

CENTCOM releases documents on Death of Reuters Journalists - ismarc
http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fsites%2ffoia%2frr%2fCENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210%2fDeath%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists&FolderCTID=&View=%7b41BA1AAF%2d785A%2d481A%2dA630%2d12470AFCD6FD%7d

======
ismarc
I've tried very hard to stay out of the discussions, and someone pointed this
out to me. It's a good read (sworn statements and determinations made by
investigating officers) to understand the full situation (ie, everything going
on outside of the one camera and radio chatter) and the judgement calls made.

~~~
jacquesm
Sworn statements are true in the eyes of the person making them, they are not
necessarily objective truth.

It's like in most other cases like this, if you cover it up you're seriously
suggesting you've got something to hide and that will take on momentum by
itself.

The headlines the world over are roughly translated 'Americans murder innocent
civilians'. If they had released this on their own initiative they could have
controlled it much better, now it is too late for that.

It's interesting how some of the most balanced reporting on this comes from
sites like Al Jazeera:

[http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/04/201045123...](http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/04/201045123449200569.html)

~~~
zalew
"It's interesting how some of the most balanced reporting on this comes from
sites like Al Jazeera"

If you're surprised by that, it means you don't know much about AJ and don't
watch it. Currently they have the only decent journalism, along with BBC,
which most of their AJ English journalists come from. The rest of popular news
channels is TMZ-class compared to them.

~~~
jacquesm
The fact that I referenced it here means that I most likely watched it (and
read it).

I take my news from many different sources in 5 languages, it is strange (but
educational) to see the same event through the lens of several different
cultures, it also gives you a good sense of what the local bias is.

But what surprises me, and which is why I mentioned it, is that Al Jazeera is
_more_ balanced than either the BBC or the Dutch or German news services, and
that's a first (for me).

~~~
zalew
If so, sorry that I implied that.

Sad is, that we have to switch between various news services, often depending
on their 'point of view'. Good journalism is good coverage and following
discussion, not giving answers; but that's utopia.

~~~
jacquesm
I think that it has become impossible to release 'news' simply as facts
without coloration. Even if you look at a simple thing like a one vehicle
accident there are usually several variations of it as re-told by the various
witnesses, getting to the bottom of the objective truth is a real exercise in
human psychology. We all have this, even the best trained reporter.

There is a science fiction book which tells about 'professional witnesses',
people that are trained to observe and report only what they observe.

One example given is a house, and the 'simple' person responds the house is
white, but the professional witness reports the side of the house they can see
is white.

It's a subtle difference, but it shows the world of assumptions underlying our
observations, we all do this to some extent. By interrogating multiple sources
and selecting what they agree on you can get to some basis of truth, and you
can select items that are likely to be bias.

Maybe there is a need for a news 'meta service' that scans the 'regular news'
for reports and does as good a job of removing the bias as possible.

This would be interesting, because I think it would make the news extremely
boring, plenty of the 'bias' is what gets people excited about the news, facts
are 'dry' and not very interesting.

~~~
zalew
Yeah, I know what you mean.

What I am criticizing here, is that many contemporary journalists in
mainstream media focus too much on giving simple answers and hot headlines
instead of seeking evidence. From the few news services I have watched, I
found AJ to be offering the most comprehensive analysis of reported subjects.
That's why I found strange that you were surprised by their balanced
reporting.

~~~
jacquesm
For the longest time, when it came to the Iraq war there were several Western
European news sources that I think held the 'moral high ground' in how they
reported the news. Al Jazeera was good, but definitely coloured. Now I find
that Al Jazeera is actually _much_ better than 'our' sources, and this article
is the first time I've ever had that feeling.

Normally they're good but not 'great'. In this article, which for their
audience must be very inflammable material they actually take the time and
point out the caveats much more clearly than some of the 'local' news sources
in NL, the UK and in France.

There is plenty of stuff here that needs investigating and Al Jazeera does an
amazing job of outlining the potential pitfalls in interpreting the video and
the 'untold' side of the American military.

I really think that by doing that they deserve to be taken much more serious
by people from 'the west', but for some reason the majority here seems to be
stuck on what can be had in a basic cable subscription and preferably locally
produced.

There is a world of information available to all of us but sifting through it
is a lot of work, especially if a subject is politically sensitive.

------
iskander
Those soldiers, even after seeing the video, seem to remain convinced the
people in the van were gathering weapons. Weird.

------
dsplittgerber
If you just look at the photos PDF and compare the photos to the actual
footage, you see two things. The photos actually provide a very clear shot of
the Reuters journalist behind the corner (much better than the video, I
thought), though his crouching is interpreted as "demonstrating hostile
action". Interesting spin, though the point is moot, as no one could have made
that out as clearly as that from the helicopter.

More importantly, the labeling is inconsistent. They mislabel the opening
shots of the group walking towards the corner as "armed AIF with RPG", at the
last shot the same person is an "armed AIF". It's the guy with the AK in hand.
Even the pilots recognized him as having 'just' a weapon (i.e. AK-47), not an
RPG.

