Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage

What does "and Geraldo Rivera was sent from Afghanistan after drawing a crude map in the sand, possibly revealing troop movements on air." mean? I thought he was in Iraq! Tompagenet 00:04 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Don't know why Iraq was changed to Afghanistan.. I changed it back. Question: Was any embedded journalist killed by enemy fire? Towards the end of the war, I remember hearing that there hadn't been any - but I can't remember if any were killed after that.

the casualties of journalists being surprisingly low is really a personal position.

the death of a reporter after the war has little to do here

I see not why American news would be "reported" when non-us news "claim". In particular, when there are pictures supporting these reports.

Well, that’s why I was asking if ANY embedded journalist was killed. I'm thinking that none were- but I wanted to verify that before I said it. That is why I said "surprisingly low".

But low means little. Some think it is high as soon as there is one death...

True. I intended to change it once I had verification of the question I posted above... I think it was actually zero casualties among embedded journalists which would be surprisingly low by anyone’s standards.

ok

death after the war.. who? The war's still going on. There’s a firefight in Baghdad *right now*.

ok. But, why does it have to be there ? Why would the blood clog be necessary related to war ?

Because listing him with casualties implies that he was a casualty of combat. He wasn't. Someone else listed him and conveniently left out how and why he died.

fair

Because that claim is is unverified and a bit silly. I haven't seen anyone else report the same thing. The fall of the statue was reported by everyone - even Arab TV. It happened exactly the way it was seen live on television. What the French media is claiming has not been supported by anyone else. Even Al-Jazeera hasn't supported that to my knowledge.

So the best way to do is to say what is reported on French TV is necessarily wrong and silly. Of course. The fact the place was empty is not silly, there are some pictures, and I put some links to support this. It was also supported by British.

No, not necessarily. But in this case, yes, it is silly. I watched it happen. Live. There was no way this was staged.. It took all morning to knock that statue down.. if it was staged they would have done it within minutes. If it was staged - there probably would have been larger crowds. If it was staged there would have been more "PR" shots of Iraqis waving US flags and stuff like that. Until its supported by a larger number of media organizations or until a memo is found telling US troops "Hey, lets stage a media event around the statue in Baghdad" or until an out of work Iraqi actor comes forward and says I was paid $5 to tear the sta

I think you are misconsidering propaganda cleverness :-) Some says too much info kills info. But, right, let's keep claim. French media showed pictures of the near-empty place, and two pictures are showing the same guy in two different places at 3 days intervals. One of this place being the statue place. I sure hope for him he received more than 5 bucks *if* it was really him both times, and *if* it was not just one of these rare and surprising events which make the salt of life.

often questioning and refusing to believe reports coming from Coalition sources while reporting Iraqi claims of civilian casualties without independent verification. need sources for "often"

Just watch non-US TV. It’s all over non-US TV - especially Arab TV.

If it is all over TV, I am sure it is also all over the net. So, please provide a link.

Other wiki contributors have already done that for me. Just look at some of the other Iraq war articles.

please which articles ?

---

Why remove the reason the British navy removed the BBC from their ship? Why remove that David Bloom died of a blood clot?

please explain to me where the interest of the death of Mr. Bloom is in this article

I don't know. I didn't add him. I only added why and how he died. See above.

Saying there were high casualties among journalists is a POV. There were only a few.. its surprising there weren't more.

agreed, both sentences are POV

Agreed.

---

Removed anchor quotes:

For example:

Anchor Neal Cavuto said of those "who opposed the liberation of Iraq": "You were sickening then, you are sickening now." Anchor John Gibson said he hoped "the dopey old U.N." would not be responsible for Iraq's reconstruction A correspondent called anti-war protestors "the great unwashed" Other networks had strongly pro-war commentators, including MSNBC. For example:

"They are absolutely committing sedition, or treason." "These leftist stooges for anti-American causes are always given a free pass. Isn't it time to make them stand up and be counted for their views?" --exchange between commentator Michael Savage and Joe Scarborough on Savage's MSNBC talk show

The reason: All of these networks have strongly pro-war and strongly anti-war commentators and anchors. Why pick out the quotes of a few for this article? I can name as many people on some of these networks that were very clearly against the war as I can people that were for it.

If you can find quotations from strongly anti-war commentators and anchors, then I'll believe the claim. --The Cunctator

Not sure how relevant this is, but I think Fox literally did some flag waving at one point http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/131964.asp. --erzengel 1540 UTC - 23 Apr 2003

I don't deny that Fox in particular leans to the right and was certainly "patriotic" in their coverage - but where do we draw the line with these quotes? There are dozens of liberal commentators and anchors on that channel and MSNBC that were against the war. Why include quotes from either? Another point is, there were certain media outlets that were decidedly against the war - do we include a bunch of quotes from them too? Where does it end? Pretty soon this page is gonna be filled with quotes from journalists.

re: the statement "don't delete content just because you don't like it" - you've been doing that to me for weeks. You don't own this article any more than I do.. if you can do it to me, I can do it to you.

A few other things. Iraqi citizens attempted to topple the statue themselves for hours before requesting help from a US tank. Stop deleting that. The deaths of the journalists was accidental unless you can prove that the US targeted journalists. Stop deleting that. Tanks were clearly visible in the images of the statue - why point out that they weren't? Stop deleting my addition at the top about viewers being able to watch major events in the war.. its true, and its historic. This is the only war that has ever happened where home viewers were able to see this sort of thing. Your views of Fox are opinion, stop deleting my attempt to NPOV it (meaning make it from a neutral point of view). The comments about the Iraqi citizens being seen in multiple locations is a claim - it has not been verified - besides the fact that it is completely meaningless.

The entry never said that the U.S. fire was intentional; you kept on changing "death by U.S. fire" to "death possibly by U.S. fire". That's entirely different. I've been deleting suppositions that may or may not be true. For example, we *know* that a U.S. tank pulled down the statue, because we have the video of it. It was an action. Do we *know* that Iraqis *tried* to pull it down then asked the U.S. for help? It's a lot harder to know what people *try* to do. Only actual events are confirmable, not attempts. For example, we *know* the U.S. has not found WMD. We don't know *why*. We know what the military has claimed, but those claims should be taken with a grain of salt and have little historical significance. Only the finding or not of WMD will matter.

If you dislike my characterization of the Fox News quotes, then you shouldn't delete the quotes. Leave them in and let the reader decide. --The Cunctator 03:03 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Originally, I believe it read that the "U.S. fired on journalists". I recently changed the "death by U.S. fire" to "accidental death by U.S. fire" and that was deleted as well - not by you, but by the other person that keeps deleting everything I add. The reason I added "possibly by U.S. fire" was because the Guardian did a story a week or so ago interviewing some of the reporters that were in or near that building - some of them said that they did not think it was a U.S. tank because the U.S. tank would have had to shoot around a corner to hit the spot that was hit.

We do *know* that Iraqis *tried* to pull the statue down first... I watched it live. The Iraqis were beating on the statue with a sledge hammer and trying to pull it down with a rope hours before the U.S. tank came in and did it for them. I saw live interviews with Marines watching the Iraqis do this.. they were seated off to the side watching them knocking holes in the base of the statue.

re: media quotes - its silly. There are millions of newspapers, magazines and networks that reported on the war. Some were pro-war, some were anti-war, some were anti-US, or pro-US, some were focused on what celebrities say about the war, some were focused on what former military people say about the war.. why single out a handful of quotes to include in the article? You can find pro-war quotes from any newspaper or any network. You can find anti-war quotes from any newspaper or any network. If we start adding quotes the page is gonna be huge. Where do we stop? Someone will add what Barbara Streisand said.. someone else will add what Rush Limbaugh said.. someone will add what the Dixie Chicks said, etc, etc, etc... if it was possible to include a few quotes and represent all media coverage of the war I'd be fine with it, but as it is we're only representing one little tiny portion of two little networks. You're using these quotes to suggest that everyone at MSNBC was for the war? What about Donahue? What about the endless coverage of anti-war protests, the anti-war celebrities, etc.?

There are not millions of networks that reported on the war. There are about 5. Fox News was the most popular cable network. MSNBC fired Donahue (remember?) and replaced him with the incendiary right-winger (oops, I mean "controversially conservative") Michael Savage. Find the anti-war quotes by the employees of these (or any of the) networks, and I'll start respecting your claims. The anti-war celebrities are not members of the press, as Fox anchors and correspondents are.--The Cunctator 17:31 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Donahue was still around early on, I remember watching his show (or him on another show) talking about the war. I (unlike you apprently) do not take notes when I'm watching the news and I do not have easy access to a website full of anti-Iraq-war quotes from journalists (as far as I know) - otherwise I'd provide you with a list. I'll look around when I have time and see if I can come up with some.

I can however, right off the top of my head, name (or at least as close as possible) some Fox anchors/commentators that were/are against the Iraq war... Juan Williams, that black haired lady (Mara something?), Mort Kondrake or whatever his name is, Alan Colmes or however you spell it, and others that I can only picture the faces of. The point is, no network was 100% one way or the other.. including only a handful of quotes from selected journalists and/or commentators is 1)making those journalists more important than they should be, and 2) misleading, 3) being way too specific with an article about all media coverage of a topic.

In addition to that, you cannot describe the coverage of any channel based on the statements of a few.. Fox, MSNBC and other networks also gave countless hours of airtime to Democrat senators and congressmen giving their anti-Iraq-war opinions, anti-war rallies, anti-war celebrities, protests, etc, etc.

Secondly, I said millions of newspapers, magazines and networks that reported on the war - not networks alone. This is about "Media coverage" not just cable news coverage.

---

"The images of the statue falling came as a shock to many Arab viewers who had been led to believe that Iraq was winning the war."

eh? I thought most Arab viewers were shocked by the lack of support and rapid collapse of the regime. --erzengel 1540 UTC - 23 Apr 2003

---

Who is "Robert Entman"? Why should any weight be attached to his views? -- 217.24.129.50[?] 15:51 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

He is an American professor in communication in the University of North Carolina in the US. Authored several books. His next book to publish is "Projections of Power : Framing News, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy ", which is said to analyze impact of medias on foreign politics. I think typing his name in google will give you any further indication of why any weight could be attached to his views. On the first 10 hits, I found http://www.ncsu.edu/chass/communication/www/faculty_profiles/entman/ which should help you.

As it happens, this man is enlightened enough to give interviews to foreign journalists (hear, non American) which allow non American to benefit from his views from time to time. :-)

User:anthere

---

The images did not show that the plaza where the statue stood, surrounded by the dozens of Iraqis, was otherwise empty, and was cordoned off by U.S. tanks.

OK, someone has to explain the importance of this sentence. First, the images I saw that day DID show that the plaza was otherwise empty other than the crowd of Iraqis around the statue. I saw no attempt to make the crowd look bigger than it was... I for one had a pretty clear picture of how many people were there. Secondly, the images I saw - live, on that day - did show that US tanks were keeping the plaza safe and empty of Iraqi forces.. (Or as you put it, "cordoned off"). What else do you expect them to do? When Coalition forces moved into any section of Baghdad (or other cities) they immediately secured the area. They had to do that and I don't think anyone would expect anything else. It wasn't a safe place to be.. it was a war zone. You move in - you have to take defensive positions around the area to keep enemy military forces out. The live coverage of the event that I saw even included interviews with Marines sitting around the plaza on tanks watching for Iraqi forces. So, with these things in mind - please explain why this sentence is necessary.

---

I saw footage of the anti-US protests. Today, I even saw more footage of the few thousand Shiites protesting US presence in the country, for the third or fourth day in a row. No one has ever claimed that all Iraqis are happy to be liberated. There are (and probably always will be) some that are loyal to Saddam.

Do you really think the only reason a person could be against the U.S. presence is because of personal loyalty to Saddam? No other possible reason? Ever seen Red Dawn? A lot of people just don't take kindly to invading forces, whatever their justification for being there. -- John Owens

---

Please compare these three sentences, 216.229.90.232:

• (i) Notable deaths include the April 8 accidental death of journalists by U.S. fire in Baghdad. This violates the Wikipedia NPOV policy, because it assumes something for which we have no evidence - i.e., that the deaths of journalists opposed to the US were "accidental".

• (ii) Notable deaths include the April 8 deliberate death of journalists by U.S. fire in Baghdad This violates the Wikipedia NPOV policy, because it assumes something for which we have no evidence - i.e., that the deaths of journalists opposed to the US were "deliberate".

• (iii) Notable deaths include the April 8 death of journalists by U.S. fire in Baghdad. This is the appropriate. It makes no assumptions, simply reports the known facts. It is not for you (or me) to make guesses. This is an encyclopedia, not a chat room.

Thank you (in advance) for respecting our NPOV policy. Tannin 08:22 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Tannin on this issue. erzengel 0835 UTC - 25 Apr 2003

Thats fine. I would have assumed that any incident of "friendly fire" in a war would be considered accidental until proven otherwise. At this point, we're not even sure that all of these incidents were the result of U.S. fire.

---

04:24 (cur; last) . . 216.229.90.232 (Talk | block) (look above the <hr>.... the questions been there for a long time - unanswered)

Above the one you added? I thought that it was made pretty clear who Robert Entman was. -- John Owens

Below the Entman thing... I added a header separated the question I am talking about and the answers below it which were in response to a question that was deleted by someone else for no apparent reason.

It's a little paragraph that starts with the statement in question

Oh, you mean the <hr> you put in between your questions and a couple of replies to them? (Not saying those necessarily answered your questions in full, just seems odd you'd separate them like that.) -- John Owens 09:52 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

THose aren't replies to my question. That is me (and someone else) replying to a question that someone deleted. The original question that we were replying to (under the new header) was about why the networks didn't show the Iraqi's protesting in Baghdad. I answered by saying they did (I saw footage of the anti-US protests).. I wouldn't know about it if they didn't. They showed tons of footage of it. My question - above the newly added header - has never been answered.

You know, this would be a lot easier to sort out if you'd just sign your posts in some way. :p -- John Owens 10:04 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

my country was allowed very little good placed journalists, so most of the movies displayed on big national network were directly "fed" to us by american journalists hosted by the american army. This is what we have been fed by american media. Other independant journalists were able to take movies which showed different things and different angles that the angles offered by american journalists. In any case, I already tried to explain that to you, and you already stated that this was french media report, and that what french media had showed us (coming from american info as I mentionned) was silly. Media was not reporting the fall of the statue did not occur. It was reporting it did not occur the way the movie showed.

The question is up farther on the page, by the way.

The page is too messy. I can't find pieces

The French reports were "silly" because they were jumping to conclusions that have not been (or in some cases cannot be) verified.

It seems to me the top of this page has probably been partially deleted, for our discussion there seems to be missing parts to be coherent. I see not what "jumping to conclusion that have not been verified" is related too here.

This question is different. This sentence is stating that 1) the images seen on US television did not show that the plaza was largely empty,

you are quietly deforming sentences to suit your own needs. The sentence is definitly not saying that the images were seen on US television. Neither US, nor television.

and 2) US tanks were sealing off the plaza. I watched the event happen live on US television and clearly saw both. As I say above, they even interviewed the Marines sitting around on tanks (that you're claiming were not seen). There were wide shots of the entire plaza, showing the crowd of Iraqis around the statue. My question is, why are we saying that the images did not show two things that were clearly visible?

Most images (images, not movies), in particular seen in newspapers or on the net, and yes, sometimes on TV, initially, were not showing long wide shot of the place. they were zooming on the statue, and on a couple of demonstrators, on a hammer... with comments clearly misleading readers to believe the crowd was huge for example. Typically, this type of images http://www.boston.com/news/packages/iraq/globe_stories/041003_snap_judgements.htm

Which is *precisely* why there was later so much noise about disinformation as regards that statue topic.

We might as well say that the images did not show that the sky was blue.