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

  • Thread starter Thread starter nismaratwork
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    News
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around a Fox News report claiming that journalists, including a CNN crew, were used as human shields by Libyan authorities during a military operation. Nic Robertson from CNN vehemently criticized this assertion, labeling it "outrageous and hypocritical." He argued that Fox's report misrepresented the situation, as the journalists were not restricted and were free to leave the bus they were on. Robertson emphasized that they were taken to the site of a previous bombing for a brief period and then returned quickly, contradicting the idea that they were being used as shields. The conversation also touches on broader criticisms of media practices, with participants expressing skepticism about both Fox and CNN's journalistic integrity, suggesting that sensationalism and political bias often overshadow factual reporting. The debate raises questions about the responsibilities of journalists in conflict zones and the accuracy of media narratives during wartime.
  • #31
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
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.
 
  • #33
russ_watters said:
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.

CNN said:
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.
 
  • #34
Here's some of the transcript:

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2...s-outrageous-and-its-absolutely-hypocritical/
CNN under CC said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #35
nismaratwork said:
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.:smile:
 
  • #36
WhoWee said:
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.:smile:

The only source for that claim has been discredited beyond belief, so I'm not sure its worth addressing. If you have any evidence beyond the Fox report that this is the case, I'd make a thread of it. Certainly Fox doesn't share this view, if their backpedaling is any indication.

And hey, I asked for Russ, not a shill! :wink:
 
  • #37
nismaratwork said:
Here's some of the transcript:

edit:
@Russ: Agree or not, is this satisfactory for the sake of the thread...
No, it is not. That's called FLOODING. PF guidelines require that threads have specific points. All I am asking is that you list, in bullet point form, the lies and "whoops" that form the thesis of this thread. Failing that, this thread will need to be locked.
 
  • #38
russ_watters said:
No, it is not. That's called FLOODING. PF guidelines require that threads have specific points. All I am asking is that you list, in bullet point form, the lies and "whoops" that form the thesis of this thread. Failing that, this thread will need to be locked.

I thought the point was pretty clear: Fox is fabricating stories again.
 
  • #39
Thats what I thought too.
 
  • #40
Ivan Seeking said:
I thought the point was pretty clear: Fox is fabricating stories [STRIKE]again[/STRIKE] still.
Fixed that for you. :biggrin:
 
  • #41
nismaratwork said:
The only source for that claim has been discredited beyond belief, so I'm not sure its worth addressing. If you have any evidence beyond the Fox report that this is the case, I'd make a thread of it. Certainly Fox doesn't share this view, if their backpedaling is any indication.

And hey, I asked for Russ, not a shill! :wink:

How has the cancellation of a bombing run been discredited? Did the military comment?
 
  • #42
russ_watters said:
No, it is not. That's called FLOODING. PF guidelines require that threads have specific points. All I am asking is that you list, in bullet point form, the lies and "whoops" that form the thesis of this thread. Failing that, this thread will need to be locked.

It's almost as if you want to make this personal instead of, as Ivan so clearly said, about lies from Fox News... again. Do you have any comment on the material you insisted I post, or will you continue as you normally do? You know how utterly unimpressed I am, and how willing I am to keep you on track, yes? I thought so.

Nice try. P.S. I get instant email notifications, don't bother waiting for me to go offline to comment. Amateurs...

WhoWee: It wasn't discredited, it was FABRICATED. Biiiiig difference.
 
  • #43
russ_watters said:
No, it is not. That's called FLOODING. PF guidelines require that threads have specific points. All I am asking is that you list, in bullet point form, the lies and "whoops" that form the thesis of this thread. Failing that, this thread will need to be locked.

Fox News fabricated a story from whole-cloth, their reporter in Libya doesn't do what every other journalist considers the basics, hence the name of the thread.

Fox. News. Lied... and they were negligent, with the only support being another Newscorp property.

Now, care to offer something that doesn't make what you've done for pages simply a mentor trolling?
 
  • #44
WhoWee said:
How has the cancellation of a bombing run been discredited? Did the military comment?
The reporters were bused to Gaddhafi's compound, which was damaged by an earlier cruise-missile strike IIR. They waited in a tent with Gaddhafi supporters, and when the colonel didn't show, they were put back on the bus.

Why would you need "human shields" at a site that was already bombed, and why would a "bombing run" be scheduled for a site that had already been bombed, when you have radar, C&C, SAM arrays and other targets to take out? FOX's story is so thin, it's hard to see why anybody would take it seriously.
 
  • #45
turbo-1 said:
The reporters were bused to Gaddhafi's compound, which was damaged by an earlier cruise-missile strike IIR. They waited in a tent with Gaddhafi supporters, and when the colonel didn't show, they were put back on the bus.

Why would you need "human shields" at a site that was already bombed, and why would a "bombing run" be scheduled for a site that had already been bombed, when you have radar, C&C, SAM arrays and other targets to take out? FOX's story is so thin, it's hard to see why anybody would take it seriously.

Because people like Russ are here to distract from that point, and try to lead you down the primrose path. :-p

That, or people just want to believe any junk that fits their preconcieved notions and ideology.

edit:

russ_watters said:
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.

This is third post in this thread, where you challenge people about the details of a story that a Fox reporter invented, and then Fox partially retracted. How do you justify this approach?

edit: ...Silence speaks volumes.
 
Last edited:
  • #46
turbo-1 said:
The reporters were bused to Gaddhafi's compound, which was damaged by an earlier cruise-missile strike IIR. They waited in a tent with Gaddhafi supporters, and when the colonel didn't show, they were put back on the bus.

Why would you need "human shields" at a site that was already bombed, and why would a "bombing run" be scheduled for a site that had already been bombed, when you have radar, C&C, SAM arrays and other targets to take out? FOX's story is so thin, it's hard to see why anybody would take it seriously.

If the "Libyan Strongman" was scheduled to appear in the tent - I would think that would be a prime target - regardless of how many times it was bombed previously. Didn't US forces deliver 110 missles to 20 targets to begin?
 
  • #47
WhoWee said:
If the "Libyan Strongman" was scheduled to appear in the tent - I would think that would be a prime target - regardless of how many times it was bombed previously. Didn't US forces deliver 110 missles to 20 targets to begin?

You would think that a target that has been stated to NOT be a target by the US Military would be a "prime target" for a CRUISE missile?

1.) The 2 CMs that struck the compound in Al Aziziyah were launched by the brits.

2.) It doesn't matter what you think, this was filed as REPORT from a supposed news outlet, not private speculation.
 
  • #48
Hey, does anyone think this 2009 memo policy is being enforced?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200911230038

Mediamatters said:
November 23, 2009 5:12 pm ET by Matt Gertz

As my colleague Eric Hananoki noted below, FishbowlDC posted a Fox News memo today acknowledging "a series of mistakes on FNC in recent months" and stating that in the future, "there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors" and "[m]istakes by any member of the show team that end up on air may result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the 'mistake chain,' and those who supervise them... up to and including termination."
 
  • #49
nismaratwork said:
You would think that a target that has been stated to NOT be a target by the US Military would be a "prime target" for a CRUISE missile?

1.) The 2 CMs that struck the compound in Al Aziziyah were launched by the brits.

2.) It doesn't matter what you think, this was filed as REPORT from a supposed news outlet, not private speculation.

Are the British also NOT targeting the "Libyan Strongman"?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/socia...-fox-news-human-shield_n_838758_81596744.html

It seems the practice of pulling back on targets is not that unusual.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Canadian+jets+turn+back+Libya+bombing/4484485/story.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...fi-using-human-shields.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
WhoWee said:
Are the British also NOT targeting the "Libyan Strongman"?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/socia...-fox-news-human-shield_n_838758_81596744.html

It seems the practice of pulling back on targets is not that unusual.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Canadian+jets+turn+back+Libya+bombing/4484485/story.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...fi-using-human-shields.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Again, this has no bearing on a fabricated story, although you seem to have material for a different and entirely speculative thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #51
American news is a write off with respect to a reliable source of information. Media across the country can't deliver information without a political bias. Watching fox news make me cringe actually. I feel like I'm being given a right wing opinion not actual news.
 
  • #52
dacruick said:
American news is a write off with respect to a reliable source of information. Media across the country can't deliver information without a political bias. Watching fox news make me cringe actually. I feel like I'm being given a right wing opinion not actual news.

News is generally unreliable, but as you note, unrealiable is different from propoganda. MSNBC and Fox News are shills for their respective "bases", not really news outlets at all. CNN goes for "human interest" and "drama" at the expense of news, with a liberal slant, but it's not subtle enough to fool anyone who isn't truly gullible.

As always, it's best to find a number of sources, and in the case of a story such as this it's important to remember the two "agreeing" sources are... both Newscorp owned.
 
  • #53
nismaratwork said:
Again, this has no bearing on a fabricated story, although you seem to have material for a different and entirely speculative thread.

The story is not "fabricated" if the British pulled the plug on the mission because of the presence of the news crews - is it? Label it speculation if you like, but until the British military clarifies - we just don't know for certain - do we?

This report doesn't convince me either way.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/mp/9050306/west-strikes-libya-gaddafi-forces-choke-misrata/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
WhoWee said:
The story is not "fabricated" if the British pulled the plug on the mission because of the presence of the news crews - is it? Label it speculation if you like, but until the British military clarifies - we just don't know for certain - do we?

This report doesn't convince me either way.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/mp/9050306/west-strikes-libya-gaddafi-forces-choke-misrata/

I'm a skeptic, when someone makes a claim I need more than one compromised course to make it something to speculate about. There needs to be a valid claim to examine, not an endless hypothetical. Once again, if you want to discuss the what-ifs of military strikes where journalists are present, then by all means start the thread and I PROMISE I will fully participate.

In this case however, we have an invention of one person backed by Newscorp, and discredited by CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC. There is nothing to examine re: the OP's post, and I should know.

Don't let yourself go down this road, you have too much respect for facts (I've seen it) to play this game. We don't know ANYTHING for certain in the fog of war, much less the motivations of ongoing operations beyond conflicting reports. Beyond that general and obvious statement which in no way gives Fox leave to invent stories, no, there is nothing in what you're saying that is relevant to a manufactured tale by a putz who spent most of his time in a tent.

edit: Again, this was not an airstrike either, but a cruise missile launch that HIT before reporters were on the scene. Logic should play a role here too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
WhoWee said:
The story is not "fabricated" if the British pulled the plug on the mission because of the presence of the news crews - is it? Label it speculation if you like, but until the British military clarifies - we just don't know for certain - do we?

This report doesn't convince me either way.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/mp/9050306/west-strikes-libya-gaddafi-forces-choke-misrata/
I read that report. Lots of contributors, but at no time did anybody make the statement that a planned bombing of Gaddhafi's compound was called off because American reporters were there. One mission was called off due to the presence of civilians, apparently, with NO connection made to the bombing of the previously-bombed compound. I have been following the coverage of the Libya campaign pretty closely, and the only media that are pumping this non-story are owned by Rupert Murdoch. Red meat for the faithful, but no real story.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
czelaya said:
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.

I agree. There are much better sources for news than either FNC or CNN. The high doses of sensationalism are a huge turn-off for me.
 
  • #57
Dembadon said:
I agree. There are much better sources for news than either FNC or CNN. The high doses of sensationalism are a huge turn-off for me.

I think as Pythagorean has pointed out, there may also be some unfortunate effects for overall thinking, or perhaps the risk leads one to sensationalism. IMO, it's a bit of both.

@turbo-1: Rupert Murdoch, CNN (for their own ratings at this point), Nic Robertson, and our very own Russ Waters.
 
  • #58
As for wartime journalists, I just saw a rather engaging interview with Michael Holmes. As he put it, journalists in a warzone know what they're getting into, and gave the example of his cameraman being shot in the head in Iraq, who is now back there doing what he did previously.

If there was any aborted strike on a primary target for the sake of journalists, I'm sure that everyone from Edward R. Murrough to Michael Homes, Ben Wedemen, Nic Robertson, Christiane Amanpour and many others would be apalled. After all, it's not precision munitions they're most worried about, but kidnapping and sudden death.

Frankly, there is a profound cowardice to the fiction by that hack of a reporter for Fox, and more in their attempt to justify it.
 
  • #59
nismaratwork said:
If there was any aborted strike on a primary target for the sake of journalists, I'm sure that everyone from Edward R. Murrough to Michael Homes, Ben Wedemen, Nic Robertson, Christiane Amanpour and many others would be apalled. After all, it's not precision munitions they're most worried about, but kidnapping and sudden death.

I suppose this explains why Nic Robertson is so angry (?)-label this IMO.:smile:
 
  • #60
WhoWee said:
I suppose this explains why Nic Robertson is so angry (?)-label this IMO.:smile:

That, or he just abhors lies in the skin of journalism.
 

Similar threads

News Libya: Rebels Being Slaughtered, no fly zone
  • · Replies 327 ·
11
Replies
327
Views
47K
News Is Libya on the brink of a full-blown civil war?
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
7K