Wednesday, April 06, 2005
What the f**k? What do they think reporters do?
I was trawling through the blogsphere when a story about some controversy over a photograph came to my attention. The current incarnation of the controversy is just a flareup of an earlier flame triggered by the fact the picture has just won a pulitizer. The original complaint can be found on powerline.
If you read this article you will notice an implicit understanding that Journalist exist to serve the interest of the establishment. This journalist should not have developed contacts with one of the warring sides in a conflict. Should not because the establishment is fighting a war against these people, and the wrong sort of information will undermine the support for war.
On the other hand I believe that journalist should serve the publics need for information. Information that allows the public, the people to make decisions about their nation. Democracy can only function if the public makes something that resembles an informed decision. Hinderaker is obviously not interested in having an informed public. What the public sees is must controlled if the powerline boys are going to get/keep power. If the public gets a good look at the war then well they might just do what all decent people do when confronted by barbarism, be repulsed by it. Not more support for military adventures. no more empire.
Jax
We have written a couple of times about the accusations of complicity with terrorists in Iraq which were made recently by Belmont Club and others. The issue relates to the shocking photo, recently published by the AP, showing three terrorists in the act of murdering two Iraqi election workers on a street during daylight. The photographer was obviously within a few yards of the scene of the murder, which raises obvious questions, such as 1) what was the photographer doing there; did he have advance knowledge of the crime, or was he even accompanying the terrorists? and 2) why did the photographer apparently have no fear of the terrorists, or conversely, why were the terrorists evidently unconcerned about being photographed in the commission of a murder?
Salon printed a defense of the AP (and an attack on conservative bloggers) that included this anonymous comment from an AP spokesman:
A source at the Associated Press knowledgeable about the events covered in Baghdad on Sunday told Salon that accusations that the photographer was aware of the militants' plans are "ridiculous." The photographer, whose identity the AP is withholding due to safety concerns, was likely "tipped off to a demonstration that was supposed to take place on Haifa Street," said the AP source, who was not at liberty to comment by name. But the photographer "definitely would not have had foreknowledge" of a violent event like an execution, the source said.
So the AP admitted that its photographer was "tipped off" by the terrorists. The only quibble asserted by the AP was that the photographer expected only a "demonstration," not a murder. So the terrorists wanted to be photographed carrying out the murder, to sow more terror in Iraq and to demoralize American voters. That's why they tipped off the photographer, and that's why they dragged the two election workers from their car, so they could be shot in front of the AP's obliging camera. And the AP was happy to cooperate with the terrorists in all respects. We'd like to ask some more questions of the photographer, of course, but that's impossible since the AP won't identify him because of "safety concerns." Really? Who would endanger his safety?
The terrorists? They could have shot him on Sunday if they were unhappy about having their picture taken. But they weren't, which is why they "tipped off" the photographer. Belmont Club responded to the Salon defense here, in a post we linked to a day or two ago.
Now there's more: Jim Romanesko got an email from another AP spokesman, this time Jack Stokes, the AP's director of media relations. Here it is:
Several brave Iraqi photographers work for The Associated Press in places that only Iraqis can cover. Many are covering the communities they live in where family and tribal relations give them access that would not be available to Western photographers, or even Iraqi photographers who are not from the area.
Insurgents want their stories told as much as other people and some are willing to let Iraqi photographers take their pictures. It's important to note, though, that the photographers are not "embedded" with the insurgents. They do not have to swear allegiance or otherwise join up philosophically with them just to take their pictures.
That makes the admission pretty well complete, I think. The AP is using photographers who have relationships with the terrorists; this is for the purpose of helping to tell the terrorists' "stories." The photographers don't have to swear allegiance to the terrorists--gosh, that's reassuring--but they have "family and tribal relations" with them. And they aren't embedded--I'm not sure I believe that--but they don't need to be either, since the terrorists tip them off when they are about to commit an act that they want filmed.
Am I missing something, or has the AP now admitted everything it was charged with by Wretchard?
If you read this article you will notice an implicit understanding that Journalist exist to serve the interest of the establishment. This journalist should not have developed contacts with one of the warring sides in a conflict. Should not because the establishment is fighting a war against these people, and the wrong sort of information will undermine the support for war.
On the other hand I believe that journalist should serve the publics need for information. Information that allows the public, the people to make decisions about their nation. Democracy can only function if the public makes something that resembles an informed decision. Hinderaker is obviously not interested in having an informed public. What the public sees is must controlled if the powerline boys are going to get/keep power. If the public gets a good look at the war then well they might just do what all decent people do when confronted by barbarism, be repulsed by it. Not more support for military adventures. no more empire.
Jax
We have written a couple of times about the accusations of complicity with terrorists in Iraq which were made recently by Belmont Club and others. The issue relates to the shocking photo, recently published by the AP, showing three terrorists in the act of murdering two Iraqi election workers on a street during daylight. The photographer was obviously within a few yards of the scene of the murder, which raises obvious questions, such as 1) what was the photographer doing there; did he have advance knowledge of the crime, or was he even accompanying the terrorists? and 2) why did the photographer apparently have no fear of the terrorists, or conversely, why were the terrorists evidently unconcerned about being photographed in the commission of a murder?
Salon printed a defense of the AP (and an attack on conservative bloggers) that included this anonymous comment from an AP spokesman:
A source at the Associated Press knowledgeable about the events covered in Baghdad on Sunday told Salon that accusations that the photographer was aware of the militants' plans are "ridiculous." The photographer, whose identity the AP is withholding due to safety concerns, was likely "tipped off to a demonstration that was supposed to take place on Haifa Street," said the AP source, who was not at liberty to comment by name. But the photographer "definitely would not have had foreknowledge" of a violent event like an execution, the source said.
So the AP admitted that its photographer was "tipped off" by the terrorists. The only quibble asserted by the AP was that the photographer expected only a "demonstration," not a murder. So the terrorists wanted to be photographed carrying out the murder, to sow more terror in Iraq and to demoralize American voters. That's why they tipped off the photographer, and that's why they dragged the two election workers from their car, so they could be shot in front of the AP's obliging camera. And the AP was happy to cooperate with the terrorists in all respects. We'd like to ask some more questions of the photographer, of course, but that's impossible since the AP won't identify him because of "safety concerns." Really? Who would endanger his safety?
The terrorists? They could have shot him on Sunday if they were unhappy about having their picture taken. But they weren't, which is why they "tipped off" the photographer. Belmont Club responded to the Salon defense here, in a post we linked to a day or two ago.
Now there's more: Jim Romanesko got an email from another AP spokesman, this time Jack Stokes, the AP's director of media relations. Here it is:
Several brave Iraqi photographers work for The Associated Press in places that only Iraqis can cover. Many are covering the communities they live in where family and tribal relations give them access that would not be available to Western photographers, or even Iraqi photographers who are not from the area.
Insurgents want their stories told as much as other people and some are willing to let Iraqi photographers take their pictures. It's important to note, though, that the photographers are not "embedded" with the insurgents. They do not have to swear allegiance or otherwise join up philosophically with them just to take their pictures.
That makes the admission pretty well complete, I think. The AP is using photographers who have relationships with the terrorists; this is for the purpose of helping to tell the terrorists' "stories." The photographers don't have to swear allegiance to the terrorists--gosh, that's reassuring--but they have "family and tribal relations" with them. And they aren't embedded--I'm not sure I believe that--but they don't need to be either, since the terrorists tip them off when they are about to commit an act that they want filmed.
Am I missing something, or has the AP now admitted everything it was charged with by Wretchard?
