American media : No friend to military

C

Chicken Parm

Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
5
I just saw on the ABCnightly news something that made me furious. The showed Special forces troopers engaged(ie going into ) in putting down the Mazar i Sharif riot . The reporters are in the way I guess so one guy tells them to move while he chambers a round into his AK :)then they cut to another SF guy telling another reporter. "Please we have a job to do.." The reporter( an American)yells out arrogantly, " WE have a job to do too !!!" These SF guys are have been in a firefight for days with Al Quaeda fanatics and they have to deal with these scum that just want a "story." See how the media carries on about the those dumb journalists that got killed driving artound witohut an armed escort.. "Another journalist killed ..." ( Bronx cheer) Poor babies .. they can leave Afghanistan anytime , be in a hotel in hours. Not the Spec Ops guys ... and guess wholl be sent in to rescue any journalists that get killed. I'm addicted to the news and appreciate the reporters and the risks they take, but they were way out of line .
 
No, actually, the journalists you're referring to weren't way out of line. They do have a job to do.

They were not in the way of those spec ops guys, the spec ops guys just wanted the cameras out of their faces. Been there, done that. Journos take all the risks of combatants in battle zones and they aren't armed and have no intention of shooting back. I forget the number of journos who have been killed in battle over the years. The number might surprise you.

If you're one of those who thinks the media stinks, no matter what, then OK. But if you appreciate that a free press is imperative in a free society, then recognize that the journos have a job to do and have just as much right to be covering what's going on as the fighters have to be cranky today and want those damned cameras out of their faces.

Stay safe!
 
I'm no fan of the media. I kind of liken them to the ACLU; every rare now and then I'm happy with what they are doing, but for the most part, NOT.

There is a big difference between RIGHT to know and NEED to know. The public can know that we have new stealth technology; it does not need to know exactly what it looks like or what it can do. The public can know that we are fighting a war against terrorism; it does not need to know how many troops we are deploying, where they are located, and what weapons they have at their disposal. The public can know that more safety precautions are being employed here in the US; they do not need to know how people can enter the US illegally, how people can bypass security at airports, how people can hijack planes, or exactly what new security features are being implemented, etc.

Should everyone have access to everyone else's private/personal information? No. Would you want thieves to know exactly what brand/model security system you have in your home/car? No.

Perhaps it is more the fault of the decision-making people in the media (what to air/print, when, etc) and not necessarily the information-gatherers. Assuming that I'm "doing the right thing", if my life/safety depends on the public not knowing the who/what/where/when/how, then they had better not find out. The people who are wantonly disseminating possibly sensitive information to the world should always stop and think about who, if anyone, is really benefitting from this knowledge and who might be harmed.

I applaud those people who choose to do an oftentimes necessary but possibly thankless or overlooked job that people may not agree with or support all that much and choose to do it to the best of their ability. If you, however, choose to pick an argument in a warzone with an armed and possibly battle-weary veteran, then my opinion is that you are probably not exercising the best of judgment.

Well, I'd better stop here before I end up writing a novel about my displeasure with most of our media. Take what they report (as well as what I say) with a shaker or two of salt.
 
I agree that the journalists have a job to do, and should be allowed to do it. But, I also think that, in the act of doing that job, they must not be allowed to create any additional danger for our personnel.
There should be some clearly explained, easily understood, simple rules for them, such as:
- If you can't keep up you will be left behind.
- If you are in my way when I must move you will get knocked down.
- If that light illuminates and endangers me I reserve the right to put it out in the most expedicious way available.
- It isn't my job to feed and water you.
- You do not have a superior claim on available cover.

I'm sure that there are some more good ones but you get the idea.
 
The best journalists I dealt with when I wore the uniform (but they knew me as SGT FURY!!) were the foriegn ones. They usually would ask "what's going on?", while the U.S. ones would have an agenda going on already and ask things like "so after you get done opressing these people how will you exploit them?".

The German guys brought beer, so they were welcome any time.

I acknowledge good journalists, but too many these days have a slant, and if they don't, the editors do after the story is cut up, like the Rodney King deal. If they want to wander into gunfire, great. They get in the way and get hit looking for the Pulitzer, that's the risk they take. If they're attacking the military with selective editing, I hope they do get hit.

(wouldn't be a shame if Geraldo got caught in some?)
 
Originally posted by MikeH

- You do not have a superior claim on available cover.
Click to expand...

HAHA!

also, getting the operators faces on the air endangers them when they're off duty, and possibly their families, and units.

yes, the journalists have a claim that they can be there. but if i were a journalist, no matter how ballsey i was, if a Ranger, SEAL or SAS operative told me "get out of here, its dangerous", then i'd book! :) he's the one with the better idea as to what the situation is.
 
I'm no war correspondent, but I covered narc raids and the like for years, not from behind yellow tape but from inside my own body armor in the midst of a group of cops.

You're right. The journo must lookout for himself and I have dibs on the best available cover if I get to it before you do!

In all the years I took photogs with me on raids, we established a policy: they'd shoot who I told them to shoot. Eventually, the undercover guys, when pressing BGs against a wall or cuffing them, merely turned their heads away from the camera lens when possible so we could still have some dramatic pictures.

I am also a bit different in that in all those years riding with cops, I always knew where the shotgun was and how to unlock it. If the cop went down, I needed to know where the scatter gun was to protect myself and get him. We'd both be leaving the area, no matrer what happened.

One night in Camden, the cop/friend I was with handed me his backup as we were headed toward a spot where an Uzi battle was in full sway and said, "Here, you'd better hang on to this."

I've also been invited into squad rooms when detectives were interrogating drug dealers who wanted to squeal, stuff like that. It's all about trust.
 
I am sorry gentleman but I can't resist this one.
The media knows what the consequences of their actions are.
The "SF" guy must be new because if I were in that position I wouldn't say it again.
I have been tempered by my law enforcement days I must admit, but when I trip it's amazing how much damage can be done; for some reason I didn't have much of a problem from reporters when I was a cop.
So don't feel sorry for anybody, when your life is on the line no one should be allowed to get into the way! If they do it is the operators fault for not having an accident, because it generally only takes one.
The only issue I have with the media is I don't need them to create more work for me by getting into trouble. I know that is broad but it is not worth the time.
Just in case one thinks I am being a tough guy and have no experience here, think again. The last time a reporter thought he could ignore my polite request was a long time ago when I was in the Navy. What we couldn't stop at the time, we later remedied by removing all film from the cameras and seeing that they were inoperable for future use, all covertly of course.
Sorry if you are some one who was reporting from South Thailand on that trip.
I always have and always will fight my own battles, just don't get in my way!
 
If the media is near or with a SF unit and the emeny is nearby, threating the lives of my men and the mission, I would opt for a fast, silent, retreat away from them, leaving them to fend for themselves.

Cruel, yes.
Will it kept them out of my way? Yes.

Will the media stop covering a SF unit under my command after losing a few of their people? I would think so.

But I'm not in the milltary. So correct me if I'm wrong about my thoughts on this, but that's my opinion about the media and the milltary.
 
All editing is selective. That is the nature of
editing.

Generally I've found the North American media to
be extremely pro-military in the last few months.

T.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top