Misinformation or Treason??

[Wholigan]

Gavin Hewitt has just (1720 Z) made a live broadcast from an armoured column saying that the column is approaching the city of ******** (he gave the name in clear but I don't want to compound the act) and that he can clearly see the lights of the city.

If this is not deliberate misinformation, should he and the BBC be accused of giving away secrets that could place the lives of coalition forces in grave danger???

[The Gorilla]

Why shouldn't he?

Come on man, EVERY armoured column has a blinkin front line reporter with it!! The only reason we are not getting Videofone piccys is cos they haven't had time to stop and set it up!!

The MOD and the Pentagon are managing the information war on this one. I should imagine, that by now every town and city in southern Iraq has an armoured column of some description approaching it!!

Chill out and enjoy the ring side spectacle!! :D

[Jackonicko]

Come on, Wholigan. Sense of proportion?

Do you think the Iraqi's don't notice the dust clouds as these columns advance? That their own SF aren't monitoring the advance? That this reporter didn't get what he was going to say cleared? (That someone didn't need to tell him exactly where they were approaching?)

And technically, since he's a Brit reporter with a US armoured unit, is it really treason, technically speaking? ;)

[Wholigan]

Sorry folks, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I know that I would feel rather uncomfortable if I were in an armoured column that had just had its exact position given in location and time terms.
If this is - indeed - what we wanted to tell the Iraqis then I would have no problem with it. And it probably is - as I said "If this is not deliberate misinformation ..."

PS - it's rather dark in the desert at the time of the report (
"..can cleary see the lights of the city" ), so not sure how far you'd see the dust clouds? Maybe one of my Army mates could tell me? Are their SF in the right place at the right time and are they that good and are the comms necessary still working???? I don't know --- do you?

[Gen. Bombdabastards]

At the begining of the reports on Sky they inform the viewer that the reports are subject to military reporting restrictions. Therefore you would assume that they are told what they can and cannot say.

[tony draper]

I dunno I admit it is facinating to watch, but it just re-enforces my feeling that there is nothing the media won't turn into a circus, famine, flood ,war , dead Princess's missing children, they will be there, wandering around with mikes mouthing empty platitudes.
We had a example yesterday when the parent of a missing child were hauled in front of the cameras as seems to be the protocol now, after he body was found, preferably as emotionaly broken as possible.
Its all show biz now, and the sad thing is I am as guilty as anybody for watching it.
I am starting to loath the Media.

[gijoe]

Wholigan I'm with you on this one.

As someone who has been in said environment, it is disorientating, noisy, greasy, dirty, tiring ( v. tiring especially when the adrenalin stops flowing)...and the last thing I want is someone telling the rest of the world via a videophone who I am, where I am, what I am doing, and where I am going.

This operation has seen new depths charted by the media with their ability to generate something out of nothing, pump up their own importance, and whinge like b*****y when they don't get what they think they are entitled to (Cen Com - Qatar and one journo on Sky News whinging that they are not being told anything - reason because you immediately tell the whole world and remove any ( note - any) element of surprise).

Adding a phrase like 'I can't tell you everything because I'm not allowed to...' seems to be the latest weapon in the 'I'm more important than you game '. There is no way any of them would be told anything that could jepordise any element of the operation!

Why have some of the oil wells been torched ? Probably because someone during the last round (Gulf War I) gobbed off on TV about being able to see the cities for miles - the Iraqi government soon sorted that out.

'Nuff said.

G :cool:

[Skaz]

gijoe & wholigan behind you on this one. This might be operations where people are getting killed in, so far 2 US KIA, 12 more died in the chopper crash (we wont mention AH64 hellfiring an A1 tank)....but the news people turn it into a farce.

This is not the way to run a war, telling the enemy over the TV where you are, the size, condition and composition of your forces, what their objectives are, the routes of advance, when theyll be there etc etc....bloody awfull.
The Iraqi's dont even need their own intelligence (huh?) elements for intel gathering on the enemy...they have CNN, and BBC, and Skynews, and Reuters and and ...

The only reason the yanks havent been F*#@ed up already is cause the Iraqi's are apathetic, demoralised, ill-equipped, badly led and unmotivated.

Remember Somalia, I think, the CNN Camera crews were waiting on the beach filming, with spotlights, as the special forces elements came ashore in 'stealth' mode trying not to be seen by the enemy.

By all means take the reporters with you, give them 35mm still camera's, give them high fidelity video cameras , let them tell the whole story............3 days later when its all over.:* :yuk:

[Jackonicko]

"By all means take the reporters with you, give them 35mm still camera's, give them high fidelity video cameras , let them tell the whole story............3 days later when its all over."

I can find little to disagree with in this statement - though a 6-12 hour opsec delay would surely be adequate before transmission of censored/cleared reports, with the full story following after the war?

I must say that the need to turn everything into live feeds, to cater for the rolling news channels is unnecessary, and mitigates against intelligent reporting and analysis. You just run the images as they come in, with some sketchy commentary by some know-nothing glam TV face who has no knowledge of defence and no real sympathy or empathy with those he accompanies. It's not the news I'd like to be watching, I have to say.

But please don't write us all off with the same broad brush.

[Wholigan]

Jacko, I agree that 12 hours would be sufficient. It was the fact that it was live and "real time" that concerned me somewhat. And please don't worry, I can't even paint with a "broad-brush" let alone write with one. So you are safe mate! ;)

[fobotcso]

Wholi is right in principle and there are no ifs and buts.

What is broadcast to us is also broadcast to the enemy (is it OK to use that word?).

Whatever lifts our morale and the morale of the Alliance Forces must depress the morale of the enemy.

So if a non-specific statement about the advance of the Coalition Forces can un-nerve the Enemy, it can only be to the good.

[owc]

On this evenings ITN news ( i think )

Michael Nicholson reported on tonights bombing, on both occasions in relation to the attacks he mentioned that from where he was some of the bombing looked like it might be indiscriminate, as soon as he said it he was chopped.

[SASless]

I would suggest.....one cannot be too stealthy while poncing around the desert in a formation of armored vehicles. The Iraqi's might not set the world on fire (Oops! Poor choice of words!) as soldiers.....but they too can probably figger it out when the Hussie's and Groundbound Cav show up in the middle of the night sounding like a couple of thousand Jack Benny's walking around! Armored formations do tend to wake the neighbors when they play.

It was a bit of a gaff.....but by the time the Baghdad Command Staff heard it....it would be too late to do much anyhow.

[Fox3snapshot]

With you on this one mate, hundreds of armoured vehicles smoking through the desert ( and more specifically the villages as we saw) will not go unnoticed.....even if the Iraqi intel machine has been crippled HUMINT will be readily available ie. home phone or cell to their mates in the next village! and lets face it we all know where the armoured column is going.....duh!!!? Unless they are stopping for tea and bickies somewhere, there is not a drama in throwing away the odd village name...if you can pronounce it you deserve to be able to broadcast it!

[Pontius Navigator]

I had a moan at a press course last year about an incident in GW1 where the cameras, interviewing the first Tornado pilot returning from his mission also showed the first Tornado of wave two going off.

I have not seen ANY RAF ground shots so far. Maybe that lesson was learnt.

[Skaz]

haha, you guys are funny....yeah lets stop food a bit of brekkie and brew some 'ol grey':}

still, you have to agree that the less intel the 'enemy' gets , the better. Why should 'your' side volunteer any info for the poor sods on the sharp end of your stick?

Jonathan Man on cnn just made some witty comment re the news that rexxxxxan guard commanders are speaking to the c1a re surrendering...."are they toying with us?" if they are, youll be the last to know, Jonnie

this might be true, it might not be , welcome to the world of misinformation, 'tis war after all

re the sound of a whole armoured division tip toe-ing thru the desert....ok, so some humint might reach the commanders...like in Somalia, same trick was used, cellphones....but some little goatherder wont know a Bradley from a Warrior, wont know a TOW from a toilet pipe nor a self propelled artillery piece from a Caterpillar....and if he does, he aint no little goatherder and the little bastard should be shot on sight:}

[Pontius Navigator]

Same press course. GWI, enthusiatic, brave, and foolhardy FoxNews reporter standing on hotel roof watching the Scuds dropping in.

"Wow. That one was way off. I think it was going for the airbase but it was way off. At least a mile away."

Just in case you were not sure exactly how much you had missed by he obligingly covered the missile hit with his camera.

When the rest of the Brit press emerged from the air raid shelter they asked him why he had been broadcasting fall of shot and helping the enemy.

"OMG I didn't think."

[Fox3snapshot]

There was live ground shots and in the background the next wave launching....looked like Hornets (maybe the Aussies?????). Additionally the Gulf News ran a front page article with a 5x7 happy snap of a Brit Harrier pilot preparing for ops with full name and rank included! The media here has been extremely well informed and the Iraq pages of the Gulf News are very very accurate and informative (an Intelo's dream come true!). I can verify the accuracy by correlating it to the ops we are observing. There is a gross misconception on how things run out here and more importanty when it comes to these ops there are no secrets as all these states require full up front declaration of callsigns, types and numbers and intentions/destination on, I might add, civil frequencies. The Air Defense cells work next to the civvy controllers and its a mutual responsibility to ensure everything on the scope is sanctioned. This (as mentioned previously) is done on the civil frequencies and if required the challenges are done on the guard (ditress) frequency 121.5 and 243.0.

I am sure if there was a serious perceived threat, this arrangement would change and a lot closer co-ordination of sorties and movements with the GCC states would be conducted to arrange closed ops and not open as we have now. As it stands any goopter with a scanner can moniter the packages coming through from Eastern Arabia and beyond and the callsigns give most of it away.

:rolleyes:

[Pontius Navigator]

Fox, yes, the threat on day one in GWI was obviously quite different. A fully functional air defence setup and I guess the need for Opsec was much higher.

The pilot's name issue, and photos, is something the RAF has been pushing forward. The PR opportnity for the home-boy story was being lost with all the operational anonimity of GW1.

I guess the answer now is you want the publicity so that the enemy can't disappear you.

[Fox3snapshot]

I am big on the PR thing for the guys and gals out representing and fighting for the policy of our governments and people. My concern is not the ongoing possible media bungles (and military spokesmen for that matter) on current Intel issues as I believe the Coalition war machine is really in control of things at the moment and short of a nasty Chemical/Bioligical or nuke detonation this should not change. The happiest possible outcome will be the securing of Iraq, regime change and stability in the region (optimistic but possible). One thing that will not stop, and will take a lot more time, effort and money is Terrorism. My point here is that whilst the coalition are in a very dominent and favourable postion now, FLTLT Bloggs who appeared on the front page of the Gulf News (and more importantly his family) could be subject to a personal attack maybe not now, maybe not this year or next, but ultimately someday.

Names and faces should not be blatted over the press, the SAS and similar mainatain this policy for a good reason and lets face it a Harrier throwing its arsenal downrange on enemy turf could be creating as much carnage (if not more) as a trooper wacking a section of men on a ground op.

Visors down, sunnies on, don't let the media know to whom we belong!

:suspect:

[SASless]

The one major benefit of the "embedded" press will be the positive effects that will accrue from the press types living alongside the troops and connecting to them by sharing the risks. It is bound to happen....combat has that effect on us. There will be negative reporting but I believe it will be much less a problem than in previous wars. That alone is worth the problems we are discussing here. The press can only become involved in the process.....and that can only prove beneficial.

But why oh why.....could not Dan Blather be the sole victim of a Blue on Blue incident involving a MOAB? Or maybe Heraldo Rivera....Alec Baldwin....Barbara Streisand.....Susan Saranden....oops....I digress!

[ASRAAM]

On a slight tangent, is it wise for the BBC to show live footage of B52s getting airbourne from Fairford.

We all know that Iraq has little in the way of radars and are probably keeping the ones they have turned off most of the time to avoid being on the receiving end of a HARM/ALARM. But If I were them I would consider something like a B52 a priority target and knowing they were inbound I would be tempted to do some sums as to when to have a quick peek on the scope.

Anyone got any thoughts?

[Fox3snapshot]

I believe the B52's are being used in a standoff role and throwing cruise missiles over the fence as there is still a reasonable anti-aircraft threat. This will change as the boys give the place a tickle up and shut down the Iraq military. Once again as per my previous post showing live footage is one thing, but these aircraft are flying through civil airspace, talking on civil frequencies and essentially anyone who wants to know...can. This would change if there was higher perceived threat ie. North Korea, and the ops would be far more subversive.

:cool:

[John (Gary) Cooper]

Cut the Crap!

Captain of HMS Ark Royal just elucidated on BBC1 TV on the two Sea Kings lost this morning. Exactly how ALL reporting should be done, straight from the horses mouth.

This stops all rumours, wrongful reporting, and would save a lot of time and resources too and probably lives.

[KPax]

Still on the press, personally think that the 'Daily Mirror's' reporting has been almost treasonous. Perhaps we should think of boycotting the rag. I understand about the freedom of speech etc, but after watching mr Morgan on question time on Thursday, they should put him in the Tower.

[Zoom]

If the media are permitted to divulge so much ostensibly sensitive information, why can't Blair release sufficient of whatever threat information he has to convince the unconvinced half of the population that he is right? If he has more he should release more and the doubters like me would be silenced. :mad:

[Pontius Navigator]

Fox, I misunderstood you. I am with you all the way, absolute annonimity.

Asram, on the B52 incident I too initially thought as you did but the peaceniks can have baddies with them even listening in to Fairford radio. They cannot just call the launch but also the weapons load.

Unless we extend security zones around the airfield we are stuck. The bonus, OTOH, is that it was reported that they were bombing up 24 hours earlier. This at least puts the enemy on notice and ensures they can get a good night's sleep as there will be no surprises :)

[nav attacking]

Stop moaning and enjoy the fireworks.

The more the Iraqi High Command know about what is about to hit them the better. The whole idea of this war is not to kill conscripts and destroy their military capability so that we have to defend them for the next however many years, but to convince them to lay down their arms so we can get in there and topple the regime (the stated military objective). Or better still that they topple it themselves.

If that means getting CNN and SKY to show exactly what we are about to do to them to assist in the psychological warfare then great because it also gives us a great picture back home.

War isn't always about covert operations. Even the SAS in Afghanistan were being totally overt to frighten the Cr@p out of the enemy. There have been reports about them driving around in the open with huge Union Jacks flying above.

The sooner the Iraqis realise that the regime's days are numbered the better. The less chance of any more accidents....

Me, I'm off with a beer to sit and watch the display again. The rest you sad muppets can stay at your PC's bleating on.

And before anyone says anything the only reason I was here was that I was waiting for an insurance quote to process and just had to comment!:D

[Harry Peacock]

I remember an incident a few years ago during the Falklands, pinging on the screen at about 0200 listening to the world service on the old HF getting the good gossip on what had happened when the presenter anounced that the Brits would be attacking Goose Green the next morning!!
And we all know at what that cost!!
I agree that in this day of instant communication form any point on earth there is an expectation of quick reporting to keep all the voters happy BUT it should be reporting of what has happened not what is about to.
If you tell someone what is about to happen even if it is a major toasting by superior forces it gives them time to prepare or run away, leaving nasty suprises, to fight another day.
Our forces would be overjoyed to know that the next missile attack is on £%$£^ or that reinforcements ar heading to (*&^, so why do we do it for them??
People get killed as a direct result of press coverage/leakage and the press justify it with claims of fredom of information.
It Sucks!

[RedOnCut]

Kpax
I share your distaste for the "Mirror" and its editor, especially after his performance on "Question Time", so, to pinch a quote from a recent Radio 4 quiz programme (by the mouth of Tim Rice I believe?):-

The Definition of "countryside"??

Murdering Piers Morgan

boom-boom

[Jackonicko]

This visors down anonymity is all well and good, and is probably wise when there's a chance of falling into enemy hands. But the risk of retaliation afterwards is over-stated (Al Qaeda aren't going to be interested in tracking down Corporal So-and-so in five years time), while the downside is that it reduces the general public's feeling that the armed forces are its armed forces, diluting the sympathy and support which the public has for 'its boys'. PR stories about Flight Lieutenant Bader from Kent, for example, are invaluable in making the people of Kent feel that the RAF is 'its RAF' and that it represents and defends them. When anonymity is necessary, fine, but hats off to the Harrier boys in this campaign who have had the ball$ to speak to the media on camera while showing their faces and even their names.

I don't remember Guy Gibson wearing his goggles and oxygen masks for the press photos, and he had the Gestapo to worry about.

[steamchicken]

All this journobashing reminds me of nothing more than a case of old-fashioned spy mania - like the people in Paris in 1940 and in God knows how many other places convinced that nonexistent fifth columnists were flashing little torches to the Nazis, or the folk at the same time who nearly lynched a British journalist because they saw him with a packet of pills for his guts (poison, clearly), or the British soldiers who wanted to shoot Al Deere (NZ ace and later AVM) after he baled out over the Dunkirk perimeter -he was obviously a German agent! All a laugh, in retrospect, but dangerously hysterical, and a very good reason for a witch hunt of anyone you don't like. (In 1940 this meant the French Surete du Territoire locking up exiled anti-fascists and Jews in camps.)

Skaz, I believe they have compulsory military service in Iraq....so perhaps your little goatherder might have heard the odd armoured vehicle, no? Surely not impossible that their training might even include recognition! Or is it that they're just ignorant inferior goatherding rag'eads and incapable of anything so civilised and western? That was one of the worst, arrogant, awful posts I've seen on this forum.

[Skaz]

steamckicken sez:"Or is it that they're just ignorant inferior goatherding rag'eads and incapable of anything so civilised and western? "

thats right....start a wind-up, and you call me arrogant. Wind your neck in, who you calling *******s? any idea what my religion is? while we nuke the whole lot.....or wil that be even worse and arrogant?

Plenty countries have compulsory military service, does that mean the mean any individual in the populace can identify armoured vehicles.

War's war....sentimentality has got no place in it. Catch a wake up or get outta the steamroom:yuk: