Kevin Sites has a commentary up on his blog about the video he shot, the background of the events, and his justification for releasing the footage.
It’s a good read, and I suggest you go check it out.
It points out a subtle, but interesting thing to me.First, that there were two things he could have done with the tape. He could have informed an officer and released the tape to him to evaluate the soldier’s actions for potential prosecution.
But that would have implied that the military controlled the information flow, and that he – as a journalist – acknowledged that control.
Or he could have released them to his pool, as he did.
And he did that because to him – and in reality – the media are no longer subservient to the military, they are its peers (and some would say, its masters).
This connects with Tim Oren’s post below, in that the impact of an ‘information rich’ war is in part driven by the ability of an individual to shoot video, and distribute it widely around the world in essentially real time (a matter of days), quickly enough to drive responses to action within a decision cycle – something that would have been essentially impossible until this decade.
This changes things profoundly.
Control of information is important in two ways – operationally and strategically.
Operationally communication like two-way radios and cell phones make it possible for guerillas to communicate dynamically and to maintain an information-rich battlefield. I assume that our military is capable of and does jam the commercial frequencies (which is why the Fallouja guerillas were reduced to using signal flags).
Strategically, however, the impacts are much greater.
It’s hard to deliberately shape the perception of what’s going on when there is a relatively free flow of information from the battlefield.
And it’s harder when the two sides react in such different ways to what is shown.
I have to believe that jihadis – had the roles in the video been reversed, and a black-garbed guerilla (I use that term for our opponents in Fallouja because in this context, they are fighting against a military force – they are equally terrorists in other contexts) shot a wounded, disarmed Marine slumped against a wall – would have seen the images as an excuse to party.
One side cheers blood, the other shuns it. We love life, and they seek death.
The problem of course, is that we’re perfectly capable of cheering death.
We don’t in part because we turn away out of our acculturated politeness and in no small part because the gatekeepers of our media don’t want to show us the scenes that they know would inflame us.
The issue with that is, of course the notion that our will to win is the most important thing we bring to the fight.
We live in comfort, have the most lethal military in history, and so don’t need to want to win as badly as someone who is facing us from the other side.
But we still have to want to win. And the sad reality is that every time we see an image of one of our killing one of theirs – particularly if it isn’t ‘fair’, a little bit of that will leaks out.
We don’t know how to maintain morale in an information-rich war. We’re going to have to, because that’s what the future holds for us.
They took all the footage off my T.V.
Said it’s too disturbing for you and me
It’ll just breed anger that’s what the experts say
If it was up to me I’d show it everyday
Some say this country’s just out looking for a fight
After 9/11 man I’d have to say that’s right– Darryl Worley ‘Have you forgotten’
Not carrying a gun isn’t “disarmed”. Not for these raisin-seekers.
Refresh my memory. Have the insurgents/anti-liberationists EVER taken a live US soldier prisoner?
Question 1. Are the Press embeds not subject to military censorship?
1.a. If not why not? What possible excuse can there be for not subjecting them to censorship. This war is being fought on tv screens in living rooms all over the world. Material detrimental to the well being of our troops must be censored.
1.b.i. If it is subject to censorship and it cleared censorship. Why? What were the bozos who cleared it thinking. Why are they not all busted to buck private and put on latrine duty.
1.b.ii. If it is subject to censorship and it did not cleared censorship. What are the penaties for its release? and Why hasn’t Sites been taken into custody?
2. Regardless of the foregoing, conducting propaganda operations for the enemy in wartime is treason. Tokyo Rose was prosecuted and found guity. Ezra Pound copped an insanity plea. IMHO, Sites should be prosecuted for treason and so should the NBC execs who aided and abeted him. If they are found guilty, the death penatly would be appropriate to encourage the others.
AL,
Thanks for posting the link to Kevin’s blog. I read it and part of it lead me to write him an e-mail. Hopefully all the hate mail he may be receiving won’t drown it out, but I thought I’d share it (appologies for length):
Hi Kevin,
I read your blog post titled “Open Letter to Devil Dogs of the 3.1” after
reading an article about it at WindsofChange.net
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/005912.php and I wanted to thank you
for posting your account of events.
I’m sure you have more then enough people second guessing your decisions in the
matter, so I will skip my opinions on the matter. However, a section of what
you wrote brought home to me why, I think, you became such a lightning rod and
why it was so easy to assign sinister motives to your decisions. The quote I’m
refering to is:
“In war, as in life, there are plenty of opportunities to see the full spectrum
of good and evil that people are capable of. As journalists, it is our job is
to report both — though neither may be fully representative of those people on
whom we’re reporting. For example, acts of selfless heroism are likely to be as
unique to a group as the darker deeds.”
Here at home we’re only shown the darker deeds by the Main Stream Media (MSM).
We are constantly shown a reality where America abroad can do no good, where
our leaders are corrupt, where the American soldier is either incompetant and a
patsy, or a tool of oppression and looting of other countries, and where
believing in something greater then ourselves, whether it be a religion or this
grand country of ours, means we’re fools and sheep. We never see the selfless
heroism, the rebuilding of Iraq, the greatful children recieving boxes of toys
through the voluntary efforts of our soldiers, and the lives saved.
Since the MSM actively prevents the sort of transparency in themselves they
demand for themselves in other areas, this poisoned information taints
everybody associated with it. We have no way of knowing if the propaganda the
MSM is creating for us is a result of the editors and leaders here at home, or
if the rot extends to those who report in the field. In my opinion, it is
little accident that so many Americans came away with the wrong impression
after viewing the story from the MSM. This is also why you were so quickly villified for a story that has ambiguities in it. We’ve seen this spin delivered before and can’t tell where it is comming from.
I write this in the hope that you actually are one of those who have not been infected with the rot in the MSM, that you may become aware of why the American people are starting to turn against those entrusted with protecting us from the duplicity in others. The media’s job is not to tear down individuals and institutions in an effort to get the largest share of audience, its job is to inform us so that we can either deal with or praise those who deserve it, each according to their merits and flaws.
May you and those you travel with come home safely when the war is won. Let the Devil Dogs know we’re watching their backs at home while they fight for us abroad.
This whole incident has bothered me deeply, especially with the reaction of the pro-war bloggers.
The impression I’m getting is that these people thing the MSM should only show the news they agree with. They seem to believe the press should essentially act as a propaganda arm which will only show pictures of our brave troops in clean action, and then afterwards giving candy to Iraqi children. This shooting and Abu Gharib and other problems should be swept under the carpet, never to be mentioned.
And I find that very disturbing, especially from people who, in cases like the 60 Minutes fraud, otherwise clamor for honesty and openness.
#5
It’s not the report that makes me mad, it’s the propaganda that will be created and has been created from it. He should have turned it over to the Military unless he had a good reason to believe they would not investigate it. Right now all of are troops are being demonized around the world due to this video:
http://bigpharaoh.blogspot.com/
The American marine entered a mosque in Fallujah. A wounded Iraqi civilian saw him and started to beg “please don’t shoot, please don’t shoot”. The American raised his rifle then shot the guy. He then celebrated what he had just done with another marine.
If you asked any Egyptian about the NBC tape, he will tell you the above story. This is how the story evolved from the marine saying “he’s faking he is dead” to the “Iraqi civilian” begging “Please don’t shoot”. Almost no Egyptian saw the tape, but they will all tell you the above story. Thank you NBC.
That’s what pissing me off. You don’t give aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war! This video will get a bunch of people killed for sure.
Sorry about the italics. the 3ed paragraph is part of the quite. (Must remember to read instructions).
Quote, not quite! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Tough situation here. If you’re going to let journalists in with the troops, you have to expect them to publish what they see. If you keep the journalists out of combat, then they’re going to reduce coverage in favor of something more interesting to viewers. What you’ll end up with is little blurbs based on DOD press releases like, “A marine was killed today in Al Anbar province when his convoy came under attack.”
The alternative is for all journalists to become part of the pentagon’s news operation. But if they do that, what’s the point of having an independent media?
Dingo wrote:”The alternative is for all journalists to become part of the pentagon’s news operation. But if they do that, what’s the point of having an independent media?”
Comment: Independent? Sites wrote that he is trying to be not “left” or “right”. Left or right?! Of what? Too much realativism for me.
The real question: Where does the pentagon put its “independent” soldiers?. That camera is a weapon that costs American lives. Ask Nick Berg! (oops, I forgot, they killed him after seeing pictures of Abu Gr-b, so you can’t).
Independent? A camera?
Where do you point an independent weapon?
(The pit of Site’s stomach was the only target that concerned Sites)
G.M.
G.M.
Right, the pictures at AG killed Berg. Those guys were going to return Nick Berg safe and sound right up to the point the saw those pictures from AG, then BAM- they got angry. C’mon. Berg was dead the moment they kidnapped him.
And why would the pentagon have independent soldiers? They’re employed by the government to carry out government policy. Independent media are media sources whose content is not determined by government authority.
If you want all war news to be controlled by DOD, just say so. What’s the problem with saying that?
Kevin Sites clearly showed the tape/film to the military command before it was released to the pool. If it is vetted by the military command then all the concerns mentioned above and since the films release are somewhat moot as the military command took this into consideration. Two days to the news pool is a long time in this day and age.
I also don’t think many bloggers realize how MSM they’ve become. Almost all the blogs are funded by ads and universally available. If you don’t think we can pound an issue look at Talking Points Memo about House Republicans changing the rules for Tom DeLay or the Swift Boat People.
The issue of providing propaganda needs to be explored as well. The US government has many outlets to express its case. If everybody can agree it is not enough to stop the Jihadists/insurgents militarily that we must win the war for hearts and minds what can blogs do?
I have read Kevin Sites’ defense of his actions. He takes great pains to tell us how close he is to the troops, how much he feels the agony of their choices, even suggesting that he has saved their lives by warning of danger.
Yet I wonder if when Sites has published his book and started collecting royalties for his television appearances he will remember the dead and wounded Marines who made his journalistic glory possible. I wonder if he will donate the money he makes to helping the families of those who died?
Dan Rather makes millions as a network news anchor; we are frequently reminded that he earned his journalistic stripes “covering” Vietnam. Do you suppose he remembers the names of the grunts who died on the patrols he accompanied?
I have great respect for journalists who take risks on the battlefield and who get down and dirty; many have paid a high price. But please don’t kid us about why they do so. The combat correspondents of WWII had no expectations of becoming media stars; Kevin Sites’ rush for bylines and personal glory is a betrayal of this tradition.
Dingo wrote:”. . .C’mon. Berg was dead the moment they kidnapped him.”
I see my point escapes you. Yes, they probably would have killed him, but they used the op for a little propaganda, encouraging America’s enemy. Encouraged enemy kill people.
Sites knew these pics would not not be propaganda for the U.S. military: He knew which way the wind would blow.
Why would the pentagon want independant soldiers? They wouldn’t. But they have them when they finance rides and protection for embeds. Maybe they thought these embeds were Americans, but, if Sites is a sample, they walk the line between “left” and “right”. What country is that?
G.M.
Any kind of story that reflects poorly on the U.S. is going to be used as propaganda. As I said, if you don’t want that kind of information published, keep the media off the battlefield. The journos aren’t trained to be arms of the government, so it would be silly for them to act that way. Send somebody from DOD who can be trusted and who won’t feel the need to maintain any credibility as independent journalists.
What’s the problem with that?
Baloney, Kevin Sites still can’t figure out who he is – Ernie Pyle or Peter Arnett. Either way he depends on American troops for his safety while he wrestles with his conscience in ways only Shakespeare could explain clearly.
Do we want our media to be governed by the free market or governed by our government? If the free market, then of course we’ll have journalists chasing dollars. If the government, then we’ll be just like China.
Ain’t no such thing as a free lunch, here.
Right or Wrong?
It’s War
If somebody is shooting at me for days on end I would not react with all the Midwestern manners I was raised with. Hell No, I would have a very itchy trigger finger and not look back.
Kevin won’t be goin out there again. If he is contemplating it he should be thinking about the movie Platoon the parts where they discuss fraggin the Lieutenant.
AngryWM
A.L.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who has been wrestling with the moral implications that arise from this report. Originally I thought it would be best to just keep my personal thoughts and feeling about the situation to myself. Thought I was going to get away with too until A.L. posted this. Leaving aside the moral implications for a moment I’ll comment on some observations.
bq. _“And he did that because to him – and in reality – the media are no longer subservient to the military, they are its peers (and some would say, its masters).”_
The MSM is a peer of the military? I think not. Peers are classified in a host of ways. Age, knowledge, interests and job avocations to name a few. The MSM or any member therein is in no way the peer to a military member or organization in the context of how I read the statement. If the MSM were truly a peer they would be packing and shooting more than film and stills. The MSM is not subservient to the military in any manner nor is it the militaries master. To even suggest that this is a possibility one must consider the amount of influence the MSM has on any military endeavor. Let alone the amount of influence the military has on any MSM endeavor. This is a statement completely out of left field that has no relevance.
Then there is the statement from Kevin Sites.
A few things strike me as odd concerning his take on the situation because of his first hand personal knowledge and accounting for the fighting that took place a day earlier.
He notices all the wounded and some now dead were the same people that he encountered the previous day. Most lay exactly where they were when he left them the first time. He kneels beside two of the wounded to film what was yesterdays and now today’s events. (Possibly Kevin can’t believe his eyes when reality sets in that the wounded were soon forgotten about and most likely would have died anyway had they not returned today. Completely speculation on my part but feasible.)
Now Kevin’s interest is turned to a wounded enemy 15ft away as a young marine makes a decision and kills the enemy. (At this point Kevin can’t believe what he just witnessed especially since he was there yesterday and when he left with the troops he to acknowledged that these wounded posed no threat. Again speculation on my part.) This is something of course that escapes the young marine because he wasn’t there yesterday.
Now Kevin goes into a quandary about why the young marine shot the wounded man that is 15ft away from him but more or less inches if not a few feet away from the young marine. To make matters worse Kevin can’t understand why the young marine killed only that man and not the ones he was kneeling beside. Kevin does his research then speculates as to why the young marine may have done such a thing. He’s battle hardened, he’s been wounded, he’s lost his comrades on the battle field, he’s edgy, he’s tense, he knows what lifelessness and survival are and lives with them on a daily basis.
Kevin can’t believe the horrors he’s witnessed. As a journalist Kevin must tell _his_ story but he’s concerned about moral implications. Poppy cock. It was going to be reported regardless of military approval or not. Now to be honest that’s fine with me I don’t have a problem with it. The military isn’t going to intervene in the matter of him telling his story. Frankly the military sees the press as a damned if you do damned if you don’t situation. Which story is worse? Kevin either reports the story of censorship by the military or the one Kevin is determined to report which is the story of what he just witnessed.
Now I’ll try to answer Kevin’s question as to why the others were left alone and not bothered by the marine. Kevin was inches away from them. This young marine no doubt saw Kevin walk up to them and start filming. They posed no threat to Kevin therefore no threat to him which in my opinion is placing too much trust in Kevin. If anything his biggest blunder would be leaving them to Kevin as Kevin’s responsibility especially if they become combatant. Kevin is not a combatant and therefore can not be trusted to protect the life of the marine.
Speculation on my part concerning Kevin’s conundrum. He’ll never know if he could have done anything to avert the horror he witnessed. Kevin was absolutely certain none of these people were a threat because of forehand knowledge and Kevin did nothing to stop what transpired. Kevin was content in his belief that the wounded would be cared for after he left them there in that that state. Kevin in fact probably assumed even if they weren’t it wouldn’t ride on his conscious because certainly he wouldn’t be returning to find out. Kevin will sleep with that for the rest of his life. Some would say Kevin is just as much to blame for everything that transpired but even Kevin knows what happened yesterday doesn’t freeze in time. Everyday is fluid with new surprises and new findings to stumble upon an unchanged situation 24 hours later on the battlefield would be rare and uncommon.
USMC –
I’ve got to respectfully disagree with you when you say this:
Given that political willpower is a major force multiplier, the reality is that the cameras are as critical a weapon as M-4’s are. In fact, more so.
And as to banning journalists from the field? Forget it. In the modern age, remeber that everyone – jihadi or jailer – is taking pictures that will be on the Net in days, if not hours.
That’s the strategic problem we have to figure out how to solve.
A.L.
A.L.
Where I am having an issue here is with the your choice of the word peer. The MSM and the military are two separate entities. I don’t deny that the MSM has the ability to report military endeavors nor will I deny the MSM the right to do so.
For the MSM to be a peer the MSM must have control over military actions. One can argue all day long that the MSM may influence opinion on military actions but this does not control military actions. The MSM doesn’t decide who goes into a battle zone. The MSM doesn’t decide the choice or preference of weapons. The MSM doesn’t decide the tactics employed. The MSM doesn’t fight the war the MSM reports it. Given that, the MSM is not a peer of the military never has been never will be.
Is the MSM to be considered as a driving factor concerning the conduct war. It is only considered because we as a society let it voice its’ opinions and report on the matters at hand. If the military really wanted to they could kick out all imbedded reporters. Is it in their best interest to do so? That’s another debate for another time. Consider for a moment the imbedded reporters rely on the military component for their safety and well being. That said it is not unreasonable to think that in the event of disagreements between the military and imbedded reporters the military could certainly pull the safety net and leave the reporters to their own security measures. If in fact this were to happen there would certainly be more MSM fatalities than there currently are.
On a final note I’ll leave you with this thought. The military member has spent hours of training and dedication to the uniform that sets him apart from all other non-military members. That military member has earned the right to wear that uniform and be judged by his military peers. When every reporter in the MSM earns the right to wear that uniform then and only then will I consider the MSM my peer.
Sites wrote:
“In war as in life there are plenty of opportunities to see the full spectrum of good and evil that people are capable of . . . acts of selfless heroism are as likely to be unique to a group as the darker deeds.”
Comment: So where are the clips of the acts of heroism? Oh I forgot; Sites works for NBC, so I don’t suppose we’ll be seeing any of those.
Terrorism relies on the press. Terrorism, by definition, is a mind control process. Fear is the weapon.If MSM is too ignorant to understand when they are being used as a weapon, they should be limited.
Freedom is not used to preserve freedom. Remember rations in WW2, control of conversation (loose lips sink ships), and men who enslave themselves for their country (soldiers)? On the other hand Americans have the freedom to make such sacrifices. That is why soldiers are due such great honor; they willingly sacrifice their freedom (possibly their lives) to preserve freedom for others.
It seems the MSM isn’t willing to sacrifice their right to sensationalize news. The almighty dollar and political clout obviously are more important than soldier’s lives. They have the freedom to prefer the interest of America over money or world respect(and it doesn’t take a prophet to see the impact certain pictures will have). They are free to decide because of the many soldiers who enslaved themselves to preserve America’s freedom and system of government. Therefore, when they choose world respect, or money, over America’s speedy success, they deserve the great contempt I hold for them. Damn them to hell.
War isn’t a political science class where subtle concepts affect only the direction of civilization. War is right here, right now. People die here. American soldiers die because of the conscience or “stomach” of self centered philosophers. We have the freedom to do the right thing for our country, for America: Screw Site’s “left” or “right”.
USMC made good points. When Site’s life was in danger he did not hesitate to communicate (the ammunition cooking off) yet when he recognized the enemy, even after hearing the question asking if they had weapons, he didn’t bother to comment. Too busy setting up his camera to show the suffering enemy, I suppose.
If the enmy wins, killing continues .
If America prevails, the killing stops.
Pretty tough to decide which one the MSM prefers.
G.M.
Sites says he showed the tape of the killing to the Marines commanding officers and they didn’t seem to have any objections to him reporting it? So he sent it on through the newsfeed.
The MSM and democrats went beserk after finding out that Myers and Rumsfeld had asked Dan Rather to hold off on reporting the Abu Graib story for a little while longer. Immediately, the democrats start screaming that the Bush administration was trying to prevent CBS from breaking the prison abuse story because it would implicate Bush and Rumsfeld as the authors of the policy regarding the treatment of prisoners of war.
And of course without such specific orders from the White House, none of the soldiers who were implicated and actually charged with abusing the prisoners would’ve ever thought up abusing the POW’s by themselves. After months of constant harping and moaning by the liberal press and democrats in trying to create the evidence needed in order to bring down the president, only those 7 soldiers were involved. But it sure damaged the reputation of our troops and helped keep the world’s hatred toward our country and our president at a boiling point.
After that did Sites really think the military would dare ask him to not report it until after the investigation was completed?
How many damn years does a reporter have to cover wars before they can possibly get a fuckin’ clue?
I don’t even know why we bother having our MSM travel halfway around the world to embed with our troops when we could just use Al-Jazeera reporters and get basically the same kind of coverage? Neither of them support our mission in Iraq, but at least with Al-Jazeera’s reporters our troops know they’re not going to be given any favorable coverage. It’s understandable that it could be confusing to our troops when US reporters are with them.