UPDATE: CNN says:
"CNN has received no complaint from any individual regarding our coverage and their safety. We take such matters very seriously. We are not aware of the allegedly compromising broadcast, but even in the absence of key details such as when and where, we will continue to check."
Posts
154 comments:
Who knows...From TV Newser:
Update from CNN spokesman Nigel Pritchard: "This story is not true. CNN has been told by Lynne Shaw that the accusations reported to have been made by her in the UK Press Association story are not accurate. She has no issue with CNN. The alleged broadcast never happened and CNN at no time compromised her or the safety of her husband as reported."
What about the reports that Indian TV channels showed commandos rappelling from helicopters onto the roofs of buildings where hostages were held?
How is that so different from printing the date and time when a troop ship sails?
A military operation is underway, and someone is giving the enemy information in real time that it can use against both soldiers and civilians.
Update from CNN spokesman Nigel Pritchard: "This story is not true. CNN has been told by Lynne Shaw that the accusations reported to have been made by her in the UK Press Association story are not accurate. She has no issue with CNN. The alleged broadcast never happened and CNN at no time compromised her or the safety of her husband as reported."
Until the woman says so in front of cameras I don't believe a fricken thing CNN says.
Is this what journalists mean when they say they're in the business of "speaking truth to power"?
Perhaps CNN could have colluded with the authorities to broadcast a false location of the hiding place of hotel guests, a place where the Indian commandos lay in wait. But then that would definitely not be truth to power inasmuch as the terrorists were merely "alleged." Alas.
I was glued to CNN much of the weekend, and I never saw such a report.
CNN was very careful not to say specifically where people were, although they did say there were still people hiding under their beds and in other locations throughout the hotel.
I do remember there was a time when India stopped allowing live international broadcasts, possibly due to operational secrets being aired.
CNN is the network that colluded with Saddam for a decade, and admitted they lied repeatedly on the air about what was happening in Iraq.
Does anyone really doubt that CNN would hesitate for a moment to endanger the lives of innocent people in the pursuit of ratings and empty journalistic accolades? Remember these are the people who covered up the activities of people like Saddam Hussein so they could maintain their "access." They could be described as the lowest dredges of humanity if they had an ounce of humanity in their rotten misbegotten souls.
The only thing worse than a journalist is a lawyer.
Mary Bee says: "... although they did say there were still people hiding under their beds and in other locations throughout the hotel."
That's rich. Hey Marybee, you don't think that the above is as close to saying "exactly where they are" without photographing them there?
If anyone has a LINK to a story showing that the reported story in the post is false, please present it. I did a search and found nothing. A Google news search for Nigel Pritchard lynne kenneth shaw returns nothing.
I'm with Original George.
In the context of military or intelligence operations, there are often things that the public has no "need to know". Press entities broadcast these items to (one or more of):
- gain market share and awards
- make their careers
- deter the government from action
- aid the enemy
I'd rather know less and have a successful op (or counter-op in this case) than know all about another failure
OPSEC is important in a world of cell phones
If anyone has a LINK to a story showing that the reported story in the post is false, please present it. I did a search and found nothing. A Google news search for Nigel Pritchard lynne kenneth shaw returns nothing.
How about a link to the CNN story reporting the location of the Shaws?
If anybody has that, it would be interesting to see.
It's nothing new. They've been cheerleading terrorists for years.
It's good for ratings, and it's good for the terrorists. Everybody wins.
Trooper Dork: "Does anyone really doubt that CNN would hesitate for a moment to endanger the lives of innocent people in the pursuit of ratings and empty journalistic accolades?"
Oh, please.
Bashing CNN is a crock...they weren't the ONLY people broadcasting the attack as it occurred. It was being followed and reported throughout the world by many different sources.
Anybody who thinks the terrorists aren't following their actions via all kinds of network and cable news sources is a fool...and you know what?
And does anybody really believe they're not able to communicate what they see and hear with each other using...cell phones??
*And by the way, Fox was all over it as it happened, too.
rhhardin said..."It's nothing new. They've been cheerleading terrorists for years."
That's bullshit and you know it.
Show me one report from CNN that would represent "cheerleading terrorists."
And the high-pitched wingnut whine continues.
Here is footage of the commandos going in by helicopter...
NEW DELHI, Nov 28 (Reuters) - Indian commandos were dropped by helicopter on the roof of a Jewish centre in Mumbai, where suspected Islamist militants are holding at least 10 Israelis, live television pictures showed on Friday. A Reuters witness said security forces fired into the building, apparently to provide cover, as commandos rappeled down a rope...
Ah, the "suspected" "militants"...seems like "Muslim suicide terrorists" might be more apt or even "Muslim kamikazes."
I now several people who were due to check into both the Oberoi hotel as well as the Taj this week. Very scary.
As for this story - I highly doubt the terrorists were watching cnn. I think they were searching the hotel for anyone who was alive though. And they had several days to do that because of the incompetent Indian police force.
That's rich. Hey Marybee, you don't think that the above is as close to saying "exactly where they are" without photographing them there?
No, in a 565 room hotel with back passages, spas, restaurants, bathrooms, and kitchens, I don't think it is the same as saying exactly where they were.
CNN/IBN probably did show too much of the operation, and any news that people were still in the hotel may have given too much information to the terrorists. However, the commandos were going room to room searching for people anyway. That's why they were still in the hotel- to kill people hiding there.
Michael,
here is classic footage of Mike Wallace and Peter Jennings agreeing that when faced with covering a story about terrorists or reporting the info to Americans to save US lives, they'd be journalists first and get the scoop, even at the cost of US dead.
sickening
CNN also saved lives. They got people in touch with the US consulate in Mumbai to let them know they had family members trapped in the hotel.
I think CNN can be idiotic, but I don't believe this Shaw story. I can be proven wrong with a tape or transcript of the actual report.
One Indian American man told the story of the Australian judge in the adjoining room, yapping loudly on the phone while the commandos were doing searches. He had to go over to the doorway and tell the man to shut up, that if he could hear him, the commandos could hear him.
If you follow the link, you can hear that Australian doing a radio interview while trapped in his room- explaining why he isn't in danger. Just putting other people in danger, apparently.
I mean terrorists, not Indian commandos.
Drill Sgt.: I agree, their comments were hard to understand, but it's far from rhhardin's insinuation that CNN (or other jouralists?) have been "cheerleading terrorists for years."
I have no idea why Wallace or Jennings would feel that way or say anything of the kind.
Maybee says, "No, in a 565 room hotel with back passages, spas, restaurants, bathrooms, and kitchens, I don't think it is the same as saying exactly where they were."
Well, if I was hiding under a bed or in a closet in room 628, the last thing I'd want CNN telling the terrorists was, "psssst...they're hiding under their beds and in the closets." Why give the panicky and stressed terrorists a leg-up while suffering from the 'fog of war', eh?
I have no idea why Wallace or Jennings would feel that way or say anything of the kind.
Let me help you out with that Mikey:
Um, because they're cheerleaders for terrorists?
Their comments were hard to understand? Well I guess they are if you're an idiot. Actually let me re-phrase that in keeping with spirit of the F-bomb post below.
Well I guess they are if you're a fucking idiot
One of my relatives is married to a pilot. At a gathering this weekend, I heard the following story: his plane experienced a minor incident which could have become a significant problem, but did not. They declared an emergency.
Their emergency landing, as ordered by air traffic control, happened to take place at an airport at which local media was already present for an unrelated event. With cameras tracking them, they landed safely.
One of the reporters covering the event is said to have said, on air, "Well, that was disappointing."
Is it fair to conclude that the reporter was rooting for a fireball and loss of life?
Cretins with reading and comprehension disabilities like Luckyoldson can not understand when the arrogant poobahs of the journalistic temple tell you that they would go for the scoop first even if it endangers American lives because they are “journalists” first and citizens second. Even when they sit there and tell you to your face you won’t believe it.
Fox is just as bad. I never said they were any better. They are journalistic scum. Conservative journalistic scum but scum none the less. You can be sure that they would not let anything get in the way of ratings. Not our security, not the chance that others might get hurt, not common human decency.
The only thing worse than a journalist is a lawyer.
Trooper and Hoosier, I think we need to call out the Marine response as well for a brighter note (I think):
George Connell, a Marine Corps Colonel, reacted with disdain: "I feel utter contempt. Two days later they're both walking off my hilltop, they're two hundred yards away and they get ambushed. And they're lying there wounded. And they're going to expect I'm going to send Marines up there to get them. They're just journalists, they're not Americans." The discussion concluded as Connell fretted: "But I'll do it. And that's what makes me so contemptuous of them. And Marines will die, going to get a couple of journalists."
Wallace and Jennings are of a dying generation of journalists who were largely shaped by Vietnam.
While I am disgusted with the answer they gave, I'm not certain that it is representative of younger journalists.
Peter, think again.
If anything they are worse.
As for this story - I highly doubt the terrorists were watching cnn. I think they were searching the hotel for anyone who was alive though
Are all the terrorists accounted for? Were those inside the various target locations in contact with others surveilling events from outside? Have these others gone underground for a preplanned 2nd series of assaults?
Your own post proves it.
While I am disgusted with the answer they gave, I'm not certain that it is representative of younger journalists.
Like the AP Iraq Office that seems to employ local stringers who worked with the "insurgents" as public relations types?
same with he AP, and AFP, and BBC offices in Gaza?
I think there are a lot more journalists today that think their calling is to "speak truth to power" and "promote social justice" than I think want to get the facts and tell a straight up story.
that's what they are taught in J School by the Wallace types.
"How about a link to the CNN story reporting the location of the Shaws? If anybody has that, it would be interesting to see."
Well, I don't have a link, and this story is frustrating for its lake of detail, but while I was reading a comment thread on another blog during the siege, someone posted that they'd just heard a reporter on CNN give out a specific hotel room number, saying that there were survivors hiding there.
Now, I didn't see it myself, but it's consistent with this story from several days later and entirely plausible.
Does anyone really doubt that CNN would hesitate for a moment to endanger the lives of innocent people in the pursuit of ratings and empty journalistic accolades
I don't doubt it at all. The so called reporters don't have the common sense that God gave a horse. They are so replant and obviously excited to be able to be the center of attention during a crisis. The BIG GIANT HEADS of the new industry. They talk without thinking for one second what the consequences of the information that they are releasing might be.
We see their total lack of human feelings during these types of events as well, when they shove a microphone into the face of a bereaved person.
Reporter:"So can you tell us... how did you feel when you saw the video of the terrorists, I mean freedom fighters, sawing off the head of your living wife? Were the screams disconcerting?"
These people (reporters) are scabs on the face of humanity.
Repellant, not replant. Doh
Now, I didn't see it myself, but it's consistent with this story from several days later and entirely plausible.
Good rumors have to be plausible. Plausibility is not proof of veracity.
I wrote a little bit about a superior response by a city to an armed band here.
Too bad more cities were not like Northfield, Minnesota, circa 1876; there would probably not be so many terrorists walking around with impunity!
Hoosier Daddy said..."Um, because they're cheerleaders for terrorists?"
Based on what was reportedly said by Wallace and Jennings your comment makes no sense at all.
There was nothing that related to "cheerleading" of any sort, only what they would or would not report or say.
Nice try.
bad link Bob W
peter hoh - Pulling out bits and pieces of what some reporter supposedly said about a possible airplane crashing or whatever is nothing more than anecdotal silliness.
There are people everywhere. working in every industry, that are ignorant and say ignorant things.
What does it have to do with CNN or Wallace "cheerleading" terrorists?
"Does anyone really doubt that CNN would hesitate for a moment to endanger the lives of innocent people in the pursuit of ratings and empty journalistic accolades..."
You must mean people saying things like "terrorist fist bumps" or "palling around with terrorists" or screaming "kill him" at campaign rallies?
People in glass houses and all that...
Perhaps the Shaws confused the BBC and CNN, and this eyewitness account.
MILLIONAIRE Brit Andreas Liveras was shot dead in the Mumbai massacre just moments after describing the terror on his mobile phone.
In a telephone interview, the luxury yacht magnate revealed: "All we know is the bombs are next door and the hotel is shaking every time a bomb goes off. Everybody is just living on their nerves."
Within minutes, the 73-year-old was shot dead in the Taj Mahal Hotel, the first confirmed British casualty of the horror.
...
"We hid ourselves under the table Hotel and then they switched all the lights off. But the machine guns kept going.
They took us into the kitchen and from there into a basement before we came up into a salon, where we are now.
"We are locked in here. Nobody tells us anything, the doors are locked and we are inside. There must be more than 1000 people here.
What should a news organization do when the victim gives too much information, live on air?
I think a link would have surfaced by now, showing the CNN person saying what has been claimed. And it hasn't.
I can't believe the incessant whining about the "possibility" CNN offered up a report that the terrorists may or may not have used to their advantage. As if CNN was the only source of reporting available throughout the entire world. (And I'm still waiting for objective verification any of it even happened. The woman saying the police told her not to talk to the press is not credible...and...a CNN spokesman said: "CNN has received no complaint from any individual regarding our coverage and their safety. We take such matters very seriously.")
I suggest many here discontinue watching any of the network and cable news shows, stop reading newspapers and periodicals and don't worry about reading books, it doesn't sound like many of you have even bothered with anything like that anyway.
"The deputy commissioner of police argued that the terrorists, who were holed up in two major hotels and became involved in floor-by-floor firefights with police, were gaining tactical information from TV. Using powers under Section 19 of the country’s Cable Television Networks Act, he ordered a blackout of TV news channels.
“Transmission of various clippings/live relay/coverage of the actions being taken by the police against the terrorists in South Mumbai is causing impediment in the police action … thereby endangering the lives of the police personnel as also of the hostages,” the order stated."
Here is the link saying it was the BBC to whom Mr. Liveras spoke.
Andreas Liveras, 73, a British yachting tycoon who emigrated from Cyprus to London in 1963, telephoned the BBC from a locked room in the Taj Mahal Palace hotel as terrorists fired AK47 automatic rifles and set off grenades outside.
I don't have a clue as to whether this story is a fabrication or not, but the underlying basis is accurate, at least s viewed by military officers and soldiers and I suspect your average cop.
Reporters are not your friends.
They will compromise you in a heartbeat in order to get a good story. Further, if there is a spin the story to make the government look bad and you with it, they will. Blood and violence sells, even if it needs to be manufactured.
The only possible exceptions to this truth is for home town reporters embedded in National Guard units. For them human interest stories sell, and if they lie about what the troops are doing, word will get back fast.
The National Press are Ghouls. Ghouls with an agenda, and a US victory doesnt sell well US atrocities do.
The fact that CNN will not provide the tapes that will show exactly how they materially aided in a terrorist operation is very surprising. You would think they would jump at the chance to provide evidence of their malfeasance.
I mean the people have a right to know right?
It is of course too much to ask for a tape delay when broadcasting live when information might jeopardize innocent life.
I mean it is not as important as saying the F word on the radio.
I know the newsprint guys are going down.
Is it too much to ask the TV guys to follow them?
I think we'd be better off with a game of "telephone".
Drill Sgt: "The National Press are Ghouls. Ghouls with an agenda, and a US victory doesnt sell well US atrocities do."
ALL of them are ghouls? Even Rush, Hannity, Savage, Ingraham, O'Reilly and Beck?
Now be honest...
Trooper York said..."The fact that CNN will not provide the tapes that will show exactly how they materially aided in a terrorist operation is very surprising."
They probably have hours and hours of tape...are you saying they should release everything they have?
And where would they release it?
There was nothing that related to "cheerleading" of any sort, only what they would or would not report or say.
Nice try.
You know what Michael, you're right. Wallace and Jennings weren't terorist cheerleaders when they said they would not warn US troops of an ambush they might be aware of.
They're simply assholes who don't deserve an ounce of respect.
ALL of them are ghouls? Even Rush, Hannity, Savage, Ingraham, O'Reilly and Beck?
All of those people are pundits, not reporters.
ALL of them are ghouls? Even Rush, Hannity, Savage, Ingraham, O'Reilly and Beck?
For someone who tells other people to read and learn something, I find it ironic you don't know the difference between a journalist and a talk show host.
Michael, I think my point regarding the emergency landing was too subtle for you.
When judging reporters, people ought to start by considering laziness, stupidity, and a thirst for the sensational, not necessarily in that order.
Reporters in the field, reporting live, should be expected to be excitable and prone to making mistakes. Back in the studio, calmer heads ought to be weighing things such as the likelihood that the report might give away crucial information.
In a situation such as this, a delay in televising information is justified. But tell me, which is likely to attract more viewers: "reporting live on scene" or "reporting after we've taken the time to make sure we aren't giving the terrorists information they can use"?
Michelle Malkin, of course, would face a moral dilemma were she ever to have information that would both aid the terrorists and prove CNN's complicity with those terrorists.
Since CNN and AP have admitted to colluding with terrorists already (e.g. Saddam, and hiring "stringers" who are actually combatants), I have a more discourteous conclusion.
From The Times Online
"As the attacks unfolded [British yachting tycoon Andreas] Liveras had given an interview to the BBC from the Taj and said that he was among a big group hiding in a basement.
He said that he had chosen the hotel because it was said to have Bombay's best restaurant. "But as soon as we sat at the table we heard the machine gun fire outside in the corridor," he said.
"We hid ourselves under the table and then they switched all the lights off. But the machine guns kept going and they took us into the kitchen, and from there into a basement, before we came up into a salon where we are now.
"There must be more than 1,000 people here. There are residents and tourists and locals. We are not hiding, we are locked in here - nobody tells us anything, the doors are locked and we are inside. Hotel staff are helping us a lot providing water and sandwiches - but nobody is eating really, people are frightened. "
Mr. Liveras was texting his son when he was killed, just moments after describing the attacks on his cell phone.
This makes me wonder: Did the Mumbai terrorists have contacts within CNN and the BBC?
I fear the terrorists were being given non-broadcast info, as it happened, from CNN and the BBC.
Given the history of these organizations, this was not a mistake at all; they are on the same side.
AP, CNN, BBC:
the terrorist's fifth column.
They know exactly what this woman is referring to and fact that they have not released the tape indicates that they are afraid of what it might show. They are in cover up and denial mode.
They never learn.
reader_iam said..."Michael, that's nonsense. I do not know whether this story is true or not. But it is foolish and naive to put it beyond the realm of possibility."
I never said it was "nonsense," I said it was verified by an objective party.
As for whether it could happen, well duh...yeah it could.
But there are hundreds of news sources throughout the world who report, right alongside CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, BBC, AP and others...and they ALL broadcast via cable and the internet.
So, unless you're saying we should shut down all broadcasts of events as they unfold, you're always going to have the bad guys using whatever they can to make their work easier.
*Did you also want the news people to close out all coverage of 9/11 as it occurred?
Be honest now...
Typo: "I never said it was "nonsense," I said it was (wasn't) verified by an objective party."
All the media were supporting terrorists in Iraq for years.
The terrorists don't any actual military damage. They stage media events. They're aimed at media coverage. Breaking the political will of the US is the point.
The media like events they can broadcast every night because they're in it for the audience they get. They sell the audience to advertisers. The audience is the product, not news.
So the media and the terrorists have a symbiotic relationship. Each uses the other.
Is this news to you?
CNN is just one of the bunch.
They don't even get much audience, but it's enough to support the business.
Trooper York said..."They know exactly what this woman is referring to and fact that they have not released the tape indicates that they are afraid of what it might show. They are in cover up and denial mode."
And you know this for certain? How??
POGO: You forgot Fox News.
The only "name you can trust" is Michelle Malkin. Didn't we learn that with her world famous expose on Jamil Hussein?
peter hoh said..."Michael, I think my point regarding the emergency landing was too subtle for you."
It wasn't the least bit "subtle."
It was anecdotal and unless you can verify it even happened, it means noting.
And even if you can, what bearing does it have on the terrorist attacks and the reporting that was done?
Are you another who doesn't think we should have had immediate and current reporting of the 9/11 attacks?
Should we have waited a day or so before hearing about what happened?
The bit about CNN didn't come up in that piece, which doesn't necessarily mean anything about its veracity either way. It is interesting, nonetheless.
I suspect the Shaws, having been hiding under tables and not watching tv, complained about the wrong news organization.
It was poor Mr Liveras in the salon with the BBC.
A tape delay would probably be a good idea. As I linked earlier, Mr Liveras was not the only hostage speaking live to media outlets. The Australian was quite flip-- it was the interviewer (and his neighbor) trying to tell him to be more cautious.
Perhaps the best thing would be for interviewers to remind those they are interviewing not to compromise themselves.
This is just tragic. I don't think CNN was the culprit this time, though.
I know that if they had a tape that shows what she is saying is false they would lead with it at the top of the news. It most likely somewhat ambiguous and makes them look bad. They might be able to defend it but don't like the way that it looks. Like broadcasting the locations of people in the ballroom or hiding in specific areas of the hotel. They most likely went to the lawyers who told them not to release anything. They are in denial and cover up mode.
They went to the lawyers.
The only thing worse than a journalist is a lawyer.
Drill Sgt: "The National Press are Ghouls. Ghouls with an agenda, and a US victory doesnt sell well US atrocities do."
ALL of them are ghouls? Even Rush, Hannity, Savage, Ingraham, O'Reilly and Beck?
Now be honest...
you think I watch FNC? not likely.
as Trooper pointed out. ALL of the reporters are scum. They are driven by the same basic class incentives. Arguably FOX didn't want the US to lose in Iraq. But a good bloody story, you betcha...
As Freeman pointed out, your list aren't reporters, they are pundits. they get paid for bloviating from various orifaces on topics they know little about. they are at some level anti-reporters, whose job is to fill dea air time with intelligent noises
Reader: "Michael: The "that's nonsense" referred to your comment about no one reading around here. Disagreeing with your take is not evidence of "not reading."
Well, that may be what you "meant" to say, but I suggest you be a tad more precise when making comments."
Here's what you actually said:
"Michael, that's nonsense. I do not know whether this story is true or not. But it is foolish and naive to put it beyond the realm of possibility."
Where does that refer to my comment about people not reading?
Andreas Liveras, 73, a British yachting tycoon who emigrated from Cyprus to London in 1963, telephoned the BBC from a locked room in the Taj Mahal Palace hotel as terrorists fired AK47 automatic rifles and set off grenades outside.
That sounds more like they heard him through the door. Giving a live interview while you are trying to hide from killers, is a Darwinian act.
I have no idea about the allegation against CNN. Like others, I have seen no concrete evidence, only rumor.
CNN and BBC behaved horribly, as they always do. I'm sure all in the name of their scrupulous "honesty" though, so that justifies any collateral damage. After all, how could they know that the "alleged" gunmen would kill anyone? No jury had found them guilty yet! (With Thanks to Mark Steyn)
CNN has over 60 hours of tape, Trooper York. They can only release all 60 hours to prove they didn't do what the Shaws think they did.
The BBC did report a fairly specific location near where the Shaws were. The Shaws got the outlet wrong.
Considering the man that did the talking to the BBC was killed soon after he did it, the Shaws and CNN probably wish to drop the whole thing rather than point fingers at him.
Drill: "As Freeman pointed out, your list aren't reporters, they are pundits."
Right.
Whenever I refer to any of these "pundits" you say it really doesn't count...as if they're daily rants, commentaries and interviews are meaningless...because they don't work for CNN or other news organizations?
Fox advertises itself as the NUMBER ONE SOURCE OF NEWS in the world...and if you don't think Hannity, O'Reilly, Reagan, Beck, Ingraham and others aren't "reporting" what they consider to be the most important news their viewers want to hear you're dreaming.
And Rush reaches about 20 million (with Hannity and Savage next in line) people via his show, and all of their shows have a dramatic effect, with their daily "reporting" of what they believe to be the case reaching millions.
You know, like terrorist fist jabs, palling around with terrorists, Powell only backing Obama because he's black...
But MayBee, the people have the right to know. Shouldn't this be investigated as thoroughly as President Bush's driving history and Sarah Palins gynecological records?
Or is this more like President Obama’s drug use and Charley Rangel’s tax troubles? You know reported on page 67 next to the horoscopes and the personal ads.
PatCA said..."CNN and BBC behaved horribly, as they always do."
You forgot to mention Fox...unless of course you think they did no reporting.
Trooper: "Sarah Palins gynecological records?"
Where are her medical records?
And who's kid is that anyway?
Although there is some justification to reporting Governor Palins gynecological information.
“If it bleeds, it leads.”
Trooper, didn't Obama admit to using drugs?
Trooper York said..."I know that if they had a tape that shows what she is saying is false they would lead with it at the top of the news."
Then again, it may a crock of shit and they can't disprove something that never happened.
Michael said...
Drill: "As Freeman pointed out,
Is your reading comprehension that poor?
what part of this is unclear:
- I dont watch Fox (or CNN, or listen to Rush for that matter)
- All reporters are scum
- your list are bloviating ignorant clowns, paid to make noises.
am I not clear?
Hoosier: Who are the "terrorists" you keep referring to in relation to Wallace and Jennings being cheerleaders?
Drill Sgt: So you don't watch any cable news, listen to any radio or read those horrible newspapers or periodicals?
Where the fuck are you getting all of the valuable insight and information you use in your comments?
Osmosis?
Reader - You fucked up.
Admit it and move on.
Is Freeman, Drill Sgt. and others here actually trying to say Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and other "pundits" never open their segments with "exclusive reports" of any kind?
They never "report" specific news, utilizing their staff to compile their "reports?"
What are you people smoking?
Remember when you engage Luckyoldson in a dialogue you throw the thread off the track which is what he wants to do.
Let's keep focused on what is important.
Journalists suck and will put innocent peoples lives at risk to get one inch ahead of their competitors.
The only thing worse than a journalist is a lawyer.
Well Trooper, I suppose we'll never know the truth until Bush releases the NSA recordings of Mr. Liveras's phone call.
After all, it would be just like the US intelligence agencies to sneak something onto European airwaves (or soil) that the Europeans know nothing about.
You know I knew it had been Bush's fault somehow.
Thanks for enlightening me.
Venkatesan Vembu makes some good points here, especially the analysis of the motives behind the attack.
----------------
If, as I have read today, there were only two teams of two terrorists at the Taj, then it is unlikely that they were watching TV broadcasts in order to figure out what to do next, at least until they had established a secure location for themselves.
It's possible that they were calling someone on the outside who may have been watching broadcasts to glean information useful to those on the inside.
Drill Sgt, if you and one other soldier were in the middle of an operation like this, are you going to have time to be on the phone?
--------
Michael, thinking that some restraint ought to be used by television news carriers does not mean that I am advocating a blackout on news coverage. As for 9/11, there's good evidence that news reports about the first 3 attacks helped thwart the 4th.
"Does anyone really doubt that CNN would hesitate for a moment to endanger the lives of innocent people in the pursuit of ratings and empty journalistic accolades..."
No, I have no doubt CNN or most other networks or newspapers would have any such hesitation. Reporters don't care about who gets hurt so long as it isn't them.
Contrast today's reporters with this story from WWII:
The first rule of war is that nothing goes as planned. And while the Allied generals anticipated many challenges to their elaborate plan, they got one from an unexpected source. The news media reporters and radio correspondents found themselves quite bored since the conclusion of combat operations in North Africa. With no real news to report they began speculating as to the Allied armies' next invasion. The problem was not that they were claiming that there would be an invasion. That was no secret.
The problem was that many of the reporters were speculating that the invasion was going to be of Sicily. Unintentionally, the reporters were undermining the Army's disinformation operation. "All of this talk of Sicily and soft underbellies and such might have been good for morale on the British and American home-fronts, but it was creating havoc for the censors and the skilled practitioners of disinformation. The speculation had to stop" (How to Tell a Secret by P.J. Huff and J.G. Lewin. Collins, New York: 2007, p. 2-3).
Advertisement
General Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied forces, had to stop the reporters from writing any more such stories. The success of the invasion was riding on maintaining operational secrecy. In a daring and unprecedented move Eisenhower assembled all the journalists for a 15-minute briefing. He stepped onto a stage and opened up a curtain behind which was displayed a giant-size map of Sicily. He then outlined for the reporters all the details of the invasion including the actual dates and landing zones.
Eisenhower then warned the reporters "that everything he had told them was top secret and that the fate of the invasion, the lives of the troops and, perhaps, the outcome of the war, was now contained in their notebooks. He told them that if they chose to continue their speculations or if they chose to spread the word, they themselves would be responsible" (p.4). Without taking questions Eisenhower left the room.
To their credit the reporters kept the secret and the speculation stopped. The Allied Armies launched the invasion of Sicily with the element of surprise intact. And while the invasion was hard fought, the Allies eventually conquered the island. This was only possible because operational secrecy was maintained.
Eisenhower succeeded in silencing the reporters because he brought them into his confidence. He let them know that he respected their work and the critical role the media plays in a democracy. By forging this mutual understanding he was able to convince them that, at this point in time, their responsibility lay in keeping quiet for several more weeks.
Does anyone honestly believe more than a small handful of current reporters could be trusted like that today? I certainly don't.
Michelle Malkin, of course, would face a moral dilemma were she ever to have information that would both aid the terrorists and prove CNN's complicity with those terrorists.
She's made her own contributions to unethical behavior in reporting, so who knows how she'd solve that dilemma?
In any case, I don't doubt there were bad decisions made by the press covering this event. I doubt very much that CNN alone acted irresponsibly, and like MayBee, I'd like to see the footage.
Reader_iam has the most sensible view - as I expected.
Larry, I agree that few reporters today could be trusted as Eisenhower trusted the reporters in the story you related.
Hey it's no fun when the women on this blog get along.
How are we ever gonna have pillow fights?
and reader has pulled all her comments. I hate when comment threads get nasty toward the sensible and moderate.
Not that anybody here EVER LISTENS to him but...
Limbaugh Endorses Clinton: "Brilliant Stroke" For Secretary Of State
Larry J said..."No, I have no doubt CNN or most other networks or newspapers would have any such hesitation. Reporters don't care about who gets hurt so long as it isn't them."
What the hell do you base that on? There are plenty of excellent reporters who are in harms way throughout the world every day of the week.
Brushing all reporters with such a broad and thoroughly inane stroke is ignorant and not the least true.
Reader does that all the time.
As is her right.
Trooper say the only thing worse than a journalist (and keep in mind, he means ALL journalists; none of them are honest or good; all are bad, bad, bad) is a lawyer.
So we can all assume he doesn't read any accounts filed by a journalist and has never had need of an attorney...for anything...ever.
Everything just comes to him and anything relating to legal matters...just magically works out.
Funny.
Journalists, Lawyers, sharks and maggots all have their place in nature.
One just can't forget that their interests and your interests are rarely in alignment.
Is Freeman, Drill Sgt. and others here actually trying to say Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and other "pundits" never open their segments with "exclusive reports" of any kind?
No they're trying to say that Hannity, Limbaugh et. al, are not journalists. They're not reporters. At best they're editorialists who provide opinion or analysis.
If you seriously cannot see the difference between a talk show host and a journalist/reporter than you have once again demonstrated your utter stupidity for all to see. At least your consistent.
Peter Hoh: "Michael, thinking that some restraint ought to be used by television news carriers does not mean that I am advocating a blackout on news coverage. As for 9/11, there's good evidence that news reports about the first 3 attacks helped thwart the 4th."
No thinking person would disagree that "some restraint" should be employed by all news organizations when reporting moment by moment events that are unfolding.
But that's always easy to judge after such events come to their conclusion, and right now I don't know if this couple's comments are true or not, nor do I know whether it was CNN or any number of other sources that were wrong...or even if any of them were wrong.
Many here love to jump all over CNN and others because they disagree with what they perceive as their "slant" on news coverage, just like liberals judge reporting by Fox as being far from "fair and balanced."
Personally I find it hard to believe CNN or any news organization would do anything intentionally that would put people's lives in jeopardy. (And comments by Wallace or Jennings decades ago have little bearing on the discussion today.)
With that said, humans do make mistakes and to blame CNN, Fox the BBC or any of them for what happened is ludicrous...and we sure as hell didn't jump on any of them on 9/11 did we??
Michael, it was you who asked, "Did you also want the news people to close out all coverage of 9/11 as it occurred?"
Michael, you wrote "Many here love to jump all over CNN and others because they disagree with what they perceive as their "slant" on news coverage."
You seem to be just as eager to jump on anyone you think might be slighting CNN.
Whenever I refer to any of these "pundits" you say it really doesn't count...as if they're daily rants, commentaries and interviews are meaningless...because they don't work for CNN or other news organizations?
It really doesn't count in this conversation and topic because we are discussing reporting in a "live situation" and giving information that helps the bad guys, in this particular case Muslim terrorists, kill even more people.
I don't think Hannity or O'Reilly bloviating on tape on an evening talk show after the fact would increase the death toll, unless they were giving out advance military information that would put people in danger or concealing information (like Wallace et al) that would save our own people. For example: when troop ships are sailing, where they are going, what they are carrying etc.
Hoosier, I know what Rush and the others are...and I also don't believe people here do not listen to him and others. (Something damn near everybody here always says, which I believe is bullshit.)
And I know they're not "journalists" in the true sense of the word. I know they do little if any of the real on site "reporting," but they sure as hell verbalize the feeds they get from the field, just as a newspaper journalist "writes" what they hear and learn...and if you don't think there are millions who think of them as reporters or actual journalists you're crazy.
When Rush says Colin Powell only backed Obama because he's black, I think that effects specific segments of the voting public before their votes are cast.
And I think when a TV "pundit" refers to "terrorist fist jabs" it also sends a message to voters.
Or when someone like Hannity continues to say Obama "pals around with terrorists" or that he wasn't really born in Hawaii, it's not only disingenuous and dangerous, but also a bald-faced lie.
Peter: Do you even know for sure it was CNN that was involved? (The BBC appears to be a possibility.)
And I think I also mentioned liberals and Fox...right?
Bunny: "I don't think Hannity or O'Reilly bloviating on tape on an evening talk show after the fact..."
They don't just bloviate "after the fact."
Rush is on at all hours of the day and if you think Hannity or O'Reilly would relinquish their time slot while something was actually happening you're nuts.
Drill Sgt.: Another who never reads or has need of an attorney.
GFL.
For those who NEVER listen to Sean Hannity:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b91585.html
I've been married to an attorney for 25 years. :)
and my reading skills clearly seem better than yours
I really despise CNN and the BBC. Might as well read Pravda.
Are they guilty here?
Probably, but dunno for sure.
Why trust them though?
What's in it for us to rely on them for anything at all except yesterday's temperature and football scores?
Larry J said..."No, I have no doubt CNN or most other networks or newspapers would have any such hesitation. Reporters don't care about who gets hurt so long as it isn't them."
What the hell do you base that on? There are plenty of excellent reporters who are in harms way throughout the world every day of the week.
I'm not saying that reporters avoid danger to themselves. I'm saying that they don't care who gets hurt as a result of their reporting - by and large. Of course there are some reporters who can be trusted. There may also be unicorns in the forest but I've never met one.
Brushing all reporters with such a broad and thoroughly inane stroke is ignorant and not the least true.
I once asked a reporter what the function of the Press was in a free society. He said, "To make money for the publisher." He was the most honest reporter I ever met. For the most part, I wouldn't cross the street to piss on a reporter even if his hair was on fire. I might break out some marshmellows. My opinion of reporters is based on my interactions with them over the years and witnessing the havoc they all too often leave in their wake. The old lawyer joke "99% of the lawyers makes the rest of them look bad" applies to reporters as well, at least in my experience. Your experience may be different.
Michael, you do realize that there are liberal pundits that we also wouldn't count as reporters, yes?
Larry: "I'm not saying that reporters avoid danger to themselves. I'm saying that they don't care who gets hurt as a result of their reporting - by and large."
Based on WHAT?
Your opinion?
There are literally 1,000's of reports filed every year by reporters and journalists who are right in the mix, risking their lives to provide accurate coverage of ongoing events in war zones, at crime scenes, etc. and you throw out a blanket comment that reporters "don't care who gets hurt as a result of their reporting - by and large."
Ridiculous.
Pogo said..."I really despise CNN and the BBC. Might as well read Pravda."
And once again Pogo reveals himself to be an absolute moron.
Freeman - Yes, I understand there are "liberal" pundits, but they, just as Rush, Sean and others also write articles, books and commentaries that would certainly reflect their "journalistic" intent, and if you really think Rush, Sean and others don't consider themselves to be "journalists" you're kidding yourself.
Larry J: "I once asked a reporter what the function of the Press was in a free society. He said, "To make money for the publisher." He was the most honest reporter I ever met."
That's a crock and you know it. I've worked with many reporters over the years and I've never met anyone who would say anything like that.
I think you're making it up.
Troop, any thoughts on Plexico Burress from your beloved Giants?
Who names their kid Plaxico. And what kind of name is Saxby?
Hey you never know when you need a gat at a club when some dude might roll up on you with some savage rare clumbers and demand to see your hog.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
And he is the middle child between his brothers Mexico and Texico.
At least his moms didn't name him Brooklyn or Bronx like hipster dofous celebrities like to do.
The real crazy thing is his middle name.
Hussein.
The Drill SGT said...
Michael said...
and you throw out a blanket comment that reporters "don't care who gets hurt as a result of their reporting - by and large."
We've all seen the local reporter stick a mike in front of the grieving family member and make some innane comment trying to provoke some good video.
Listen to the Mike Wallace and Peter Jennings comments again. They make it clear that a reporter's obligation is "to the Story" and to the Profession, regardless of the casualties.
They stand convicted by their own testimony, and I would argue that their statements make the underlying CNN story believable, even if it didn't happen this time. Reporters are in it for the Pulitzers. period. Truth, facts, and harm don't matter a lot.
so Larry, you a cop, doctor, or a grunt :)
I think a link would have surfaced by now, showing the CNN person saying what has been claimed. And it hasn't.
I’ve got to disagree with you there. I think it’s quite likely that it not have surfaced. Who records hours of footage like that besides the actual station? When they do something wrong, they are more apt to scrub it entirely, from their show, from the internet, from wherever.
On 9/11 we were in DC watching one of the news stations and they said something about SMOKE ON THE MALL! Of course, since I was sitting on capital hill at the time this freaked me and my coworkers the hell out. It also freaked out my brother, who was home in Arkansas watching tv and saw the same thing. And yet, after that one mention it was completely dropped and I never heard or read anything about it again.
That's a crock and you know it. I've worked with many reporters over the years and I've never met anyone who would say anything like that.
So, because you've never met a reporter that would say such a thing, you say no reporter would? Talk about projecting your ignorance. I met him at Ramstein AB, Germany in 1979. He was quite blunt and truthful. I was quite surprised. I expected him to spew some lofty drivel but he told me the truth as he saw it. Just because his truth disagrees with your version of it doesn't mean I'm a liar or he was wrong.
I've also seen firsthand the devastation that reporters can cause, such as the time when my best friend's sister committed suicide. Some scumbag reporter got a copy of her suicide note and published it. It was picked up by the wire services. Her grieving family received hate mail from all over the country. To this day, if I could find the scumbag who did that, I'd inflict serious bodily damage on him.
That isn't the only case I know of. Go ahead and tell me what a noble bunch of people reporters are.
so Larry, you a cop, doctor, or a grunt :)
Former grunt (airborne infantry) and former Air Force (enlisted and officer). I trust no reporter to tell the truth or get a story right. When reading about topics within my expertise, I see so many errors that I've learned to distrust the "profession". If I can so easily see shoddy reporting in my areas of expertise, how can I have any confidence in them in other areas?
"Limbaugh Endorses Clinton: "Brilliant Stroke" For Secretary Of State"
Not quite. He thinks it was a brilliant strategic move by Obama to neutralize any possible 2012 threat from Hillary. That's why Limbaugh called it a brilliant stroke.
I also don't believe people here do not listen to him and others. (Something damn near everybody here always says, which I believe is bullshit.)
I don’t know about you Michael, but some of us have this thing called a JOB, which precludes listening to 3 hours of talk radio in the middle of the day. So, I find it quite easy to believe that many people don’t listen.
Back in the late 80's or early 90's I was interviewed over the phone by a reporter. The person that the reporter was trying to do a story on was a vet, or said he was a vet. I had exchanged 2 letters with. Somehow the reporter had gotten ahold of the letters that I sent. Myself a former 11B2P was asked a series of questions. For instance, question A, question B... I gave answers to each of the questions that he asked. I never did see the actual story in the paper, but about 6 months later, I was with a bunch of vets, and they me the story they read. It seems that the reporter used my answers for questions C and D for his question A. Same with all of his other questions. He used my words to create a story that wasn't accurate. I hope I didn't cause any undue harm to the vet in question, but I learned a lesson, don't trust reporters.
Shame on you people for trying to have a dialogue with the turd in the punchbowl.
Oh what a dipshit. Somethings never change. AllanS has it right.
I spelled his name wrong.
It is Plaxico.
After looking at his picture he is a major thug-very hot-would definitely do him.
By the way the Giants really should not of won the Super Bowl last year.
Finally, someone said something controversial around here.
(But I agree with Titus. Sorry, Trooper.)
That's because you are a sore loser Theo. Your Patriots couldn't cheat their way to another title.
THE WORLD CHAMPION NEW YORK GIANTS smoked their sorry asses as we had done to the Cowboys, Packers and every team we played this year except for Loafing Oaf's Browns.
We will continue to roll regardless of Plaxico.
THE WORLD CHAMPION NEW YORK GIANTS
will not shoot themselves in the foot. So to speak.
Did I tell you lately that the Giants won the Super Bowl?
I know people already said this...
What should a news organization do when the victim gives too much information, live on air?
The same d*mn thing they f*cking do when an *ssh*le says some sh*t that isn't supposed to go out "live on air."
This isn't difficult.
And the answer to the question of who is responsible when someone gives out too much information and gets him or herself killed, is that while Darwin is god and stupidity is lethal... there are other people involved who didn't chose to put themselves in danger and a reporter or news station has responsibility for what they freely choose to report.
Period.
The larger issue is that civilians don't generally have a clue about the value of intelligence, because they've never thought about it. The military has learned the hard way that the enemy can use the most innocuous information and glean it from the most unlikely sources. But does anyone think they might know what they are talking about? Heck no. Not civilians, and not reporters who see it as some purposeless and perverse need to be difficult. So they decide it's quite okay to subvert efforts to control information.
BTW, time to be on the phone? Heck, yes. Because communication is essential to military or militant operations. Take out communications and it's almost like the guns don't work anymore. The idea that it's unlikely that the terrorists would be on the phone is naive. Just because regular people wouldn't think about it doesn't mean that someone who is planning an attack thinks that once they say "go" no one has to talk to each other any longer.
If terrorists were that stupid, killing them would be much easier.
And YES... the whole tactic of terrorism relies on the participation of the press as distributors of their propaganda. It's a force multiplier.
You do have to agree Troop that the Giants have to get rid of Plaxico.
He is too much of a diva.
You never hear of any Patriots going out on the town. That is because Belicheck would shoot them.
Brady went out on the town but it was always classy and very discreet. And with cute outfits and a rockin date.
Even Randy Moss keeps his ass home after he joined the Patriots.
That's because when you work for a criminal mastermind you can't step out of line or the Big Cheese will have you whacked.
You never see any of the Penguins or the Jokers guys getting into trouble unless their boss ok's it.
You have give the biggest thug his props or you get a cap in your ass.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I love Belicheck.
He is a big democrat too.
See us gays know about sports too.
I do hope Alabama gets their asses kicked next week by Florida.
Everybody knows that gay people love sports. They love tennis and ice skating and all the professional sports teams in Boston.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
If I were in the news business, I would be alarmed at what I am reading here. The fact that so many literate and intelligent people have so many doubts about their coverage should be ringing loud alarm bells. The fact that it is not is, itself, a kind of alarm bell. "Badge? We don't have to show you no stinking badge."
I no longer get any newspaper except the local rag because it reports local sports without any reference to politics.
The rest goes unread. I quickly glance at the obits to be sure I still have to get up and go to work tomorrow.
No CNN, MSNBC, CBS, Fox, or any other TV news except the local weather. Screw them all; I'd rather chew glass.
I no longer get any newspaper except the local rag because it reports local sports without any reference to politics.
Since I don't care about local sports, I don't bother to get the local paper either. And I don't even watch the local news for weather, since I can easily get the forecast online or from my weather radio. After reading the article that resulted from an interview that took place in my presence, I lost all interest in subscribing to the local paper--that article misrepresented the entire interview.
If I were in the news business, I would be alarmed at what I am reading here.
I would be, too.
I think it's fair to point out that in war coverage, at least, the fellows over at Blackfive name several reporters they say are doing a good job over there, and not just Totten, Yon, and Roggio.
On the other hand, many of us saw that interview with Wallace and Jennings.
And then we thought about it.
And the logical and rational disconnect involved in thinking that one can *observe* without influencing the fate of the cat is... unsupportable. There is no way to avoid being an actor in life. And because that is true, the premise of Jennings and Wallace that journalism is a higher calling and purpose, approaches the obscene. Does one save a life or record a death?
A young man I worked with in the Philippines responded to the major earthquake in Bagio to help dig people from the rubble of two towering hotels. He said the smell of rotting meat was overwhelming in the tropical heat. But they dug bodies out, hoping for some one alive, but needing to recover the dead as well.
He said... the reporters circled like buzzards, or like flies... hoping for gruesome photographs, flocking to every new find.
Who do you suppose gave the best account of that event? Those recording it, or those participating, who only relayed their stories afterward?
My only first hand story, however, is having a news letter edited by a friend with a journalism degree...
She fixed my verbs.
You see... I'd given the account as "I sat in the uncomfortable plastic chair." Sat is a boring verb, so she changed it to squirmed. She made several similar changes.
I let it go. It didn't matter enough that I hadn't, not by any means, been squirming in any chairs, and that now my little news letter article was inaccurate. It wasn't a bridge to die on. But it did make me wonder what else journalism students were taught to prefer to the truth and just how many *creative* and *active* verbs and descriptions were traded for the ones that accurately described events.
One more thing about the Wallace/Jennings response re. warning our soldiers of an ambush.
I'm not making excuses for them, but it's worth considering that the journalists who were shaped by Vietnam must have been aware that had they been captured by the enemy, the had a reasonable chance of being treated well and being freed. The VC were PR savvy.
A journalist captured by our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, would face a different fate. AQ, et al, don't care much about the PR benefits of releasing western journalists.
"Since I don't care about local sports,"
Heh. I won't either in a few years, once number 2 son graduates from high school.
Maybe the papers should just stop all that typing and send out ads.
Well, I'm glad to read some people love tennis!
Network news? Newspapers? I avoid both unless there is a major event, and then carefully listen or read. The local paper gets a glance because it is always lying on the lunch table at work.
ESPN News every day.
Michael,
You are such a tool. The NYT had no problem telling the terrorists responsible for 9/11 that we were tracking them by their cell phone usage or that we were tracking them by their financial usage of SWIFT messaging so that we could find who was buying the weapons killing our troops and our allies and yet you think that the reporters would not do anything to endanger anyone. Just what do you think the result of these news stories ended up being? More bucks for AQ, more weapons for the terrorists, telling them exactly how we were tracking them and who was doing the tracking. You might just as well pin a target on our soldiers.
How about lying in the news. Good for morale, that is. Remember all the news about the destruction of those mosques and the imams in Baghdad that were reported by CNN - with photos? Only problem was that the dead imam was preaching in the undamaged mosque the next evening and of the 4 mosques that were supposedly destroyed one had some old bullet holes in the wall and the rest were undamaged.
Remember all the stories filed by the stringers? Remember how the stringers were working for AQ? What kind of stories did your brave reporters file then? They were writing about how they had to have armed guards to go get bottled water and that same day the troops walked down the street eating snacks with the locals.
How about how we heard all about how Baghdad was shut down and terrified over the attacks. That same day an Iraqi blogger walked outside his house and photographed kids skipping off to school, bumper to bumper traffic of people on their way to work and all the shops opened.
How about the news that when Bremer left he snuch out without saying anything (LA Times and NYT both). Interesting that while CNN was reporting this C-Span was broadcasting his farewell address to the Iraqi parliament. To this day LA Times has not admitted that they were wrong.
Given all that why should anyone put any faith in CNN. After all they even admitted that they made up stories while Saddam was there and hid the truth of what was going on. That happened before and the guy got a Pultizer and millions of Ukrainian kulaks died. The news head of CNN also had to admit that his story of reporters being targeted by the troops was fake as well. Remember also the faked photos that the media printed? That did so well for the support of our troops in the area. Tell me who that helped by printing obviously faked photos.
Post a Comment