It is utterly sickening to watch the video of what Wikileaks claims is "the unprovoked slaying" of two Reuters employees, Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen. We watch events unfold through the perspective of an Apache gunsight, as the helicopter circles lazily over a group of men gathered in a Baghdad courtyard. "That's a weapon" says a voice, as the video shows a picture of a man carrying a black blur, which could be, well, anything. Over the image, the editor has superimposed text: "Samir w/ camera."
"Just fuckin', once you get on 'em, just open 'em up," says another voice, as the Apache positions for a better shot on the group. The Wikileaks text states that one of the men is Chmagh, talking on his phone, just before the helicopter unleashes a burst of machine gun fire on the group of men, sending them rolling on the ground. "Oh, yeah, look at those dead bastards," says a soldier.
If you needed any further proof that war is hell, look no further. But here's the problem: I have no way of verifying that Wikileaks' narrative here -- that we're witnessing the unprovoked murder of Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen -- is accurate. All I see is a number of men cut down by an Apache gunship; the context appears to be unverifiable.
Wired sees this story as evidence of "how a website dedicated to anonymous leaks has become a venue for a more traditional model of investigative reporting." I'm not so sure. The benefit of traditional reporting is that people are eventually forced to go on record: Individuals lend their names and reputations to a specific set of facts. That doesn't appear to be happening here. Wikileaks promises that it "goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives," but it doesn't quote any sources that can lend credence to its version of events.
There is no doubt that this is a truly horrifying video to watch. But what it appears to be now, to my eyes, is an important lead to a story, rather than the final product.
"The benefit of traditional reporting is that people are eventually forced to go on record: Individuals lend their names and reputations to a specific set of facts."
Have you been reading news reports in the last decade? After you say yes, I have to respond "really?" Because "traditional reporting" doesn't appear to make this a priority. I regularly throw my virtual newspaper across the room when I read stuff like "who spoke on conditional of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to talk."
This event was very well described by David Finkel in his book "The Good Soldiers" (http://www.amazon.com/Good-Soldiers-David-Finkel/dp/0374165734). The context is provided there; if I remember correctly, other American soldiers (different platoon, same company) had fallen under fire several blocks away, and the Americans believed that Noor-Eldeen and his escort were moving to engage at this other location. This explanation is no excuse for the event - Finkel very carefully walks a line of reporting without explicit judgement - but it provides further context.
Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.
Read More
(2)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE