Lawmaker outraged by sniper video on CNN

CNN crowing about the unvarnished truth is like the KKK talking smack about tolerance.

Eason Jordan willfully disregarded Saddam Hussein’s abuses of Iraqis and Kuwaitis so he could maintain the organization’s Baghdad bureau.

They did not play any of the Mohammed cartoons ever at any point on the air, despite the fact that people were dying because of them we were meant to guess what offended the rioters into such a rage that they had to kill people and burn buildings.

Unvarnished?

It’s awfully shiny for something without that coat on it.

Whatever it is, I think there’s a difference between reporting “Insurgent snipers attacked US forces today.” and “Insurgent snipers attacked US forces today. See? Here’s the exclusive video the insurgents supplied to us!” Do people today not know what snipers are? Is it really necessary to show the video?

Showing an enemy attack is not, however, giving aid and comfort. It’s not propoganda – it’s just what happened. And the fact that politicians don’t like it makes me think it’s about time journalists started doing their jobs.

Except that when CNN comes up with an excuse like the “unvarnished truth” one, I just have to laugh.

You make a good point about having to show both sides of the story. You also make a good point about “aid and comfort” being a ridiculous excuse to not show something.

there’s a difference between reporting “Insurgent snipers attacked US forces today.” and “Insurgent snipers attacked US forces today. See? Here’s the exclusive video the insurgents supplied to us!”

And that, in a nutshell is exactly what the problem I have with it is. They’re not running this video in a vacuum. They know the reaction it’s going to elicit from people. Just like they know the reaction the 9/11 footage will elicit. Just like they know the reaction the Mohammed cartoons would elicit, and just like they knew what reaction showing Saddam’s real abuses would elicit.

The problem is, after manipulating their footage to either suppress or create a reaction, they then come forward with their “unvarnished truth” line and it just appears stunningly disingenuine.

I don’t think all the media is a bunch of snivelling liars, however, I do think many (if not most) on the national level need to be spanked by their mommy for their pomposity.

That being said, Steven is 100% correct.

What’s the line from Springsteen’s box set? I’m not going to find the precise quote, but it was something along the lines of “If you grew up in the sixties, you grew up with war on tv every night. A war that your friends were involved in…”

It’s a war. Our boys and girls are getting shot and to have the video without acknowledging it would be a disservice. and irresponsible. After all, it wasn’t staged with Dustin Hoffman producing, it was real. This fact alone makes it news..

The fact is, it WAS staged video…staged by the insurgents. If a network didn’t show it, it would end up on some jihadist website as a recruiting tool.
I guess I shoudn’t be that surprised that the same folks who (justifiably) sneer at any news outlet running VNR’s from the Bush administration would (unjustifiably) cheer running a piece of propaganda that was not shot by CNN photogs. And yes, despite the different stakes involved, the concept is the same: airing video produced by a biased source.
The beheading of Daniel Pearl was “the unvarnished truth” too…will we see that on AC 360 next? Who gets to make the call to Marianne Pearl?
Does dislike of this president and his war policy within the media have to trump news judgment? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

Ah! An interesting thesis put forward by Gerry: “it WAS staged video… staged by the insurgents.”

OK – so define “staged.” They planned the attack, and they obviously planned to tape it. Having said that, we embed journalists. We plan attacks, and our reporters plan coverage.

So I ask – what do we mean here by “staged?” A “staged” protest is one thing. “Hey – the networks are here! Let’s run out quickly with signs and throw rocks!” That’s staged. But an attack on troops that you videotape? I’m not sure I buy the argument that qualifies as “staged” so much as documented for their own purposes.

Good, good subject for debate, though.

News reporters are not sent to the battleground to root for the home team. They are sent, at risk of their own lives, to catelogue the truth of whatever action they perceive. Their actions are aimed at revealing what is really happening taking place. If they report only on what havoc we reap on the enemy, and show nothing of the enemy’s response, we’re not doing news, we’re just doing propoganda!

I guess I don’t see any difference between this and video of US troops shooting at Iraqis. I remember seeing quite a lot of that during that Fallujah business.

But, I’m not in the news or the jingoism business. I’m just a regular civilian.

Excellent. So now – and I’m especially interested in Prof. Adler’s POV – there is a difference between video shot by a journalist and video shot by a soldier.

I’d argue we would have no problem running video shot by a US soldier. Therefore, the same rules should apply to an insurgent.

Discreet Chaos is right. We should not be crying “propaganda” lightly. We ran plenty of video shot by the US military. The same rules should apply. We’re not here to chose sides.

Ten years ago we wouldnt have given a rat’s tail what was put on the news. BUT like everything else, politics has taken over everything. I say so what cnn aired the video. Now start worrying about more important things.

I just viewed those unbeliveable video’s that CNN so proudly describes as “exclusive”. CNN’s attempt to bring us the “unvarnished truth” by showing our soldiers being sniped at by terrorists in Iraq.
As I watched those videos in total anguish and cursed them (cnn) for being so crude and disrespectful towards American soldiers, the bigger picture appeared to me. The BIGGER picture that appeared is the one, they claim, they can’t show us….the one, they claim, that doesn’t exist. That picture that appeared through the view of that snipers rifle is the one of our soldiers walking and talking with and helping Iraqi’s. I saw a city full of life …cars and trucks in the streets…people moving around….American soldiers walking and talking with average Iraqi civilians. We were told that wasn’t so…we were told, by CNN, that that didn’t exist…..that these people hated us…they wanted us out. How could this be?
Why isn’t the story about the positive side I just described? And instead about the one rotten cowardly terrorist that has to hide in order to achieve his goal. A goal he almost failed because the American soldier was around too many civilians!
Well all I can say is Thank you CNN, Thank you for finally showing us the truth about Iraq.

I spent a year in Baghdad on a ‘forced sabbatical’ from my TV web news publishing position to serve as an infantry squad leader in Baghdad with the Army Guard.

As a former Marine and National Guardsman, the video scared the hell outta me. You never know what dangers you face out there until the world was blowing up around you. Having been there, it was hard to watch because those few seconds encapsulating how insurgents were sniping American forces could have been any day on any patrol anywhere. It could have been their first patrol in-country or their last one before rotating home. It was hard because those soldiers went out on patrol the next day, and the day after that and so on regardless of the insurgents waiting for them outside the wire. One of your guys gets hit, you go back to base, cry, smoke some cigarettes, hold a memorial and then clean your rifle and prepare for the next combat patrol, waiting for it to happen all over again.

As a journalist, I appreciate the fact that the video was aired. People need to see the consequences of war from all perspectives.

There are times when people need to see what’s going on out there and this is one of those times. Many people who post on this board – thankfully – haven’t faced the horrors of war firsthand. Many people, including some lawmakers, are outraged that a few seconds of B-Roll provided by the ‘other side’ ended up getting put on CNN. Good because they should be. They should be and realize that those 30 seconds of video represented 30 seconds of 12 months of time that American troops are dealing with during their tours in-country.

People also need to realize that this video is no different than a two-star standing at a podium at CENTCOM showing reporters antiseptic smart bomb footage as the Air Force plasters Zarqawi’s place or Saddam’s bunker. The only difference is that while Americans are seemingly enthralled at seeing smart bombs drop on evildoer lairs they are equally disgusted with insurgents blowing up Humvees on home video.

I only have one thing to say. I am on the side of America, and anyone like CNN who tries to break the spirit of the American people by showing this video is a low life. I too, was a soldier in the US Army, I didn’t see combat but I have friends over there now and as much as I want them home I understand why they are there. Every country shows it’s people the triumphs of it’s soldiers in battle, like the al zarquiwi video, but every country doesn’t give equal time to the enemy because we are not supposed to be on their side, we are supposed to be on our countries side. The whole arguement is bogus because no one in their right mind should show video taken by the enemy on the public air waves period. Scream free speech all you want, but with those rights comes responsiblities, but no one seems to care about the responsiblities anymore. I have a right to do a lot of things, but I don’t because I know my actions could cause someone else pain or displeasure. Just ask the soldiers family that was killed it they think that video was news worthy!

There may be some news organizations that wrap themselves in a flag, but CNN belongs to the world and they should not be seen as taking a side. If they go too far, they’d lose credibility in some far corner of the globe, where the other networks don’t reach. This situation may be changing and some in Atlanta might forget it, but CNN is the light that can shine in the dark corners and by remaining non-biased, they represent freedom to suppressed people everywhere.

Anyone with any real degree of understanding of the war won’t be using this “two sides” bullshit. It’s a pathetically deluded fantasy, not too different from the one that says America has sunk so low since she gave up slavery.

The war I’m concerned with is the one with, on one side – Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush Sr., the think tanks that trained them, Saddam Hussein and his CIA buddies, Al-Queida the US-created organization, fanatical Muslims, fanatical Christians, fanatical slavers i.e. property-rights-fanatics, and the multinational oil companies – and on the other side, the Constitution and legitimate government of the USA, the once-upon-a-time-first-world Afghanistan, all the people of the Middle East, the world’s ecology, America’s natural resources, the majority of Muslims worldwide, the majority of Americans, and the rest of the species on the planet, especially the more sentient ones.

It’s not that I won’t be watching CNN again – it’s that I NEVER watched them and never trusted them from day one.

Most Vietnamese were pretty realistic about Americans – the good and smart ones never went to Vietnam, and the ones that went were nearly all part of a killing machine that wanted Vietnam’s whole culture. They welcomed the US after the war just like the South welcomed carpetbaggers, and for the same reasons. The Vietnamese were fighting to not be exploited – they weren’t fighting over who they wanted to exploit them.

Wow, thanks for the excellent information!