New York Times Loses Its Iraq War Embeds

And rightfully so.

WASHINGTON — A photograph and videotape of a Texas soldier dying in Iraq published by the New York Times have triggered anger from his relatives and Army colleagues and revived a long-standing debate about which images of war are proper to show.
The journalists involved, Times reporter Damien Cave and Getty Images photographer Robert Nickelsberg, working for the Times, had their status as so-called embedded journalists suspended Tuesday by the Army corps in Baghdad, military officials said, because they violated a signed agreement not to publish photos or video of any wounded soldiers without official consent.

The Times’ explanation is just plain lame:

New York Times foreign editor Susan Chira said Tuesday night that the newspaper initially did not contact the family of Army Staff Sgt. Hector Leija about the images because of a specific request from the Army to avoid such a direct contact.
“The Times is extremely sensitive to the loss suffered by families when loved ones are killed in Iraq,” Chira said. “We have tried to write about the inevitable loss with extreme compassion.”

Apparently being “extremely sensitive” and showing “extreme compassion” means “splash photos and video of your dead family member all over the media.”
But hey, no ethical obligation is too large to steamroll over on the Times’ way to undermining public support for the war.

She said that after the newspaper account, with a photograph of the soldier, was published Monday, a Times reporter in Baghdad made indirect efforts to tell the family of the video release later that day. The video was still available for viewing on the Times’ Web site Tuesday night, when the newspaper notified clients of its photo service that the photograph at issue was no longer available and should be eliminated from any archives.

As of the time of this post the video is still available on the Times website.

Tags: , , , ,


«
»
  • http://www.sayanythingblog.com/ electnixon

    Tell me, how does this differ from most tabloids?

    Well, Tabloids typically print rumors and exaggerations, whereas what the Times prints… Oh, I guess there isn’t much difference.

  • Bat One

    Rob,

    The problem isn’t with the selling. It’s that no one is buying.

  • robert108

    I especially like the “let’s move on” crap about Berger’s document theft, while the left is still carping about the runup to the war. Maybe when they “move on” from that one…

  • halatbis

    Maybe the New York Times can save a bunch of money by not having to pay their embeds. They can take their cue from CNN–contact Al Jezeera (sp?) and get their photos and stories from them. One problem with that–Al Jezeera may not be far left enough to make good copy for the NYTimes.

  • docdave

    The New York Times – all the stuff that shouldn’t be printed (includes classified documents). Tell me, how does this differ from most tabloids?

  • http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

    electnixon– Or the NYT prints disinformation (a communist propaganda deception). The greatest one so far was Walter Duranty’s whitewashing of Stalin’s murder of Seven million Ukranians in the 1930.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Given the way the Times’ stock has been selling they certainly need to save some money.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development