The US Army has been accused of murder by the daughter of ITN [independant television news] Terry Lloyd.His death was registered as 'unlawful killing' by a British Court.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6046950.stm

I know this is going to stir up a hornet's nest, but it's my contention that the "press" shouldn't even be there.

In my opinion the press certainly should be there. Where news is happening is where the press should be. If the press does not go to the battle, but only listens to second hand briefings, it makes it far to easy to "spin" the coverage.
It is not the job of the news media to act as the public relations arm of the military. They are supposed to accurately reflect what is happening. There is a difference between news and public relations. To find out what is actually happening, there is no substitute for actually being there.
With that said, it is also dangerous to be a witness to a battle. Reporters will sometimes be killed, hopefully by accident. The job is as dangerous as any job can be. In fact, it is more dangerous than actually being in the military. Neither side will protect you, and you are in danger from both sides. You have only your small team to rely on. Reporters have been kidnapped and killed by insurgents and they have been killed by coalition forces.
Reporters are the unsung heroes of this war. Getting the story is essential for the civilians back home, so that they can make informed decisions. In that cause, some good people will die. That is the sad truth about war.

I know this is going to stir up a hornet's nest, but it's my contention that the "press" shouldn't even be there.
Your right,you are.Im of the oppisite side of the coin,I think the pictures of conflict arent graphic enough,people should see what war is really like,maybe there wouldnt be as many then.

"vehicle stopped to pick up survivers", sometimes known as aiding and abetting the enemy.

Yea,sometimes known as arresting those still alive.

They (the media) are supposed to accurately reflect what is happening.
Do you think they ever do that? When and if they do (which is seldom, if ever), it's usually to the detriment of our armed forces. Witness Geraldo Rivera reporting troop movements to the other side, or some bleeding-heart lowering the general morale of our boys (which, mind you, has the added benefit of lending comfort the enemy). The day the media doesn't have an agenda (for example, saying "Israeli war planes" as opposed to fighter jets) is the day that I'll accept reporters getting in the way of our boy's bullets for a "good" cause.
There is a difference between news and public relations.
Not to the people reporting the news, there isn't. They're omniscient, or so they think.
To find out what is actually happening, there is no substitute for actually being there.
I agree. Being that none of us are actually going to check out Iraq first hand, perhaps it's best not to get our so-called "news" from someone who hasn't set the mission priorities there. All I want to know is if we're meeting our objectives, and if we are, then I don't care how many people die in the process; as long as we get the job done, and lo and behold, in the most expedient (and cheapest) fashion possible - I'm a happy camper. The only thing costing us billions is diplomacy.

Do you think they ever do that? When and if they do (which is seldom, if ever), it's usually to the detriment of our armed forces. Witness Geraldo Rivera reporting troop movements to the other side, or some bleeding-heart lowering the general morale of our boys (which, mind you, has the added benefit of lending comfort the enemy).
Media sources are often biased, so they'll focus attention on certain aspects and play down others, yet there are competeing sides in the media who will bring up the subjects that one media source may have skipped over. Now one media source may not accuratly portray a scene, but many media sources will give a good idea of what happened. In which ways is the media bad for our troops, do you mean only moral?

As for giving our enemies our troop movements, if that isn't a crime, it better be.

Whats going on in battle should most definitely be reported to US civs. The money for the war is coming from the population's pockets, I think they have a right to know whats going on. If it would endanger the troops to have that information released, then hold it for a couple days then release it. If it would decrease morale, then don't show it to the troops. Do troops have access to TV?

Not to the people reporting the news, there isn't. They're omniscient, or so they think.
I think imagineer was talking about a difference between news and military public relations.

"vehicle stopped to pick up survivers", sometimes known as aiding and abetting the enemy. always known as an ambulance covered under the geneva conventions.
for example, saying "Israeli war planes" as opposed to fighter jets umm...I'm just confused as to what the difference is between a 'war plane' and 'fighter jet' or what exactly you see as the difference?
Being that none of us are actually going to check out Iraq first hand, perhaps it's best not to get our so-called "news" from someone who hasn't set the mission priorities there. All I want to know is if we're meeting our objectives, and if we are, then I don't care how many people die in the process; as long as we get the job done, and lo and behold, in the most expedient (and cheapest) fashion possible - I'm a happy camper. great other people think otherwise. Viva la difference... Just like how I am nothing but repulsed by the STD laden tart in your avatar which you assume everyone would want...

The easiest way to deal with rilla is to assume that the US/ allies are always at fault, regardless of the circumstances. No matter what facts are presented, in whatever form have been manipulated and that the underdog is always right. Anything else will be presumed (by rilla) to be completely false and therefore open to argument.

always known as an ambulance covered under the geneva conventions.
============================================

How would one recognize a "makeshift ambulance" during a battle.
The use of the words makeshift, to me, denotes that there were no markings or red cross to make it recognizable as an ambulance.

These guys could have just saw a vehicle picking up terrorists.

I assume that reporters do not think a Press Card guarantees immunity from bullets or shells. If you're in a fire fight then you are in great danger. If between two enemies then you are in very grave danger, both sides will be out to kill you. I cannot regard their deaths, as described in the article, as murder.
Who knows why reporters expose themselves to such danger. Whatever the reason, I am glad some do it.

The easiest way to deal with rilla is to assume that the US/ allies are always at fault, regardless of the circumstances. No matter what facts are presented, in whatever form have been manipulated and that the underdog is always right. Anything else will be presumed (by rilla) to be completely false and therefore open to argument. Even if rillas opinion coincides with a court of law...

US soilders shot on a van clearly marked as press. Even if they did not see that. If the van picking up the wounded did not fire on them it is illegal.

War is hell. people get full of hate and vengence andtake it out on those who have nothing to do with what is going on. That does not excuse them from their actions.

That is the truth you are trying to ignore ES. You of all people should know that even the most rational of people can act like a trigger happy shit head in war.

It is not the job of the news media to act as the public relations arm of the military. They are supposed to accurately reflect what is happening. Well, they're not doing that either.

Most people who critisise the media,especially in war reporting,dont take into account the fact that regular armys,in Iraqs case,the US Army,are expected to act in a professional manner at all times,whereas the insurgent have no standards and anything goes,which leaves less room for criticism.

Even if rillas opinion coincides with a court of law...

US soilders shot on a van clearly marked as press. Even if they did not see that. If the van picking up the wounded did not fire on them it is illegal.

War is hell. people get full of hate and vengence andtake it out on those who have nothing to do with what is going on. That does not excuse them from their actions.

That is the truth you are trying to ignore ES. You of all people should know that even the most rational of people can act like a trigger happy shit head in war.They can also simply have a moment of poor judgement and shoot at something they're not supposed to. That doesn't mean they're taking out their anger on innocent people but that they just unwittingly screwed up. I think that's far more likely the case than them intentionally murdering a journalist.

Well, they're not doing that either.

I will agree that no one source accurately reflects reality. In fact, to summarize reality inevitably means some things are left out. Every reporter either conciously or unconciously has biases, because that is something all humans have in common. We all view reality as interpreted by our past experiences and knowledge. It is inevitable that reporters, who are forced to summarize, will make decisions on what to put in a report, and what to leave out based on their own view of what is the most important thing to report.

It is not true, however, that the media is monolithic. I have heard you complain over and over that certain things are not reported. Then you post links to examples of things that aren't reported, thus proving that some of the media has in fact reported those things. I am forced to conclude that what you really want is that only things that support your views should be reported. That is the classic definition of public relations, as opposed to news. I am glad that all sides are being reported. That is freedom of the press. Let the public decide what reports are important, and which irrelevant. Let the public decide what to pay attention to.

I will agree that no one source accurately reflects reality. In fact, to summarize reality inevitably means some things are left out. Every reporter either conciously or unconciously has biases, because that is something all humans have in common. We all view reality as interpreted by our past experiences and knowledge. It is inevitable that reporters, who are forced to summarize, will make decisions on what to put in a report, and what to leave out based on their own view of what is the most important thing to report.

It is not true, however, that the media is monolithic. I have heard you complain over and over that certain things are not reported. Then you post links to examples of things that aren't reported, thus proving that some of the media has in fact reported those things. ... I am glad that all sides are being reported. That is freedom of the press. Let the public decide what reports are important, and which irrelevant. Let the public decide what to pay attention to.

Very true. The media is NOT monolithic.
To obtain a good picture of what is happening, it is incumbent upon all of us to review many different sources, including those that we may not like.

Well said Imagineer.

... Just like how I am nothing but repulsed by the STD laden tart in your avatar which you assume everyone would want...
No...

I always fancied you a Justin Timberlake kind of guy.

I always fancied you I know ;)