 p.m.

Did US military target journalists in Iraq?

While media organizations say reporters not targeted, they charge US troops are killing journalists 'because of negligence or indifference.'

By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com


When top CNN news executive Eason Jordan made comments at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that the US military had targeted journalists in Iraq, he set off a firestorm of controversy that eventually led to his resignation. (Mr. Jordan eventually "backpedalled" from his remarks, and said he did not mean to imply that "US forces acted with ill intent when US forces accidentally killed journalists.")
But while Jordan's resignation may have temporarily quieted the storm around his particular comments, the charges he made continue to reverberate.

The Guardian reports that Friday the International Federation of Journalists accused the US government of hiding behind a "culture of denial" over the deaths of journalists in Iraq, and said the US had to take "responsibility for its actions."

Joel Campagna of the Committee to Protect Journalists writes that while there is no evidence the US military is targeting journalists, too many journalists are dying "at the hands of the hands of US soldiers because of negligence or indifference ... And when journalists are killed, the military often seems ... unwilling to launch an adequate investigation or take steps to mitigate risk."

<snip

[Nothing Without Hope]

15. I believe that they ARE targetted. It is DOD policy to suppress any news

that will reveal their lies or the horrible crimes they are committing, either the humanitarian abuses or the massive corruption. Killing any journalists that actually dare to collect the news would be perfectly reasonable to them - they justify it as something necessary in a time of war. With everything else these unspeakable criminals have done, why does ANYONE back off from the idea that deliberate killing of journalists is going on? Murder is part of their policy!

Here is part of the reason:

"It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the bad to suspect good." -Marcus Tullius Cicero, statesman, orator, writer (106-43 BCE)