|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights : International Relations : Iraq : Media |
|
US Military 'Pressuring' Journalists |
Current rating: 0 |
by Patrick Barrett
(No verified email address) |
14 Apr 2004
|
The US marine commander in charge of Falluja has said the majority of the estimated 600 people killed in the four-day conflict were legitimate targets, saying, "95% of those were military age males that were killed in the fighting". However al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya have repeatedly shown pictures of women and children among the dead and injured.
In a statement the TV channel said the US military was putting "unjustified pressure on the media".
"Al-Jazeera rejects these accusations and considers them a threat to the right of the media to cover the reality in Iraq amid a difficult and complex situation on the ground." |
The US military has been accused of threatening the media covering the conflict in Iraq and pressuring journalists into presenting a one-sided picture of events.
Al-Jazeera, the Arab TV channel, made the accusations after a US army spokesman, Brigadier General Kimmitt, accused the station and the Dubai-based al-Arabiya news channel, of taking an "anti-coalition" stance in their reporting.
The already fractious relationship between the US military in Iraq and Arab media has been made more difficult by pictures of wounded civilians within the besieged town of Falluja. The American administration in Iraq accused al-Jazeera of exaggerating the number of civilian casualties and helping to boost anti-coalition sentiment.
The US marine commander in charge of Falluja has said the majority of the estimated 600 people killed in the four-day conflict were legitimate targets, saying, "95% of those were military age males that were killed in the fighting". However al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya have repeatedly shown pictures of women and children among the dead and injured.
In a statement the TV channel said the US military was putting "unjustified pressure on the media".
"Al-Jazeera rejects these accusations and considers them a threat to the right of the media to cover the reality in Iraq amid a difficult and complex situation on the ground."
Al-Jazeera's accusations follow suggestions that US soldiers fired on a reporting team from the station based in Falluja and had made the removal of al-Jazeera's crew from the town one of its terms for a ceasefire with the rebels.
A spokesman added that the station felt compelled to make it clear to viewers that it was broadcasting an unbiased account of events in Iraq.
"We felt it was a grave accusation and wanted to set the record straight. Al-Jazeera is determined to maintain its professional integrity and reporting in a balanced way," he said.
Al-Jazeera's claims come amid increasing concern that the mounting dangers facing western journalists in Iraq could mean the end of independent reporting from the country.
'We will not operate outside Baghdad'
James Hider, a Times reporter who is embedded with US Marines near the front line outside Falluja, said the threat of kidnapping had become so acute that the majority of western journalists were no longer venturing beyond Baghdad.
"It was very serious even before the current situation, but for the past month it has got much worse. The kidnappings and shooting are coming thick and fast.
"We've more or less decided not to operate outside Baghdad. A lot of pretty seasoned war correspondents have decided it's not worth the risk," Hider told MediaGuardian.co.uk.
Hider, whose colleague Stephen Farrell was kidnapped and eventually released last week, said the only way he and a group of other western media personnel had made it to Falluja was on heavily armed US helicopter gunships.
Francis Harris, the deputy foreign news editor at the Daily Telegraph, said the situation in Iraq could get to the stage where the paper would consider withdrawing its reporters.
"It could come to that. What would trigger an exodus is something bad happening to a British journalist.
"If that happens you'd get to a situation like Beirut in the 1980s, when everybody left except a hardened few."
'If bandits are after cash you are in real trouble'
Hider said the journalists who were most at risk of kidnapping were those with little experience of the country or those who were on short-term visits.
"A lot of people come in on short-term visits and pick up drivers and translators not knowing who they are. There have been a few kidnappings that have had the look of inside jobs. So we work with a trusted pool of drivers and translators."
In spite of the increasingly serious situation in Iraq, Hider said he believed the western press would stay even if journalists were restricted to Baghdad and the Palestine Hotel, which is being used as a base by most foreign journalists in the country.
"The Palestine Hotel is pretty much unassailable. It's unlikely journalists would be driven out, it's just that then the danger is that you couldn't get the story."
He said the real threat to journalists came from bands of Iraqi insurgents unconnected with the main resistance group.
"The level of danger depends on who you get kidnapped by. If it's the hard core resistance, they are fairly disciplined and want journalists to come in and see what the US is doing. If you get taken by some dodgy group that's little more than a group of bandits that have decided to join up with the resistance movement or are after cash, then you are in real trouble."
Movement of British journalists restricted
The Daily Telegraph currently has its staff reporter, David Blair, and freelance stringer, Jack Fairweather, on the ground in Baghdad, but Harris said their movements were being hampered by the growing danger from kidnappers and resistance fighters outside the capital.
"It has greatly limited their ability to travel outside Baghdad.
"They are being considerably more cautious than they were before this trouble began. But inevitably in order to do the job, they need to talk to people. It's never been the policy of this paper or any other British paper to have reporters go around in forests of guns to guarantee their security," he said.
"If it becomes too dangerous you end up with journalists locked up in secure zones interviewing each other and relying on the authorities for information," he said.
Over the past week, as well as Farrell, a French journalist, two Japanese and two Czech journalists have been kidnapped along with a growing number of foreign contract workers.
Hider said most experienced journalists had been using ordinary Iraqi cars and were accompanied by a trusted driver and translator when venturing around Baghdad or to other towns.
But even with extra precautions such as tinted windows and disguises, Hider said traveling on the roads to key areas such as Najaf and Kut was now deemed too dangerous by most journalists.
On his last drive outside of Baghdad - to Najaf - Hider said he and his colleagues had had to run the gauntlet of burning vehicles and shooting on either side of the road.
"The danger has been being mistaken for a contractor. The number one rule is, don't be driven around in a big white 4x4 like the ones used by contractors, because they are basically bullet magnets."
© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
http://media.guardian.co.uk |
Related stories on this site:
A Call for an Exit Door from Iraq
A Tangled Web of Lies about Iraq
Iraq revolt: Tactics of diversion
Report from Fallujah -- Destroying a Town in Order to Save it
Defiant US says Falluja Dead Were Rebels -- Hospital Reports They Were Mostly Women and Children
|
Copyright by the author. All rights reserved. |
|
Media and Falloojeh |
by river
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Apr 2004
|
There has been a lot of criticism about the way Al-Arabia and Al-Jazeera were covering the riots and fighting in Falloojeh and the south this last week. Some American spokesman for the military was ranting about the "spread of anti-Americanism" through networks like the abovementioned.
Actually, both networks did a phenomenal job of covering the attacks on Falloojeh and the southern provinces. Al-Jazeera had their reporter literally embedded in the middle of the chaos- and I don't mean the lame embedded western journalists type of thing they had going at the beginning of the war (you know- embedded in the Green Zone and embedded in Kuwait, etc.). Ahmed Mansur, I believe his name was, was actually standing there, in the middle of the bombing, shouting to be heard over the F-16s and helicopters blasting away at houses and buildings. It brought back the days of 'shock and awe'...
I know it bothers the CPA terribly to have the corpses of dead Iraqis shown on television. They would love for Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia to follow Al-Hurra's example and show endless interviews with pro-occupation Iraqis living abroad and speaking in stilted Arabic. These interviews, of course, are interspersed with translated documentaries on the many marvels of... Hollywood. And while I, personally, am very interested in the custom leather interiors of the latest Audi, I couldn't seem to draw myself away from Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia while 700+ Iraqis were being killed.
To lessen the feelings of anti-Americanism, might I make a few suggestions? Stop the collective punishment. When Mark Kimmett stutters through a press conference babbling about "precision weapons" and "military targets" in Falloojeh, who is he kidding? Falloojeh is a small city made up of low, simple houses, little shops and mosques. Is he implying that the 600 civilians who died during the bombing and the thousands injured and maimed were all "insurgents"? Are houses, shops and mosques now military targets?
What I'm trying to say is that we don't need news networks to make us angry or frustrated. All you need to do is talk to one of the Falloojeh refugees making their way tentatively into Baghdad; look at the tear-stained faces, the eyes glazed over with something like shock. In our neighborhood alone there are at least 4 families from Falloojeh who have come to stay with family and friends in Baghdad. The stories they tell are terrible and grim and it's hard to believe that they've gone through so much.
I think western news networks are far too tame. They show the Hollywood version of war- strong troops in uniform, hostile Iraqis being captured and made to face "justice" and the White House turkey posing with the Thanksgiving turkey... which is just fine. But what about the destruction that comes with war and occupation? What about the death? I don't mean just the images of dead Iraqis scattered all over, but dead Americans too. People should *have* to see those images. Why is it not ok to show dead Iraqis and American troops in Iraq, but it's fine to show the catastrophe of September 11 over and over again? I wish every person who emails me supporting the war, safe behind their computer, secure in their narrow mind and fixed views, could actually come and experience the war live. I wish they could spend just 24 hours in Baghdad today and hear Mark Kimmett talk about the death of 700 "insurgents" like it was a proud day for Americans everywhere...
Still, when I hear talk about "anti-Americanism" it angers me. Why does American identify itself with its military and government? Why is does being anti-Bush and anti-occupation have to mean that a person is anti-American? We watch American movies, listen to everything from Britney Spears to Nirvana and refer to every single brown, fizzy drink as "Pepsi".
I hate American foreign policy and its constant meddling in the region... I hate American tanks in Baghdad and American soldiers on our streets and in our homes on occasion... why does that mean that I hate America and Americans? Are tanks, troops and violence the only face of America? If the Pentagon, Department of Defense and Condi are "America", then yes- I hate America.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ |
