From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:37:22 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Dec17.161645.3316@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>The reference was to the Somalis who got killed or wounded at the
>weapon-confiscation checkpoint. Their truck (or bus) failed to stop
>and the French soldiers fired on them. The original story (disinformation)
>was that there was a weapon mounted on the truck. Later it was admitted
>that their was no mounted gun, but the men were armed and were trying
>to run the roadblock to keep their weapons. Finally, the disinformation
>gave way to truth: the passengers were not armed and their junker truck 
>had bad brakes. Why did the truth come out? Because the press was there.

Hmm, I watched the Pentagon press briefing, and nowhere did they come up with
any of these stories.  Maybe Dan Blather did, but not the military.  The
checkpoint was one where vehicles with armed occupants consistantly drove
through the roadblock.  It was night, the vehicle didn't stop, the troops
had no idea why, but knowing past history, they fired on it.  Period.  Any
further additions to the story came from the vivid imaginations of the Press.
The Pentagon spokesman at the time (not Pete Williams) told the press if
they wanted further details (ie. was it a family, why didn't they stop, etc.)
as the people in the van.  He was asked to "take the question" and get back to
them, and refused.  And I agree with his stand.  The press was trying to build
up some sort of story like the above, based on speculation, and he wouldn't
play their game.  If they wanted to dig and find "hidden facts", that was 
their game - they've got hundreds of people there, and access to the people
involved, go out and investigate.

>I do plenty of press bashing. Right now, I'd rather bash people like
>you (?) who cry crocodile tears about how the press is endangering
>lives when really it's not endangered lives they're really concerned
>about, it's preserving their militaristic fervor and testosterone buzz.
>Their media bashing is a political smoke screen.

Wow, do I detect a little militant feminism there?  We lucked out, no one
was hurt.  The guys came in at night to minimize the danger, and the jerks
in the press met them like it was a training excercise.  What if some
sniper had been lurking in the bushs just waiting to spill first blood?
Like I said, we lucked out.  If someone had been hit, especially a reporter,
now that would have been interesting.  Remember the ABC reporter in
Nicaragua that got in between the army and the rebels and got blown away?
Nothing was said about his stupidity in getting in the line of fire.

[stuff about KAL007 deleted]

>Society. But there you go bashing the "press" again. The fault lies with 
>the generals and politicians. Also, I hope we can do better in this country.
>Better than John "Disinformation" Poindexter and a whole host of other cynics
>in the outgoing administration(s).

The real fault lies in the press reporting everything they hear, before it's
checked out completely.  The government may have had a hand in it, but the
ultimate responsibility lies in the press verifying what they report, rather
than just fill the time with rumors.   Now it's really getting bad, with
CNN operating 24 hours a day, pumping out rumors as fact, just because they
happen to be hot.  Remember the big deal with Weinberger just before the
election?  has the press devoted much time to the case being thrown out a
few days ago, because it was past the statute of limitations?  Seems a little
strange that the Special Prosecuters office couldn't figure out their case
would be thrown out.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs