Comments on: Eason Jordan and Kate Adie? http://www.gavinsblog.com/2005/02/09/eason-jordan-blogswarm/ Estd. in Ireland, July 2002 Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:42:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: John http://www.gavinsblog.com/2005/02/09/eason-jordan-blogswarm/comment-page-1/#comment-56586 John Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:53:04 +0000 http://www.gavinsblog.com/?p=1928#comment-56586 Michael - ummm = YES Michael – ummm = YES

]]> By: Gavin http://www.gavinsblog.com/2005/02/09/eason-jordan-blogswarm/comment-page-1/#comment-56578 Gavin Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:37:40 +0000 http://www.gavinsblog.com/?p=1928#comment-56578 Jaysus gimme a break Conor, I do have to work too! Jaysus gimme a break Conor, I do have to work too!

]]> By: Conor http://www.gavinsblog.com/2005/02/09/eason-jordan-blogswarm/comment-page-1/#comment-56575 Conor Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:28:27 +0000 http://www.gavinsblog.com/?p=1928#comment-56575 Aren't you going to have a post on the Myers Bastard column shit storm. Aren’t you going to have a post on the Myers Bastard column shit storm.

]]> By: Michael Mac Guinness http://www.gavinsblog.com/2005/02/09/eason-jordan-blogswarm/comment-page-1/#comment-56556 Michael Mac Guinness Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:28:00 +0000 http://www.gavinsblog.com/?p=1928#comment-56556 If I recall correctly, the US warning was in the context that if electronic signals were detected in the battle area that were not from Coalition forces they would be presumed hostile and the source would be attacked. A key element of US warfighting tactics to disrupt and destroy enemy communications capabilities. Clearly therefore freelance journalists roaming the battlefield and using satellite communications equipment would be at risk of electronic detection with consequential presumption of hostile status and therefore attack. I do not interpret the advice as a threat that journalists would be deliberately or maliciously targetted, rather it was a warning of a very real hazard and risk of misidentification that would exist in the battle area. Sounds like a fair warning to me and that Adie is the one with malice. In fact, though several journalists were killed during April/May 2003 none were killed as a result of an attack on an electronic communications source. If I recall correctly, the US warning was in the context that if electronic signals were detected in the battle area that were not from Coalition forces they would be presumed hostile and the source would be attacked. A key element of US warfighting tactics to disrupt and destroy enemy communications capabilities.
Clearly therefore freelance journalists roaming the battlefield and using satellite communications equipment would be at risk of electronic detection with consequential presumption of hostile status and therefore attack.
I do not interpret the advice as a threat that journalists would be deliberately or maliciously targetted, rather it was a warning of a very real hazard and risk of misidentification that would exist in the battle area.
Sounds like a fair warning to me and that Adie is the one with malice.
In fact, though several journalists were killed during April/May 2003 none were killed as a result of an attack on an electronic communications source.

]]> By: John http://www.gavinsblog.com/2005/02/09/eason-jordan-blogswarm/comment-page-1/#comment-56477 John Wed, 09 Feb 2005 12:45:26 +0000 http://www.gavinsblog.com/?p=1928#comment-56477 What the Pentagon told Adie is that the equipment that she was talking about using made her a target. If journalists just avoided using the satellite uplink they wouldn't find themselves targets. How is an A10 or F16 or whatever supposed to distinguish between Kate Adie and enemy use of this equipment? Eason Jordan is a fool and too many journalists believe they're God, when they're really not much more than pawns in war. What the Pentagon told Adie is that the equipment that she was talking about using made her a target. If journalists just avoided using the satellite uplink they wouldn’t find themselves targets. How is an A10 or F16 or whatever supposed to distinguish between Kate Adie and enemy use of this equipment?

Eason Jordan is a fool and too many journalists believe they’re God, when they’re really not much more than pawns in war.

]]> By: John http://www.gavinsblog.com/2005/02/09/eason-jordan-blogswarm/comment-page-1/#comment-56469 John Wed, 09 Feb 2005 12:41:08 +0000 http://www.gavinsblog.com/?p=1928#comment-56469 I remember this brouhaha when it happened. My thought was that the arrogance of these journalists is boundless. Adie tries to make it seem like 2003 and 1991 are fair comparisons, but they are not. In 1991, the US was not considering invading Baghdad. Therefore, the targets in that city were much more of the basic infrastructural type. In 2003 the US wanted to invade and hold the country and had to disrupt all possible communications among the enemy. Journalists are using equipment is valuable for an enemy in war time. Does she really believe that the US is going to make the effort to find out who exactly is using those satellite uplinks? Complete domination of communications is crucial in war and for any journalist to presume that freedom of information exists during the war is crazy. If they want to document what happens for history's sake, fine, but they're not the red cross. What's true here and in the '91 war is that the US was so dominant that they could afford some freedoms to the press and allow for them to report behind enemy lines. Obviously, Saddam's regime perceived some propaganda value in allowing these journalists to report from Baghdad or he'd have had them kicked out pronto. Why were so many journalists afraid to admit that truth? I remember this brouhaha when it happened. My thought was that the arrogance of these journalists is boundless.

Adie tries to make it seem like 2003 and 1991 are fair comparisons, but they are not. In 1991, the US was not considering invading Baghdad. Therefore, the targets in that city were much more of the basic infrastructural type. In 2003 the US wanted to invade and hold the country and had to disrupt all possible communications among the enemy.

Journalists are using equipment is valuable for an enemy in war time. Does she really believe that the US is going to make the effort to find out who exactly is using those satellite uplinks? Complete domination of communications is crucial in war and for any journalist to presume that freedom of information exists during the war is crazy. If they want to document what happens for history’s sake, fine, but they’re not the red cross.

What’s true here and in the ’91 war is that the US was so dominant that they could afford some freedoms to the press and allow for them to report behind enemy lines. Obviously, Saddam’s regime perceived some propaganda value in allowing these journalists to report from Baghdad or he’d have had them kicked out pronto. Why were so many journalists afraid to admit that truth?

]]>