CBS Cameraman in "the Public Eye"

There's a huge difference between make-believe, staged combat scenes and footage from a real war zone. In real combat, journalists "embedded" with one side or the other stand a reasonable chance of being shot, catching shrapnel, or being wounded in some fashion - often grievously. In fact, their odds of being wounded are probably slightly greater than other participants in the operation, if they consider themselves "protected" by their media credentials. And the odds of taking one for the team rise exponentially if they are embedded with terrorists - and more so if those terrorists have just detonated a car bomb and killed a large group of civilians. This risk is obvious to most folks, but the fact seems lost on many in the journalist community. In fairness, CBS recognizes the difference between staged combat ops, where their reporters can safely make a cameo appearance, and the real deal, where they must rely on local stringers to go in harm's way.

This week we noted this report from the Wall Street Journal bringing us the latest on a CBS cameraman wounded by US troops during a terrorist attack in Mosul last April. The photographer was detained by US troops, (specifically the Deuce-Four) and the army later announced that he'd been denounced by Iraqi citizens who were at the scene for being with the terrorists, he had video of at least four car bombings in his camera, and he had tested positive for explosives residue.

Now CBS breaks "radio silence" (well, sort of, they acknowledge the incident - I'm sure there's legal advice involved) on their new blog PublicEye. The entry doesn't do much to advance the story, but it does offer this clarification:

As the Wall Street Journal notes in a correction to its original story, CBS "hasn't taken the position that it knows" Hussein is innocent. But the network has argued that the U.S. government has not made evidence available of his guilt.

That the blog exists is noteworthy; as this story indicates it at least gives them a place to discuss those issues they deem "not ready for prime time", a place to respond to (and be part of) the blogosphere, and it does include a comment section, so reader feedback is desired. To quote from another post there: Still, we?d like a better conversation, more substantive, less knee-jerk MSM-bashing. Seems fair enough - with time they'll no doubt sprout more wheat among the chaff.

And I eagerly look forward to their response to this video.