RConversation

Journalists who die in Iraq, continued...

David Schlesinger, global managing editor and head of editorial operations for Reuters, has written an Op-Ed in the International Herald Tribune: The reality behind 'Easongate' .  He does not believe U.S. troops target journalists on purpose. But he believes that there is a serious problem, which the latest Italian death has tragically underscored.  He writes:

My own company, Reuters, has lost three colleagues in Iraq, and each time it has been in an unfortunate encounter with U.S. troops. Do I believe my colleagues were targeted? No. Do I believe that the military and we have done enough to ensure that these horrible accidents won't be repeated? Alas, the answer to that question is no as well.

He concludes:

I don't want the controversy over Eason Jordan's remarks to counteract his important contribution to keeping journalists safe. I want all combatants to recognize the important, objective role journalists play as noncombatants.

I want continued engagement with the Pentagon to minimize the chances of a journalist being killed by U.S. fire again. I want fast, objective investigations into journalists' deaths, so that we all can learn the lessons..

I want never to have to report the death of a colleague from an avoidable accident again.

Claims by Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena that she and her rescuer were deliberately targeted are indeed absurd.  The U.S. military may feel that its troops did nothing inappropriate or unexpected given the circumstances.  But unfortunately, these journalist deaths are creating growing tensions between global media organizations and the U.S. military. The result is not in the U.S. military's interest, or in U.S. foreign policy interests more broadly. Something needs to be done. Questioning the patriotism of news executives won't make the problem go away.

Letter from an Army Public Affairs guy

RConversation received the following e-mail today. It brings a fresh angle, I think, to the Eason Jordan resignation:

In December of 2002 [NOTE: His original email said 2003 but Mr. Ericksen has now corrected this] my Army Public Affairs unit was deployed for the coming war.  While we were making deployment preparations in Georgia we took a trip to the Atlanta CNN Headquarters.  We were being posted to Kuwait as the primary unit responsible for dealing with the US and international media and it was a way to better familiarize ourselves with that world.  As part of the trip to CNN we met Eason Jordan. 

Jordan’s talk was on CNN's relationship with the military surprised most of us on how almost Republican it was.  He seemed to be quite bullish on the coming war, talking about the need for change in the Middle East.  When asked about the biased reporting of Arab media he said that all media reports from the Middle East should be looked on as being propaganda rather than reporting as we thought on it.  He pointed to the fact that Al-Jazeera’s Iraq Bureau Chief was a former employee of the Iraqi Ministry of Information.  He said that many of the Arab media reports were suspect or were known to have been staged.  He said that these were facts that they were well aware of but couldn’t raise lest they seem to have a pro-American bias.  He said that they tried to provide a balance to this reporting by showing the true positive reality of American interaction in the world and the US military in specific.  I left thinking that somehow I had never realized that CNN and Fox were doing the same reporting but for the nuances.  I was slapped back to reality during the war with CNN’s reporting.      

I reflected on that memory as I was reading about Jordan resigning.  Too many on the Right Jordan’s assertions at Davos are evidence of a fatal liberal bent.  Possibly.  It is just as likely that Jordan got caught playing to his audience.  The European media has vulgarly distorted most of the reporting in Iraq.  They believe that US soldiers are targeting and killing reporters in Iraq.  Jordan just made the mistake of pandering to one of their basic views of Iraq.  It is difficult for me to reconcile his reported statements with the almost pro war Jordan I met two years ago.  Jordan may simply be a chameleon willing to wave the flag one moment to curry favor with one group and then burn it the next with another. 

Whatever the truth is I think the power of the blog is here to stay.  Jordan was fired for comments he thought were off the record.  When Jordan walked into that room two years ago and spoke to my Army unit for 15 minutes, he must have thought he would never be questioned regarding his statements.  Would he stand by his saying that reporting in Arab media is propaganda?  That CNN tries to balance Arab propaganda by reporting positive stories on US intentions?  Somehow I don’t think so.  The blog is here to say because it gives a forum for truths the major media chooses to kill with silence.  It holds the media accountable as it has never had to be before.   

Brian Ericksen

UPDATE:  In response to questions Mr. Ericksen has provided further information about his background as follows:

"I served with the Army Reserve 318th Press Camp Headquarters (PCH) from Forest Park, Illinois.  We were called to service in December of 2002 and were deactivated in July of 2003.  We were stationed during the war at the Kuwait Hilton in Kuwait City with the primary responsibility for the accreditation of journalists during the war. 

After the war we moved to the Republican Palace in Baghdad were I worked as the Public Affairs Officer for Iraqi Education."  Ericksen's email address is: aias0@yahoo.com and he is happy to answer further questions.

More on journalists who die in Iraq

Jeremy Scahill at The Nation writes in a new commentary about the Eason Jordan resignation: "...the real controversy here should not be over Jordan's comments. The controversy ought to be over the unconscionable silence in the United States about the military's repeated killing of journalists in Iraq."   He goes on to say that "Eason Jordan's comment was hardly a radical declaration. He was expressing a common view among news organizations around the world." Quotes from other media execs:

David Schlesinger, Reuters global managing editor (see his 2004 letter to the U.S. military):
"We have had three deaths, and they were all non-embedded, non-coalition nationals and they were all at the hands of the US military, and the reaction of the US authorities in each case was that they were somehow justified...."What is the US's position on nonembeds? Are nonembedded journalists fair game?"

BBC anchor Nik Gowing:
"What is the US's position on nonembeds? Are nonembedded journalists fair game?...."The trouble is that a lot of the military--particularly the American...military--do not want us there. And they make it very uncomfortable for us to work. And I think that this...is leading to security forces in some instances feeling it is legitimate to target us with deadly force and with impunity."

Scahill concludes:

In his resignation letter, Jordan wrote, "I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists." The families and colleagues of the slain journalists believe otherwise. And it is up to all journalists, not just those in Europe and the Middle East, to honor the victims by holding their killers responsible. In Spain, the family of cameraman José Couso has filed a lawsuit against the US soldiers who killed him, and they plan to travel to the United States for the anniversary of his death this spring. Will any network have the courage to put them on the air?

There is a growing and increasingly nasty divide between those who believe there is a coverup going on and those who are upset about what they see as the unsubstantiated slandering of good men and women risking their lives overseas.  This divide is not good for our democracy. It is not good for our foreign policy. It is not good for anybody.

We need a lot more facts. From all sides. From the military. From media organizations. This is important. I hope that people in a position to provide facts will make it a priority to do so. They have a responsibility to do so.

Agitate for better coverage

Danny Schechter's account of the Reuters tsunami roundtable went beyond just tsunami coverage to the question of what the public can do to push the news media to improve its coverage, especially on international stories.  He writes:

...when asked what people should do to get better coverage, the impressive Daniel Okrent of the Times put it in one word: "AGITATE," And then this agust ombudsman of the newspaper of record added two more "MAKE NOISE."

He said that's the only things that works. And he should know.

The blogs sure make noise, and the media is clearly listening. The Eason Jordan resignation and the Jeff Gannon affair are the two most recent examples.

He cites a letter by Media for Democracy, with which he is affiliated, raising three "urgent issues" highlighted by the Eason Jordan affair:

1. Do media executives have a right to express opinions that deviate from the official line? Media companies should defend the rights of their employees to take part in democratic debate without fears of recriminations. The conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal and the World Editors Forum have rushed in to defend Jordan's right to express controversial opinions without intimidation.

2. Do media companies have an obligation to investigate and not just denigrate? CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, AFP and other media outlets should take a fresh look at these charges to determine their validity. At least eleven journalists have been killed by "friendly fire" since the War in Iraq began, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Thus far there has been little effort by the Pentagon to explain their deaths.

3. Are we who care about integrity in the media willing to stand up to protect free speech during a time of war? While this issue is often spun as a left-right story, it's about much more than that. We are all paying dearly for this war. Shouldn't we Americans have a right to know what's being done in our name?

Reuters, the International Federation of Journalists and other press freedom groups have pressed for independent investigations of suspicious killings in Iraq. The Pentagon has refused to cooperate or permit journalists to interview soldiers involved in these incidents.

What's the truth?

Whether you stand on the left or the right, you have to admit, these are good questions. If viewers and readers don't push the news media to pursue the truth on this issue, we'll probably never get it.  Just lots more rumors and insinuations and accusations back and forth.

Journalists who die in Iraq

From today's New York Times:

Ann Cooper, executive director for the Committee to Protect Journalists [link added], said that 36 journalists, plus 18 translators who worked for journalists, had been killed in Iraq since 2003. Of those 54, she said, at least nine died as a result of American fire.

"From our standpoint, journalists are not being targeted by the U.S. military in Iraq," Ms. Cooper said. "But there certainly are cases where an atmosphere of what, at best, you can call indifference has led to deaths and other problems for journalists."

As an example, Ms. Cooper cited the shelling by American troops of the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, well known as the residence of journalists, in April 2003, killing two journalists.

Journalist reactions

Donna Liu, a former veteran CNN producer who has worked all over the world - and whose husband has also - emailed this comment:

Journalists ARE targetted by military all the time (I'm not necessarily saying U.S., although the Al-Jazeera incident has yet to be thoroughly investigated.) and now that whole issue, which merits some attention, is being sidelined for the sake of media gossip. I mean, I've looked down the barrel of a gun a couple of times... I'm sure you have... [name of her husband] certainly has... And think of the people we know who have been injured or killed under those circumstances.  I hope the issue doesn't die.

Here is an excerpt from another former colleague who was also in the audience at Davos. He hasn't responded to my emails asking whether I can use his name (his mailbox is full and I keep getting "bounce" messages), so I'll leave it anonymous and am taking out identifying information, but I think it's worth sharing:

Well I am NEVER going to make fun of blogging again!.  The meaning I got was that Eason was using the word "target" as pointing the barrel of a gun rather than the meaning that's been construed. What is amazing to me is that he and others did not do a more spirited job of defending the premise. ... Seems  to me this is/was a perfect opportunity to push the Congressmen for an investigation....   Pretty sad affair all in all.

Both emails are very representative of the kind of sentiment I've been hearing a lot in journalist circles over the past couple of days.  Many rank-and-file journalists feel that the heads of news organizations are letting them down by not engaging in a substantive discussion of a serious and unresolved issue.

Final thoughts on this mess

I have been avoiding comment these last couple of days. I felt I had nothing further of substance to add since Wednesday morning.  The resignation requires one final comment.

I think Eason Jordan resigned because he knew that if the Davos tape came out it would make the situation worse, not better.

I know there are a number of people involved with the World Economic Forum who think the WEF needs to completely re-think its media/blogging and on/off record policies.  It was a great thing that the WEF started a blog this year, inviting conference participants to post their impressions and thoughts. I encouraged them to do this. Unfortunately, the WEF's operating norms are not compatible with the age of the blog. Jordan's demise is the frightening result.

I am amazed that anybody in this day and age still expects a gathering of more than 10 people to remain off the record.

I've been watching the dissussion developing under Jay Rosen's latest post on this. One commentor, who called herself "veteran journo" had some good points:

If he were a "civilian" I could understand the "tempest in a teapot" view but this guy is a journalist who quotes people everyday.

Ditto, for telling stories that CNN hadn't aired. If they hadn't broadcast the story about the Al Jazeera journo forced to eat his shoes, it's because they couldn't get people to talk about it on the record. A news executive can't go passing on those rumours in a semi-public forum. If the standard of proof wasn't good enough to get it on CNN, it 's not good wnough to discuss at a forum in Davos. Maybe at JOrdan's dinner table but not Davos.

Sisyphus asks some good questions on his blog.  At Pressthink he goes further:

Does his resignation improve the relationship between the media and the military? Does it make Jordan a martyr? Does it make those journalists that feel the military is "out to get them" less secure, more estranged, and perhaps more hostile?

The tape, and Eason Jordan, would have allowed a full airing of this issue. Pull the skeleton out, shake out the paranoia, shake hands and go back to work.

Jordan's gone. The idea remains.

Good point. Of course the U.S. military is NOT out to get journalists. Nor is "the media" out to get the military. But have individual soldiers at times exercised bad judgment that's worth looking into? Perhaps so, though we don't know for sure due to lack of information. All we have is some claims by some people. Have some journalists gotten carried away by anti-military biases and agendas? Absolutely. The point is, there are clearly some real tensions and disagreements about what's been taking place on the ground in Iraq - and why. As a member of the audience during the now-infamous panel, one thing was very clear to me: bad feeling between U.S. servicepeople and journalists in Iraq is coloring news coverage.  No matter where you stand on the war or anything else, you have to recognize that nobody is served by letting this bad feeling fester, supported by much rumor and few facts.

I hope that moving forward, people will have the courage to bring discussions about military-press tensions to the fore, not sweep them under the rug.  From here on out, facts about what happens on the ground in Iraq should be the focus.  We need to hear the candid, first-hand accounts of journalists who've been doing the day-to-day work in Iraq.  I've heard enough from their bosses.

CNN turns its back on its own

Danny Schechter describes his experience appearing on Fox news yesterday to talk about "Easongate."  His film WMD has a section asking whether U.S. forces targeted journalists in Iraq. An excerpt of his latest blog post:

I was hoping CNN might call and we reached out to Lou Dobbs and Aaron Brown to no avail.

I guess CNN was not interested in taking on this fight.

But Fox News was. Fox is always at war with CNN which it brands as a liberal network, a label CNN does not want or like. And so Fox scheduled a segment and asked if I was interested. When I told them I had a film documenting the attack on the Palestine Hotel, they were doubly interested. Frozen out by CNN and most TV networks who we bombarded with Info on WMD (save Court TV) I entered the Fox arena the way Christians were fed to the lions.

Needless to say Fox wanted to trash Eason, not the killing of journalists. They showed a very clip of my film with the sound muted but I did get to make a few points and plug the movie the best I could expect in circumstances of hostility..

Sean Hannity took some predictable whacks along with Brent Bozell but I held my ground and was still standing at the bell. I would score the round as a draw.

It was hard to shift the conversation back to the real issue – the killing of journalists and not what Eason Jordan said or didn't say – no one there seemed to know or really care in what was really a bash CNN exercise.

I got an e-mail from Fox yesterday afternoon asking me to call them. I did not respond. I have issues with CNN and the way it operates, which is why I left, but I'm not a big Fox news fan, either. Nor do I want to be used any further in an effort to bring down my former boss, for whom I continue to have a lot of personal respect (and to whom I owe a great deal career-wise), despite his unfortunate choice of words at Davos, which he has said repeatedly he did not mean. 

What makes me sick is how a lot of people are going to benefit from this whole thing personally, and in some cases financially. On the right, Hugh Hewitt gets tons of book publicity in what is turning out to be a textbook case of the "blog swarm" phenomenon his book describes. On the left, Danny has an opportunity to plug his film. Lots of bloggers are making names for themselves. Yes, there are very legitimate issues on all sides that need to be discussed. I'm not trying to deny or belittle that fact. But most of these issues are not black-and-white. Unfortunately shades of grey aren't as interesting or useful for most people's purposes.

I remain disappointed in the many journalists who have spent lots of time on the ground in Iraq, and who have failed to do anything to shed light on the substance and facts of this issue - one way or the other. I am disappointed in their editors for not assigning them stories on this issue. 

I'm especially disappointed with CNN for the way they're running away from the story, hoping it will go away. It won't. CNN has done itself more harm than good over the last several years by being horribly afraid to stand up for any particular set of principles. It tries very hard to please everybody and offend nobody - but ends up offending everybody and pleasing nobody. No wonder internal morale is low and ratings are bad.

Reuters on journalists killed in Iraq

Reuters CEO Tom Glocer talks to John Battelle about plans to build an online broadcast network. Very interesting, and I'll comment more on that later. At the end of the interview they talk about Iraq and journalists who get killed there:

Q: How are things going in Iraq?

A: Nothing is as bad as the call that says, "Tom, I'm sorry, we've lost another one." And, unfortunately, at least two of the three people we've lost, and arguably the third one as well, have been at the hands of U.S. forces, due to friendly fire.

Q: You have a dispute over a case in which some of your journalists were interrogated by the military in Iraq.

A:  I have been to the Pentagon and spoken to [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld's chief of staff. I take it at face value that they do not intentionally target journalists. My difference with them is over how hard do you try not to target them. Their stock answer is essentially, "You want to be safe, you embed." From a journalistic point of view, we refuse to do only that.

Maybe it wasn't really meant to be on the record?

There seems to be some confusion as to whether the Davos panel at which Eason Jordan made his controversial remarks was or wasn't on the record.  The WEF is now saying it wasn't, or not completely, until they make a policy decision about it. However many of us at Davos believed the session was on the record because it was conducted in a room called Sanada 1&2. Here are the official guidelines issued to media and potential bloggers before Davos began:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
‘On and Off the Record’ Policy for AM 2005

All plenary sessions are fully ‘on’ the record.

All sessions that are broadcast or webcast are ‘on the record’  (for 2005 that means all sessions in the Congress Hall or Sanada 1 and 2)

Every other session is only ‘on the record’ in terms of content.  That is to say what was said can be reported – but it must not be attributed to any individual.  However, should the journalist get the agreement of any participant to be quoted that is of course acceptable.

Naturally, all private meetings are off the record.

This policy is clear and simple and allows greater transparency.  It can also be very simply and effectively enforced.  Any transgression will lead to immediate withdrawal of badge and any future access to World Economic Forum events.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upon closer reading, it seems one could interpret that parenthetical "(for 2005 that means all sessions in the Congress Hall or Sanada 1 and 2)" in a couple of different ways...

UPDATE: the WEF's Mark Adams responded to my query about this as follows:

my understanding was that since this session was not webcast or broadcast it was 'off the record'

Certainly, no announcement was made at the begining of the session - as far as I remember - that it would  be on the record.

In any case - a session summary is available on our website and we will not be trying to get a transcript of the session.

It's unclear what this means as far as releasing the tape is concerned, as he didn't address that part of my query in his reply. As for the session summary on the WEF website, it doesn't even mention the controversial remarks or anything related to them.