by Bob Boynton

This is a two-fer. It is about one of the elements it takes for both sides of the line to work. It is also about coverage by media organizations. The two are joined in a murderous event in Afghanistan.

The event: on March 5, 2007 a convoy of US troops in Afghanistan was attacked by a car bomb/suicide bomber as they moved along a highway in the Nangarhar province. The troops opened fire on people on the road killing at least 8 and wounding at least 34. There seems to be little dispute about this other than the US claiming that some of the people were part of the attack and the people shot at claiming that they were killed and wounded only because the soldiers panicked. They claimed they were innocent victims. That is very likely the case for the 80 year old man who was killed while seated in his car, for example.

The US military interpretation was:

“We regret the loss of life of the Afghan civilians, but coalition forces were attached by both a suicide bomb vehicle and small arms fire.

“Our forces returned fire in self-defence against numerous enemy positions,” said Lieutenant Colonel David Accetta, coalition forces spokesman.

“We don’t train or order our troops to fire on unarmed civilians and it’s uncertain at this time what caused the casualties. [Aljazeera English March 5, 2007]

We believe . . . but it’s uncertain . . .

This is a time when the work of photo-journalists, if any happened to be in the vicinity, might be very helpful in the investigation. Here is a photo that ‘escaped.’

For ‘both sides of the line’ to work both authorities must be willing to have photo-journalists working. The Taliban did not let journalists into Afghanistan for most of the period they were under attack. Milosevic tossed the ‘western’ journalists out of Yugoslavia as soon as the bombs started dropping. When Israeli prime minister Sharon wanted to launch a full scale attack on Palestine they tossed the journalists out. North Korea permits photo journalists only for ceremonial occasions .

Rest assured the US fully supports a free press — according to a military spokesman:

“We are completely committed to a free and independent press, and we hope that we can help encourage this tradition in places where new and free governments are taking root,” he said. [Aljazeera English March 10, 2007]

This commitment to a free and independent press did not extend to the photo-journalists on the spot, however. Their video and photographs were confiscated and destroyed by the US military. Too bad about assistance with the investigation of the incident.

The same military spokesman explained why the military had to confiscate and destroy the photo materials.

Petrenko said that photographs or video taken by “untrained people” might “capture visual details that are not as they originally were”.

Of course these were not “untrained people.” They were journalists employed by the Associated Press, and even photographic material of amateurs may be at least as helpful in documenting what happened as the memory of the participants.

When the evidence is too embarrassing and the embarrassed parties have the clout there will be no media on their side of the line.

Both sides of the line is not simply dependent on the news organizations. It also depends on the ’sides.’ When they impose censorship there is no ‘both.’

Two, only Aljazeera English reported the US justification for confiscating the photographic materials from the AP reporters. No one has explained how 2 reporters happened to be there, but they were on the spot.

Somehow Aljazeera ‘was there’ when Petrenko was explaining and BBC World and CNN World were not. News organizations have a very strong interest in freedom of the press. When it is compromised they are normally there shouting. But they were not in this case.

Interpretation:

‘Both sides of the line’ is on a ‘roll.’ This is the third blog/incident in rather rapid succession.

Sometimes it is too embarrassing to be an American.

News Reports:

Aljazeera English March 5, 2007

Aljazeera English March 10, 2007