Point of Impact



I am not a media critic, nor do I wish to make myself out to be some well educated critic of national security policy or political scientist the first amendment and the roll of free press. I am just a normal civilian with common sense who believes that Anderson Cooper, and the rest of the CNN editorial staff should be ashamed of themselves.

Their decision to wrecklessly publicize snuff sniper footage was weeks ago, however its apparent that their lack of follow up on the matter reveals their motives to be purely editorial with the sole agenda of driving ratings. They reference their endless moral and professional debates in several blog entries related to the episode, however I feel it necessary to reflect upon several aspect of their decision now that the elections are over and we are off to the races for 2008.

I have waited for a few weeks to reconsider my initial feelings and thoughts about their airing of the sniper footage as "news", hoping that some distance and time would reveal something I had missed, or calm me down. But it hasn't.

I don't want to get into some larger macro theories here, I wish to comment solely on the specific decision of this news organization to publish such footage, the way in which they cut and edited it and called it "news" as if they were providing some higher responsibility to the public.

To make such a claim, is a complete and utter farce. While there are several reasons why this coverage sickened me, one very specific reason rises above all others. This footage wasn't new at all. It's been on the internet for MONTHS.

Why do I know this? Well, YouTube has been one of the ways I embellish my civilian war experience and try to curb my SCS (Stupid Civilian Syndrom). Granted, I recognize the inherent voyuerist that this makes me, but the videos, footage and writings on the internet are really the best one can do, besides actually knowing someone, or going there yourself. Do I need to restate my awareness that not everything on the internet is reliable, I hope not….

Weekly I will take a spin to see what is out there. Like anything on the internet there is trash and then there are pearls. I totally feel like a voyeur when I stumble on someone's homemade slide show of their friend, spouse, sibling, daughter or son, who is either serving or who has perished, as often it is Youtube's public forum that is used for the distribution of private video messages to loved ones. Sometimes when its certain that its a private message to a loved one, I click it shut. But if its a memorial video, I tend to leave it open. I want to see who these soldiers are to their loved ones, I want to see who they were before they left and how they are remembered. I want to know who died trying to protect my life, futile as it may seem to some. I've cried many times watching these slide shows, maybe thats weird, and I hope it doesn't offend the folks that I have peeped in on. I'd like to thank them for sharing their son or daughters life with the anonymous world, its basically the only way we can know who the "soldiers killed" are or were besides non-descript anonymous headlines.

One day I stumbled across something far different than anything I had seen. This was about five months ago. I clicked on "sniper" or "juba" I can't remember which and a video popped up that I had never seen. It was about ten minutes and was fucking awful.

I've never really seen a live human being shot before. I've never seen how the body collapses or buckles when a bullet tears through clothing and pierces skin. But that was what I was watching, over and over and over and over and over again. And no, it wasn't like a movie, actors seem to overact these moments now that I have seen a real person get shot. Nothing about this footage was entertaining, it was gruesome and chilling.

One after one, after one, after one, about 15 seconds of footage of a soldier standing watch, talking to someone, adjusting something or just walking, then- in a blink -the bodies buckled and collapsed. In some cases, the puff of white smoke from their body armor still in the air above them. It almost looks like a human moving in fast forward, the footage is slow and aimless before, and then SNAP, the soldier has hit the deck. You would think that someone had cut the ligaments behind their knees they fall so fast. The immediate collapse of some of the victims was startling. I imagine some sort of struggle, but most of them, it was just SNAP and BAM, on the floor. Nothing like TV or the movies. There's no big glory moment, where the arms go up, the eyes roll back and they grasp at their limb or chest in pain. Not at all. This was real sniper footage I was watching.

I probably watched that footage a dozen times. Not in a row mind you, I don't want to sound like a freak, I just wanted to get to the point to where I could watch it without flinching. I wanted to desensitize myself, on purpose, but I never could. There is still something that makes me shudder when I even think of the footage now. I hadn't watched it again until recently, when I saw CNN's "news story". I hadn't seen the story live on CNN, but a dozen or so people had asked me if I had seen the story, based on the familiarity I had with "Iraq footage". Often I would bring up something I've seen to a few select friends , so naturally, the day the piece aired, these same friends emailed asking my opinion. I hadn't been watching that night, but when I saw the CNN piece on Youtube I couldn't believe what I was watching.

Sidebar: I do recognize that I may look like a hypocrite writing about this footage so graphically, when I mean to critique it's use. Just stay with me.

Let me say for the record that I had been impressed with Anderson Cooper prior to this. I have family in New Orleans, and his broadcasts were some of the few that we watched and felt trustworthy of. He had found a way to capture the crisis without taking advantage of his subjects, in a way that was atypical of others. It wasn't this smug, bothersome, reporter with a mic, asking stupid questions to innocent victims, Cooper possessed a sense of respect for his subjects and stories that impressed me. There was a sense of shame in him, maybe just humility, that was appealing and made me a big fan. But his participation in the decisions behind this sniper piece have made me lose all respect I had for him as a journalist and a human being.


There's no real structure to this blog in general, but here are a few key points worth raising.

IMPACT POINT ONE: I would like to address the "newness" and receipt of these "videos" by CNN. This footage was not "new". It had been on the internet for months, the footage is identical. So this begs the question, were these tapes "obtained" by CNN, or were they asked for specifically by CNN? In NONE of CNN's explanations have they actually explained these factors, they have only referenced conversations to which the public is not privy. CNN explained that they had asked the leader of the militia responsible for the tapes a series of questions and that instead of answers, they had been sent these videos. First, I have a serious problem with a news organization communicating independently with an insurgent group claiming that they are in search of "news". I believe in free press, but not "free negotiations" for newscasters with members of groups that they have absolutely no professional or responsible credibility in handling. Why the hell do we have the State Department or negotiators when CNN can apparently ride in on a magic carpet of diplomacy and communicate with enemies on their own? Unsolicited? Which begs the question....

Did CNN see the footage on YouTube months ago and then decide to communicate on their own with the group responsible in order to validate the tapes authenticity, with the full intent of showcasing them on their news channel? If so, this has to represent a serious conflict of interest with our own government and for our own intelligence community, right? Does anyone else care that insurgent groups now know that if they take some really gruesome footage, seemingly to exhibit their prowess as "warfighters" that they need look no further than CNN for distribution assistance? If they employ new creative ways to dismember folks are we going to start a podcast to keep people "informed", or "scared". There's clearly a thin line here. Maybe CNN has some good answers for me. Maybe they could explain the legal channels they went through in order to justify what seems like a brazen breech of national security in order to air these videos, but they haven't. They have referenced legnthy conversations with their editors, producers, and lawyers, however full transparency on the exact legalisms and moral arguments they agreed has not been offered. Speaking of their responsibility to "full transparency" as this seemed to be the impetus of their decision to air the footage, I'd like to move onto my second issue with this piece....for which this blog entry is titled, the point of impact.

IMPACT POINT TWO: The only thing that made this footage "new" was the grotesque manner in which it was cut and edited. Doing us all a favor, and "out of sympathy for the dead", CNN decided to black out the point at which the bullet actually hit the unknowing soldier. Besides the cowardice of the man behind the trigger, CNN's editing of the sniper footage shielded the public from experiencing the very "reality" it seemingly sought to portray. A reporter's voice is heard over the footage, talking about the number of dead soldiers and the rising death toll in Iraq. What most won't know, is that the original footage has music looped, capturing some sort of Arabic hymn being repeated over and over again as soldiers lives are snuffed out one after one. It also includes a flash page showing leaders from our country and others simultaneously being shot through the head. The original footage is frightening and disturbing, the footage aired on CNN is a spook show, making the assassins look like victorious defenders of their villages, against foreign occupiers that apparently CNN has decided have no business being there or have no chance at "winning".

Sidebar 2: I also question the word "winning" with regards to this war, however, I choose not to digress from the subject of the footage and onto overall foreign policy discussions. Although I recognize they are related.

I don't want to spark a debate about the war, or get lost in some back and forth about whether or not we should be there or not frankly. I raise this point because CNN makes "being there" the issue of their piece rather than telling the true story about the footage and its roll in this war. Course, that would have been actual news.

If CNN really cared about showing the American public "what war was really like" and "what we were up against" out of "respect" for soldiers, they could have either sacked up and showed the actual point of impact, or at least, named the soldiers and identified them. Instead, the worst moment in their lives is now "footage", the victims have become actors in CNN's latest spook production. The difference is so flagrantly clear in between the versions I encourage you to google it for yourself. Try a wiki search for "JUBA" and scroll down, you'll find it. Which brings me to my third and last point.

IMPACT POINT THREE:
If CNN really cared about reporting on the "enemy" they could have talked about how these snuff videos are thrown on the internet, the challenges that brings to the PR battle surrounding the war or they could have done a story on "JUBA" the mythical sniper that has apparently taken credit for over 200 lives single handedly and is apparently a member of the very insurgent group that claimed responsibility for the videos. I could continue explaining who this JUBA character is, but I'm not a journalist and you can read for yourself. As I've said before, if you don't know it, google it. Course CNN made no mention of JUBA, whether or not he exists, or told a story about insurgency groups use of such footage, but again, that would have been actual news. If CNN responds to criticism such as mine by claiming that their piece "encouraged dialogue", again, it did not. It solely, encouraged the insurgencies that our soldiers are up against.

I won't link the footage here, for fear of looking like the very exhibitionist I seek to criticize, as my overall goal here is to encourage people to research and learn on their own and explain my own "education" however flawed and misguided that it may be to some. The use of these media portholes is a major issue and one needing alot of discussion. A fact that is actually, newsworthy.

But CNN didn't do anything of the sort. They snipped out the most gruesome parts of the video and then claimed to be educating the public about the true horrors of war. For the families of those killed in this video, I can't imagine what it felt like, to have your loved one's last moments broadcast on television, without your consent, without his or her consent (obviously) and then characterized to solicit a ratings grab. These soldiers didn't sign up to be actors for CNN, nor when they signed their enlistment papers, did they agree that their lives could be used- without permission- by a young reporter, claiming journalistic responsibility for the life you committed to the country. I guess in some warped way, those soldiers died so that Anderson and CNN's ability to mischaracterize their deaths was protected and "free"?

Huh?

Perhaps this was handled by CNN and their slick lawyers, during these exhaustive debates, however it still haven't been explained. Soldiers lives were exhibited under the guise of transparency, but none of thee issues have received the same transparency. We don't get to be privy to their moral, personal, legal, political, or journalistic arguments, but we do get to see the end result of their "debates": cropped footage intended to scare the public into believing that this war is a waste of time. I am beginning to wonder if Ted Turner's confusion over the war is due to the fact that he can't figure out what sells more, scary snipers or Bush bloopers. It’s a dead heat ratings race folks, with our soldiers' lives paying the advertising fees. Let's remember that these programs produce PROFITS, they are not non-profits people. And soldiers being shot in public places is apparently hot material, too hot not to publish. The networks don't even have to pay for talent! The fool that watches this thinking that CNN does this selflessly is a true numskull. If anything, I wish they had shown the actual point of impact…sack up for God sakes CNN and follow the rules, "If it Bleeds it Leads" right? The intellectual distance the reporters here put between themselves and the lives they manipulated is callous, indecent, morally avoidant and inexcusable. I don't know if this is journalism, but it certainly isn't unbiased news aimed at "educating the public".

When that footage goes to black, right at the very moment the bullet leaves the gun barrel, flew through the air (and in some cases a crowded marketplace) and pierces the soldier -the impact - the true impact is completely blacked out in the name of "sensitivity". Please.

While I don't mean to use the footage to achieve some "pro-war" agenda, I have major issues with the war and how it is being conducted, hell I have issues with the last 50 years of Middle Eastern foreign policy, so don't feel the need to leave some comment making me into some anti-press neo con. I am interested in a dialogue about these snipers, the use of footage and the internet in modern warfare and the limits, if any, of "freedom of the press" during wartime. I am also urging something that I wish CNN had done, for you to make your mind up yourself and watch the footage yourself.

As I have quoted before its becoming quite clear that "history is [indeed] a trick we play on the dead".