Fox News: Who Used Journalists as Human Shields in Libya?

[nismaratwork]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/21/libya.robertson.report/index.html?iref=NS1

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Fox says journalists including a CNN crew were used as human shields in Libya
Robertson: Fox report is "outrageous and hypocritical"
The Fox report didn't mention a Fox worker also was on the trip, Robertson says

Adorable... you'd think that's the kind of detail even propogandists wouldn't overlook.

 

[apeiron]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/21/libya.robertson.report/index.html?iref=NS1

Adorable... you'd think that's the kind of detail even propogandists wouldn't overlook.

I've been watching Fox News to see what all the fuss was about. Gobsmacking stuff. And not just Shep Smith's finely plucked eyebrows. The way they float insinuations about Obama (something just isn't right, is it?) and keep it running as a thread through many segments.

I watched a whole hour of Glenn Beck as he promised to tell me Obama's secret agenda, but in the end it was just a bunch of fluff strung together. Yet really skillful - I'm not going to tell you what you should think, but this is what you should think...

I always thought my dad was a bit harsh when he said he should have done humanity a service and run his car off the road when he and Murdoch were driving home very drunk back in the 60s. "I should have killed the bugger when I had a chance." I see what he means now.

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/21/libya.robertson.report/index.html?iref=NS1



Adorable... you'd think that's the kind of detail even propogandists wouldn't overlook.

While the childish bickering from cnn is entertaining, it didn't actually address the main point of the fox story: did the coalition cancel an airstrike due to the presence of reporters? We don't have independent confirmation or denial of that.

 

[WhoWee]

Shouldn't a reporter be thankful that a bombing run was canceled - because he was sitting in the bullseye? Is CNN suggesting that it's ok to just bomb away next time?

 

[humanino]

We don't have independent confirmation or denial of that.

So how come it runs as news on Fox ?

 

[Pythagorean]

For shock value ratings. I hear you make good money if you broadcast somebody's product in between blasting the audience with emotional stimuli.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

So how come it runs as news on Fox ?

humanino, thanks++

... I’m glad a least one person has that thing called brain turned on ...

 

[Pythagorean]

I watched a whole hour of Glenn Beck as he promised to tell me Obama's secret agenda, but in the end it was just a bunch of fluff strung together. Yet really skillful - I'm not going to tell you what you should think, but this is what you should think...

I think this gives us a little insight:

We matched public voter records to 54 subjects who performed a risk-taking task during functional imaging. We find that Democrats and Republicans had significantly different patterns of brain activation during processing of risky decisions. Amygdala activations, associated with externally directed reactions to risk, are stronger in Republicans, while insula activations, associated with internally directed reactions to affective perceptions, are stronger in Democrats. These results suggest an internal vs. external difference in evaluative process that illuminates and resolves a discrepancy in the existing literature. This process-based approach to political partisanship is distinct from the policy-based approach that has dominated research for at least the past half century. In fact, a two parameter model of partisanship based on amygdala and insula activations achieves better accuracy in predicting whether someone is a Democrat or a Republican than a well established model in political science based on parental socialization of party identification.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

 

[nismaratwork]

I've been watching Fox News to see what all the fuss was about. Gobsmacking stuff. And not just Shep Smith's finely plucked eyebrows. The way they float insinuations about Obama (something just isn't right, is it?) and keep it running as a thread through many segments.

I watched a whole hour of Glenn Beck as he promised to tell me Obama's secret agenda, but in the end it was just a bunch of fluff strung together. Yet really skillful - I'm not going to tell you what you should think, but this is what you should think...

I always thought my dad was a bit harsh when he said he should have done humanity a service and run his car off the road when he and Murdoch were driving home very drunk back in the 60s. "I should have killed the bugger when I had a chance." I see what he means now.

...And just like that your father becomes one of my personal heroes!

@Russ: The reporters in place know the risks, and the military shouldn't avoid a primary target for their sake. In the case of Nic Robertson, I was surprised by the Fox report because when the air raids began he was "placed" (read forced) into a shelter. Mind you, he was there to pick through rubble when fragments of British Tomahawks were still warm too.

My point, above all, is simply the absurdity of Fox News having the "news" appelation. CNN is mostly 'Lifetime' crossed with a desperate attempt for ratings, but at least they're not a tissue of propoganda and unverified idiocy. Still, you asked a fair question: reporters know what they're getting into, if they choose to stick around a major target, such is life.

 

[Pythagorean]

CNN may be worse than Fox... I wouldn't know. I don't watch TV.

I've seen more fox than any other national news station only because Fox viewers tend to watch it obsessively, even while they have company over. Fox is definitely pathos-based media.

 

[nismaratwork]

CNN may be worse than Fox... I wouldn't know. I don't watch TV.

I've seen more fox than any other national news station only because Fox viewers tend to watch it obsessively, even while they have company over.

CNN is different, that's all I can say for it.

 

[WhoWee]

So how come it runs as news on Fox ?

Clarification?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/21/exclusive-libyans-use-journalists-human-shields/#

It sounds as though reporters need to take responsibility for their own safety/protection - Libyan dirty tricks are not out of the question - are they?

 

[Pythagorean]

I get my news on the internet =)

 

[nismaratwork]

I get my news on the internet =)

A wise man. I'd have to say that CNN is a decent place to get general updates, and they do some decent field reporting. Above all, their only agenda is ratings at any cost and while they're not great, they're still a news outlet. Fox News is a propoganda outlet with some news, but I wouldn't use either for anything that can't be confirmed elsewhere.

@WhoWee: I'd have to agree... you take your risks, and sometimes bad things happen. Mind you, this flies in the face of Fox's stance both verbally and with their own reporter on the scene.

Still, if you want to use them as human shields, I don't think that sticking them in a bomb shelter is the way to do it, then allow them to broadcast that fact. Remember, it's a reporter (Nic Roberts) on the scene who was so pissed, not CNN in general.

 

[WhoWee]

The "molecule of guilt" and the "blame America node"?

 

[russ_watters]

So how come it runs as news on Fox ?

One thing has nothing to do with the other. By 'independent' I mean directly from their source or from another news agency. Obviously if no one could publish anything that wasn't already published then nothing could be published!

 

[nismaratwork]

Is there a "brain of a liberal democrat"? I'd love to compare the two patholog- I mean, ideologies.

Still, I'd have thought the B.S. detector would have been much smaller...

 

[DevilsAvocado]

The "molecule of guilt" and the "blame America node"?

Yeah, and to be fair we must show the 'alternative'...

 

[nismaratwork]

Yeah, and to be fair we, must show the 'alternative'...

Broccoli Stem!

DA, you never fail to deliver!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

 

[nismaratwork]

Whooooo... Nic Robertson is FLAYING Fox News, it's unbelievably bad. He's basically saying that Fox News shirks their reporting duties compared even to other networks, didn't go to the hotel and look, etc.

This isn't CNN vs. Fox News, this is Nic Robertson vs. Fox News... he is PISSED.

"I expect lies from the government here, but not lies from other journalists." (Nic Robertson)

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/22/libya.robertson.report/index.html?hpt=T1

The Times of London -- which like Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation -- backed the Fox version of events in a front-page story Monday.

"The Times and other foreign media effectively became temporary human shields on Sunday night when we agreed to be bussed in by officials to Colonel Gadhafi's main compound in Tripoli to visit the site of an allied missile attack," Deborah Haynes wrote in a story datelined Tripoli.

The paper also cited a government spokesman as saying that "thousands" of civilians were at military facilities and other potential targets. It said another source said some of them were being held against their will.

The incident involved a trip Sunday night arranged by Libyan authorities to the Gadhafi compound that had been bombed earlier by coalition forces.

Robertson said the 40 or so journalists on the bus weren't told ahead of time where they were going, and that there was no attempt by the Libyan minders to restrict anyone from getting on or off the bus before they left.

Upon arrival, the journalists spent about 20 minutes at the damaged building and then were hurried to a tent where they waited with Gadhafi supporters for him to appear, Robertson said. Gadhafi never showed up, and the journalists went back to their bus and departed, according to Robertson.

A government official even pushed him onto the bus as he tried to broadcast a live shot at the end, Robertson said.

"If they wanted to use us as human shields ... they would have kept us there longer," Robertson said. "That's not what happened."

Robertson noted that the sole participant on the trip from Fox wasn't normally a reporter or videographer, but was given a camera and told to go along. In general, Robertson said, the Fox team in Tripoli rarely goes on the reporting trips arranged by the government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sESHBJTfthw

 

[Gokul43201]

While the childish bickering from cnn is entertaining, it didn't actually address the main point of the fox story: did the coalition cancel an airstrike due to the presence of reporters? We don't have independent confirmation or denial of that.

So what's your point? If a news organization has the primary detail in a story correct, they should feel free to inject any number of less important lies?

 

[nismaratwork]

So what's your point? If a news organization has the primary detail in a story correct, they should feel free to inject any number of less important lies?

Yep, all candy should be packed with razor blades on halloween too. Hey, you're still getting candy!

 

[WhoWee]

The question still remains - was a bombing run canceled because the news crews would have been killed? Also, did they actually interview anyone at the site?

 

[russ_watters]

So what's your point? If a news organization has the primary detail in a story correct, they should feel free to inject any number of less important lies?

1. What lies are you referring to? Robertson's highly emotional retort refers to "lies" in generic terms, but does not actually cite any that I can see. Could you please be specific about what in the Fox report you think is a lie?
2. By definition, the thesis/primary point of a report is the most important point of the report.
2a. When challenging a report in general terms, as CNN did, they imply - without evidence - that the primary point is wrong.

I think you guys are criticizing the wrong news organization! While the Fox report contains one somewhat misleading but factually accurate point (which, by the way, has now been corrected with a follow-up: check the story again), the CNN response was completely unfit for media publication, containing almost nothing but an emotionally charged rant.

 

[nismaratwork]

The question still remains - was a bombing run canceled because the news crews would have been killed? Also, did they actually interview anyone at the site?

No, that's the question of a different thread, this is about what appears to be a pattern of shirking one's job and then lying.

 

[nismaratwork]

1. What lies are you referring to? Robertson's highly emotional retort refers to "lies" in generic terms, but does not actually cite any that I can see. Could you please be specific about what in the Fox report you think is a lie?
2. By definition, the thesis/primary point of a report is the most important point of the report.
2a. When challenging a report in general terms, as CNN did, they imply - without evidence - that the primary point is wrong.

I think you guys are criticizing the wrong news organization! While the Fox report contains one somewhat misleading but factually accurate point (which, by the way, has now been corrected with a follow-up: check the story again), the CNN response was completely unfit for media publication, containing almost nothing but an emotionally charged rant.

That's a stretch even by your standards in P&WA Russ.

The primary point would seem to be irrelevant: if you're in Tripoli, you may die. If an airstrike was called off as a result, I question and blame the C&C, not the people on the ground. Again, this is very much about the nature of Fox News, which again is shown to be a set-piece for propoganda, not an actual news organization.

I refer you to Nic Robertson's reporting, which you are of course welcome to dismiss as a diatribe.

 

[russ_watters]

No, that's the question of a different thread, this is about what appears to be a pattern of shirking one's job and then lying.

Well then I'm confused: what "whoops" and what lie are you talking about? For all the generic bashing going on here, no one has made that clear - and it's your thread!

Wait, maybe that WAS your point - let's all just bash Fox without any specific reason?

 

[nismaratwork]

Well then I'm confused: what "oops" and what lie are you talking about. For all the generic bashing going on here, no one has made that clear - and it's your thread!

Wait, maybe that WAS your point - let's all just bash Fox without any specific reason?

No, it was to bash Fox for the reasons given in the previous video by Nic Robertson. To type it all out here would be a copyright violation however.

Bashing Fox News in general isn't even fun, it's just pointless. You might as well criticize an ME "ministry of communications" for being dishonest; it's true, but everyone already knows it. I think my point is abundantly clear, you simply don't accept it.

 

[russ_watters]

Then paraphrase. Your refusal to make a specific point makes it sound like you have none.

...and the primary point is irrelevant? Could you try reading that line aloud if you missed the irony/oxymoron when you typed it?

 

[czelaya]

I find this all so trivial. BOTH Fox and CNN (and affiliates) put forth misleading and highly opinionated stories.

In the end, all this does it starts a war between the left and right-each supporting a Republican or Democratic agenda. Then getting to the truth behind the story goes to the back burner.

I didn't realize this until I witnessed first hand the chaos of hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. I witnessed both news channels put forth faulty news that was politically motivated and eyewitness accounts that were completely wrong for the sole purpose of ratings.

No one even realizes what hurricane Katrina entailed.

I don't trust either of these channels.

 

[nismaratwork]

Then paraphrase. Your refusal to make a specific point makes it sound like you have none.

...and the primary point is irrelevant? Could you try reading that line aloud if you missed the irony/oxymoron when you typed it?

Or you could hit the play button on the video, sorry I'm not into playing these games with you, and you know that now from experience, yes?

Still, I've posted it three times in various forms, I don't mind doing it again.

The Times of London -- which like Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation -- backed the Fox version of events in a front-page story Monday.

"The Times and other foreign media effectively became temporary human shields on Sunday night when we agreed to be bussed in by officials to Colonel Gadhafi's main compound in Tripoli to visit the site of an allied missile attack," Deborah Haynes wrote in a story datelined Tripoli.

The paper also cited a government spokesman as saying that "thousands" of civilians were at military facilities and other potential targets. It said another source said some of them were being held against their will.

The incident involved a trip Sunday night arranged by Libyan authorities to the Gadhafi compound that had been bombed earlier by coalition forces.

Robertson said the 40 or so journalists on the bus weren't told ahead of time where they were going, and that there was no attempt by the Libyan minders to restrict anyone from getting on or off the bus before they left.

Upon arrival, the journalists spent about 20 minutes at the damaged building and then were hurried to a tent where they waited with Gadhafi supporters for him to appear, Robertson said. Gadhafi never showed up, and the journalists went back to their bus and departed, according to Robertson.

A government official even pushed him onto the bus as he tried to broadcast a live shot at the end, Robertson said.

"If they wanted to use us as human shields ... they would have kept us there longer," Robertson said. "That's not what happened."

Robertson noted that the sole participant on the trip from Fox wasn't normally a reporter or videographer, but was given a camera and told to go along. In general, Robertson said, the Fox team in Tripoli rarely goes on the reporting trips arranged by the government.

Then there's the video, and his own account, and Fox's semi-retraction. Given that this was largely a fiction by Fox News, I'm not sure what primary point you want to examine. You want to prove a negative that the military isn't going to discuss, and which was simply an invention of a "reporter" on the ground? Not how it works... if you have any support for the Fox position however, I'd be thrilled to hear it. You've asked quite a few questions, tried to drag this thread into an essentially fictional topic (human shields), and offered nothing.

Tit for tat my man, a cat for a hat and a hat for a cat, but nothing for nothing.

@czelaya: Nor should you, but as we learned with "bush v. Gore" similar is not the same.

 

[nismaratwork]

Here's some of the transcript:

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2...s-outrageous-and-its-absolutely-hypocritical/

WOLF BLITZER, HOST: <SNIP for Copywrite's sake>– I want you to explain what you know about this suggestion Fox News reporting that you, a Reuters crew, some other journalists, were effectively used by Gadhafi as a human shield to prevent Allied fighter planes from coming in and attacking a certain position.

Explain what you know about this.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, this allegation is outrageous and it's absolutely hypocritical. You know, when you come to somewhere like Libya, you expect lies and deceit from the dictatorship here. You don't expect it from the other journalists.

Why do I say that?

Because Fox News has said that they didn't send somebody on this trip last night because they said it was a quote, unquote, "propaganda trip."

They sent a member of their team. He was non-editorial. He was non-technical, not normally a cameraman. He was given a camera by the team and told to come out and come on - come on the bus with the 40 other journalists who were there, who were free to get on the bus, free to get on the bus when they wanted, told us, when he was on the bus, that even he - this member of this Fox team, was surprised that their correspondent and the normal cameraman weren't coming out, that he was being sent - this isn't his normal job - that he was being sent.

So that's why I say what Fox is saying is outrageous and hypocritical.

And the idea that we were some kind of human shields is nuts. I mean if they had actually been there - Steve Harrigan, the correspondent here, is somebody I've known for many years. I see him more times at breakfast than I see him out on trips with government officials here.

Other correspondents here who go out regularly say the same things - NBC, CBS - all the other news teams here go out - not on all the government trips. We didn't go out on another one yesterday.

But we did - we very, very rarely see the Fox News team out on the trips.

So for them to say and call this - to say they didn't go and for them to call this and say this was government propaganda to hold us there as human shields when they didn't even leave the hotel, the correspondent didn't leave the hotel and go and see for himself, is ridiculous.

We were taken there. We went in through the security. We filmed the building. We were given 15, 20 minutes to do that, five minutes in Gadhafi's tent and then we were taken out.

And I was literally physically pushed back on the bus when we left.

That's how quickly the government officials wanted to get us out.

If I sound angry, it is because I am. As I say, I expect lies from the government here, I don't expect it from other journalists and it's, frankly, incredibly disappointing to me - Wolf.

BLITZER: Well, did this Fox representative who went with you on this trip, did he have a camera?

ROBERTSON: He was given a camera by the cameraman and the correspondent who stayed in the hotel and didn't go out, a correspondent who very rarely leaves his hotel. I don't know who he's talking to here to pick up and find out what the story is.

When we go on these government trips, it's for a very simple reason - because we don't want government officials to film it themselves, edit it themselves and then hand it off to us. We want to go for ourselves.

We want to go and see, is it a command and control system?

What are the telltale signs that that the government wouldn't let us see if they edited the tape? That's why we go, because we're news professionals and we want to see it for ourselves.

As I say, I'm - I'm disappointed, shocked. I find this a very, very poor situation - Wolf.

edit:
@Russ: Agree or not, is this satisfactory for the sake of the thread, or would you prefer I dig for more, and spend a day or so actually making a "bash Fox" thread? Heck, I could probably make a bash Fox-Russ thread if you really want me to, although I would tend not to waste my time in such a fashion. Still, you seem to want this to be more personal and wide-ranging that my intent ever was, so if you'd like to expand it, who am I to argue with a mentor?

 

[WhoWee]

Or you could hit the play button on the video, sorry I'm not into playing these games with you, and you know that now from experience, yes?

Still, I've posted it three times in various forms, I don't mind doing it again.



Then there's the video, and his own account, and Fox's semi-retraction. Given that this was largely a fiction by Fox News, I'm not sure what primary point you want to examine. You want to prove a negative that the military isn't going to discuss, and which was simply an invention of a "reporter" on the ground? Not how it works... if you have any support for the Fox position however, I'd be thrilled to hear it. You've asked quite a few questions, tried to drag this thread into an essentially fictional topic (human shields), and offered nothing.

Tit for tat my man, a cat for a hat and a hat for a cat, but nothing for nothing.

@czelaya: Nor should you, but as we learned with "bush v. Gore" similar is not the same.

I have to again ask the question - was a bombing run canceled because the news crews were at this location? If a bombing run was canceled - Fox News was correct to make the connection. I think the reporter feels foolish that he took a bus ride into the belly of the beast - risked his life (apparently a close call) and didn't have anyone to talk to - stood up by the "Libyan Strongman"? Please label my post - IMO.