
![]() | |
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
|
Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! April 11, 2008 Targeting JournalistsBy GreyhawkThis-week-in-Iraq-war-history continues with another look-back post, this one originally published in February, 2005. It concerns events occuring at the time of the fall of Baghdad - events that had made headlines again two years later. (And I'd like to think it helped draw a certain mainstream media guy into the blogosphere. I love to corrupt the innocent...) Milblogger meets reporter: The Mudville Gazette presents an online dialogue on the topic of military targeting of journalists with Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald. Opinions expressed are those of the individuals stating them, who should not be construed as representing any groups, organizations or third parties. Likewise no endorsement of comments herein by such groups is expressed or implied. My thanks to Mr Crittenden for taking the time to participate in this discussion. Eason Jordan has resigned. That's all well and good, but don't be fooled. The "Easongate" affair is about something more than one man slandering the US Military. As a member of that institution living in Europe I hear such comments more frequently (or at least notice them more often) than many Americans. The more outlandish a conspiracy theory is, the more likely it can be utterred without fear of reprisal in certain circles. Some small kernel of truth that adds any credibilty to the claim is a bonus. After all, journalists do get killed on battlefields. Civilians are often victims of crossfire. Soldiers sometimes mistakenly fire on their brothers-in-arms. It's a small step from those facts to an assumption that somewhere, somehow a soldier might have intentionally fired on a journalist in the heat of battle. That's the start of a slippery slope, nearer the bottom of which some are surprised to find executives with major news organizations opining that such events occur with a frequency that could not be unnoticed by the powers-that-be in both the military and the media. Although twisted and distorted to fit his purpose, there are facts at the root of Eason Jordan's claim. The genesis of the soldiers targeting reporters in Iraq line could be traced to events in Baghdad during the final days of the invasion. Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald was embedded with A Co., 4-64 Armor, 2nd Brigade, 3rd ID during the battle for Baghdad, and was on scene when a US Army tank fired on the Palestine Hotel from the Jumhuriyah Bridge on April 8, 2003, killing two journalists. He was quoted ("selectively and/or inaccurately") in reports of the event that are now frequently cited as support for claims of murder committed by US soldiers. If anyone can be called a "fair witness" to both the actual event and the subsequent rise of a distorted version of same its Jules Crittenden. The Palestine incident was twice written up, by the Committee to Protect Journalists ("Permission to Fire") and Reporters Without Borders ("Two Murders and a Lie") in biased and sloppy reports that fuel this myth. So when Jordan tells congressmen the military targets journalists, he is only reflecting a view that has been given respectability by deeply concerned professional organizations that have been eagerly seeking out evidence of targeting, and when they can't find it, suggest it must be what happened anyway. On a balcony outside Room 1502 of the Palestine Hotel, across the Tigris, photographer Faleh Khaiber was trying to get his shots of American aircraft in the skies over Baghdad that morning. Khaiber was an Iraqi, a Baghdad native who worked as a photographer for the Reuters news agency. He was staying in Room 935, but he had come up to the Reuters room because its two balconies faced north and slightly west, affording a view of the west bank of the Tigris. Khaiber was forty-seven, but he looked much younger. He was short and trim, with small features, his black hair tinged with silver and combed forward. He was nimble and quick, and good with a camera. GH: So you were there? All of us who went to Iraq, embedded and non-embedded press, knew we could be killed. Many of us narrowly avoided it, but others weren't so lucky. It is part of the deal. What happened at the Palestine underscores the fact that there is no safe place in a war zone. That point also is illustrated by what happened to two European reporters embedded with 2nd Brigade of the 3rd ID, who they chose not to join the assault on Baghdad on April 7 due to the danger. They stayed back at the brigade TOC, where they were killed by an Iraqi missile. So much for second guessing one's safety options. This concludes part one of this discussion. Have a question or comment? Those who would like to "join" the conversation are encouraged to make use of the comments section below. Thoughtful questions and (respectful) dissenting opinions will be addressed in a future post on this topic. Thanks again to Mr Crittenden for taking the time to participate in this discussion, and thanks in advance to all those who join in below. Update/clarification: This post was written by Greyhawk - posted by the Mrs. Apologies for any confusion that resulted! 2005-02-13 18:03:27 Posted by Greyhawk / April 11, 2008 5:03 PM | Permalink 9 TrackBacksIn an excellent blog post by fellow Milblogger the Mudville Gazette discussing the targeting of journalists by the military, Mr.s... Read More Hat tip to Instapundit. This is what I've been waiting on, a discussion of whether Journalists have been targeted, since the CPJ and Reporters Without Borders have obviously accused the US Military of "murder and deliberate targeting". I think this i... Read More
The Mudville Gazette has an interview with a Boston Globe reporter who was imbedded with the tank unit that fired ... Read MoreBack in the days when I wore green I was stationed for a few years at Fort Lewis, Washington. Because Fort Lewis is surrounded by small towns on all sides there's nowhere to safely set up tank gunnery ranges. Even the training rounds a tank fires wil... Read More In this TCS article, James D. Miller argues that blogs, of all things, are likely to have a chilling effect on free speech. First we have the Scary Setup. Watch out America - if the Big Bad Blogs have their... Read More Because The Blog from the Core simply can't cover everything. Noteworthy entries @ Posse Incitatus, Captain's Quarters, Vodkapundit, Catholic Analysis,... Read More ....for American soldiers. A Spanish judge has issued an international arrest order for three US soldiers over the shelling of a Baghdad hotel that killed a cam...Read More FRESH OFF THE WIRES from Madrid: A judge has issued an international arrest warrant for three U.S. soldiers whose tank fired on a Baghdad hotel during the Iraq war, killing a Spanish journalist and one other, a court official said... Read More A Spanish Judge has ordered the arrest of three American soldiers, charging them with the murder of Spanish journalist Jose Couso. Couso was killed by an M-1 tank round in April, 2003 while he, treating war as the spectator sport we all know it is, was... Read More 21 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
![]() Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com ![]() Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
As a former soldier myself I really appreciate Mr. Crittenden's comments on this topic. American soldiers (and those of other Western nations I had the privilege to serve with) have the rule of law inculcated into them. They know what is a legal order and what is not, and would be horrified to find out that one of their comrades had deliberately targeted a non-combatant, even the nearly universally disliked journalists.
It's interesting that you chose today to post this Mrs. Greyhawk since I just finished writing a post on my own blog about a training accident that took place when I was stationed at Fort Lewis. Considering that such a thing could happen in peacetime under training conditions it suprises me that anyone would think that an accident couldn't happen in wartime. Soldiers are under great amounts of stress in combat and sometimes make mistakes. To suggest that means that honorable men and women are deliberately taking actions that any warrior would find abhorrent is despicable. Sadly, in today's world, certain groups of people can be attacked by the media with impunity, including soldiers and police officers, and the media is rarely, if ever, taken to task for it.
My sincere condolences to the family and friends of those killed covering this war and other hot spots. The courage it takes to go into these areas is to be respected.
The real question is why most of these courageous people take the low road when it comes to reporting the stories. There must be a reason that most of the MSM reporting is so negative. I think because any story showing the U.S. in a badlight gets coverage the reporters are going to write those stories even if they have to make them up or "speculate". Career enhancement is the motive at this level and it's driven by the ideology of the upper echelons like Eason Jordan!
Kudos to your guest for telling the story! Isn't Greg Kelley an ex-Marine? Good training shows!
The reporters I talked to in Viet Nam (two) said that they respected the fact that being on operations was very dangerous but that was their job. They also mentioned that most of the press was satisfied to file reports from the Hotels in Saigon or other safe places.
I don't know from first hand experience, but was told by a Captain, that one of those two I spoke with was killed a few weeks later. The Captain said that he was killed along with 5 of our troops by a short arty. round.
Here is something I found that shows that even Kofi Anan said that most journalists who die are MURDERED.
http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGPOL305032004
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
"Career enhancement is the motive at this level and it's driven by the ideology of the upper echelons like Eason Jordan!"
That is indeed the problem. In this case, they're from the Left and there for one purpose, to find an angle they can manipulate to discredit our military's objectives and actions. All the while doing their part helping to sustain/strengthen their own careers and organizations as they feed the public up to date coverage on world events.
They live for and get paid to further an agenda. They are not very good people.
I dont believe they targeted on purpsoe
but incompetence.
just like Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia
should have intel on high rises
and where non combatants were before firing
its jsut intl law,
I think it's telling that when they hit the hotel the enemy spotter "...is now calling his buddy and saying he’s getting suppressed and has to move.”
No matter how it is characterized it seems it was effective and looks like the Palestine hotel was being used by an enemy spotter. That was unfortunate for the journalists, but considering Saddam's record of using human shields should have been expected by the journalists congregating there.
Kalroy
The fact that Mr. Crittendens comments never made it to the MSM is telling. It is almost inconceivable the extent our military goes to prevent civilian collateral damage. Our enemies certainly don't. And housing up in an area inhabited by enemy combatants would certainly lead one to believe it could get dicey.
The deaths were unfortunate and sad, but the circumstances are certainly understandable.
Always a pleasure to see Mr. Crittenden's remarks - he is a walking refutation to the meme of media bias against the military.
I, for one, would have been happier to see Jordan admit what he did and try to fix it - he didn't have to resign. That would have been more instructive, IMO.
There is a lot of very good coverage of the military out there - not all of it uncritical, *but not all of it has to be* - all we ask is an even shake.
Thanks for bringing this to us. I'll link to it later if I don't space out completely.
Everyone seems to be missing a big point. If the troops were out to get the media, both Dan Rather and Peter Jennings have been in and out of country. Wouldn't those two never make it back out? And what about that witch from CNN, the Brit with the lying dirty mouth? No, if our guys were out to get media, there would be many more of them dead.
Good work here Greyhawk and Mrs. Greyhawk. I will spread the word about this post as well.
Exactly. I think the larger story here is being ignored: WHAT THE HECK HAS HAPPENED TO MILITARY MARKSMANSHIP???
If we are truly targeting journalists, this track record is nothing to boast about. I, for one, am ashamed...
*running away*
Followed the link over from Instapundit with the intention of pointing you at Thunder Run myself. Glad to hear you guys have already followed up on this.
Thunder Run is one of the better books to come out of the conflict. I also recommend Generation Kill by Evan Wright (an account of a platoon of First Reconnaissance Battalion Marines), The March Up by Ray Smith & Bing West (with the 1st Marine Division), In the Company of Soldiers by Rick Atkinson (with the 101st Airborne), Masters of Chaos by Linda Robinson (with the Special Forces) and Naked in Baghdad by Anne Garrels (NPR correspondent in Baghdad for the duration).
My question is why haven't the circumstances outlined in Thunder Run been circulated as widely as the false assertions that the journalists were deliberated targeted?
GreyHawk,
Excellent job on this.
Here is what bothers me:
"Some of the journalists had moved in recent days from the Rashid Hotel across the river, which had been seized the morning before by the tanks and Bradleys of the Rogue battalion. All morning on the seventh, journalists had watched from the Palestine as Assassin Company fought off an Iraqi counterattack at the intersection at the foot of the bridge on the west bank. The hotel’s balconies and rooftop afforded a fairly good view of the fight, while far enough away, seemingly, to keep journalists from getting caught up in it."
What does recent days mean? Did any journalists move from the Rashid to the Palestine hotel the previous day when American troops took over that hotel?
We should remind ourselves in the days just before the war began how the journalists lined up to get IN to Iraq to report on the war, hoping to get spectacular TV footage and pictures similar to CNNs coverage during the initial aerial bombardments in the first Gulf War. What explains this phenomena? Media organizations send their reporters into harms way to sell TV time or newspapers in the supposed name of getting the truth. But when they allow themselves to be manipulated into providing the message the country they are in wants to get out, or restrict what they show to what matches their own opinions or their own agenda, they cease to be news and become propaganda. So they are at least complicit in the deaths of their employees in combat since they sent them into a war zone to put out the propaganda allowed by the host country and have no room to blame either side when their reporters are killed.
It's a tough world out there. If you choose to be there, accept the consequences, friendly fire or hostile fire, collateral damage or in the wrong place at the wrong time. Acting like the blue helmet on your head and the TV or PRESS on your flak jacket is a force field against the laws of physics when the warhead goes off 20 yards away and you are riddled with shrapnel just shows that you are too stupid to understand the world as it is, and therefore have no business telling the rest of us how it should be.
If you are a journalist and have observed the US Army in action, seizing your hotel the previous day, why would you move back in to enemy held territory to continue to observe the battle the next day? Even if you started the war in the Palestine, why would you be surprised when shells or bullets from combatants start exploding around you? After all, the American Army WAS capturing Baghdad, a location which you, as a correspondent, had thoughtfully placed yourself so you could see people getting blown up, and send it to your editors with the byline "American Army kills innocent civilians". Either you 1) have no respect for the weapons of war and the men who wield them, because you ignored the devastation they wrought the previous day, or 2) are so consumed with showing the other side's story in the name of balance, but not truth, that you would put yourself in the middle of a battle on the receiving end of the most devastating fire possible, just so you can get a good shot for your news organization showing the hated American Army shooting at you.
Either your are 1) stupid and clueless, or 2) married to the philosophy that America is the root of all that is bad, as well as being stupid and clueless. And the excuse that they are just journalists doing their job doesn't hold water. Sending journalists into a combat zone without the expectation they will suffer the same casualties as the soldiers fighting the war again shows how clueless journalists and their bosses are.
Bottom line: If you intend to cover a war, be ready to die just as the soldiers fighting the battle must be. Be ready to show just the truth, not your interpretation of it. And placing yourself in the line of fire, however you did it, especially when the American military is on the other end of the rifle barrel, is foolhardy in the extreme. Even the American military shows a greater fear and respect of friendly fire than they do of enemy fire. (Witness all the effort put in to training soldiers to look where they are shooting, and holding their fire if the target is not identified.)
If, as journalists, you are not ready to die for the truth, quit painting yourself as some noble bard who unveils the injustice in the world through the truth of your words and photos. You shouldn't flirt with the truth ---- you should be married to it.
Subsunk
My own experiences with journos (in the public-safety realm) always brought home to me that many of them never even consider that there might be another side to the story. I told some journo friends about the things I saw at work, and they always just had this blank stare; you could see the phrase "does not compute" rolling behind their eyes. It was quite frustrating. I just wanted to shake them, hard, and yell "I'm not lying! This is the way things are!"
Again, why would a person with the guts to go into a combat zone risk their lives to tell a lie? There has to be an incentive from above, from the powers that be , the ones who say how much air time a story gets. It seems the worse the U.S. looks in the story, the longer the story runs. New York Times ran Abu Graib stories on the front page 50+ times according to the O'reilly Factor!
Why?
Greyhawk,
Your essay + Crittenden interview + Thunder Run extraction combine to make the most useful journalism on the Pallestine Hotel incident (that I've seen). Just superb. I've done my best with a SeekerBlog post to send folks over here.
To Dean: thanx heaps for the book reviews, just added to my wish list. I will second your nominations for the two I've read: In the Company of Soldiers, and Naked in Baghdad.
May I also recommend Karl Zinsmeister's: Boots on the Ground: A Month With the 82nd Airborne in the Battle for Iraq , and his Dawn Over Baghdad: How the U.S. Military is Using Bullets and Ballots to Remake Iraq, reviewed at Townhall here. The latter is the first (and only?) on-the-ground book on reconstruction and anti-terror strategies.
Gee too bad for CNN i mean just think over the last few years how bad its gone for the liberal left-wing news media i mean first it was that reporter for the New York Times then it was DAN RATHER and then TOM BROKAW and now this person for CNN(Communist News Network)who next? frankly i hope its PETER JENNINGS
My domain expertise is unrelated to military affairs but I know from extensive reading over a long period of time that journalists have their own views and their own biases. Whether consciously or not, an author's biases will be reflected in the stories he or she writes. Moreover, if your colleagues are getting killed in substantial numbers , it's very easy to assume they're being targeted without any regard for the circumstances.
Covering a war is dangerous work. As others have pointed out, if the military really was targeting journalists, many more of them would be dead right now.
I am a little surprised by the apparent admiration of Crittenden's reporting.
He says: "The Palestine incident was twice written up, by the Committee to Protect Journalists ("Permission to Fire") and Reporters Without Borders ("Two Murders and a Lie") in biased and sloppy reports that fuel this myth."
Sorry, wrong. Neither of these reports "fuel the myth" [of targeting journalists]; they both rubbish it. Both are meticulous reports entirely consistent with Crittenden's own account.
If anyone is fuelling the myth it is Crittenden, by falsely claiming that a couple of widely respected journalists' organisations support the myth, when they don't.
It's too bad that you're not going to see the whole story in the mainstream media. they would rather the nation believe that we are a bunch of bloodthirsty killers with no regard for human life. Yes, it is unfortunate that those journalists had to die, but they knew when they went to Iraq that they were entering a war zone and they knew of Saddam's history of using human shields. A large part of that was their own fault. And if they want to blame someone, they should blame the Iraqi who was directing fire from that building. That's all I have to say
There's a weird dichotomy concerning these accusations and statements of fact. For one thing, if the military was in reality targeting journalists for execution and assassination, journalists would never speak about it nor write it.
How do I know this? because journalists and reporters are extremely silent over the Islamic Jihad when the Islamic Jihad even gives a whiff that they will go apeshat over something the media has reported.
So if the military is targeting reporters, why do reporters feel very free to publicize this then?
The world is an upside down place because people like reporters can crush the bones of infants just because they can't pick on someone their own size, since that would be dangerous and scary.
A large part of that was their own fault. And if they want to blame someone, they should blame the Iraqi who was directing fire from that building. That's all I have to say
I think in retrospect, many Leftists and Democrat reporters want the United States military to be as bloodthirsty as they wish. This way, they feel secure in knowing that their world view is correct.
For example, the Palestinians want the Jews to be the enemy that they say they are. Because if the Jews weren't around for the Pallys to fight, the Palestinians would have to find somebody else to pound on.
Thus Democrats and reporters need and are in symbiotic relationship with mass murderers, war criminals, and assassins. They need the existence of such people, in order to function correctly. And trying to make the US military into what they need, is just the reflex of any junkie and inanimate tool.
A tool wants power. If it electrocutes you, then it isn't the tool's fault. It is our fault, as users, for not using the media and the reporters as they could be used. We still treat them as people and individuals, when they really aren't.