Downing Street Says

Asked for a reaction to the Iraqi Interim Government’s threat to shoot journalists if they did not leave Najaf, the Prime Minister’s Spokesman (PMS) said that we were in touch with the Iraqi authorities and the UK media about these reports. It was important not to be too hasty in turning this issue into a debate about free speech. This was especially so in the light of the fact that we were seeing a relatively ‘lively’ free media operating in Iraq for the first time in many years. The foreign media in Iraq was also enjoying greater freedom to report than ever before under Saddam’s regime. Decisions about the presence of the media in Najaf was a matter for the Iraqi authorities. We were sure that any action taken by them would be consistent with the prevailing security situation. The PMS added that no one should be complacent about the security risks in Iraq under the current circumstances. The Foreign Office’s travel advice was very clear: it advised against all but the most essential travel to Iraq.

Asked if the Prime Minister agreed with Sir Jeremy Greenstock’s view that the Coalition’s occupation of Iraq should be seen as a failure if the security situation had not improved in eighteen months’ time, the PMS said that Sir Jeremy was entitled to his view. We were clear that there was an important democratic process currently underway in Iraq. The Iraqi National Congress, which was meeting at the moment, was playing a very important role in the country’s political future and was part of the process which would lead to democratic elections next year.

14 Comments »

Get all the free-lance journos out and the only ones left will be the ones embedded with US Forces. That will mean that they can do what they want in najaf. No doubt this idea was at the behest of the US commander in Iraq – after all, they don’t want the whole world to see what they are doing.

18 months time? The invasion of Iraq is already a massive failure – Iraqis are dying faster now than they were under Saddam. The country is as lawless as it is possible for a country to get, and the only ideas the Iraqi "PM" has are requests (or more likely orders) by the American overlords. But of course, no-one wants to come out and actually say that…
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 16 Aug 2004 on 4:40 pm | Link
I love this stuff! We have a government that is truly value-free:

"It was important not to be too hasty in turning this issue into a debate about free speech." – Why? Since when was it not an issue of free speech when one of our client regimes threatens to shoot journalists?

"The foreign media in Iraq was also enjoying greater freedom to report than ever before under Saddam’s regime." – I don’t recall Saddam having a policy of shooting dead foreign reporters, yet the US forces have targeted and killed a fair few journalists since their occupation began (e.g. ITN and Reuters journalists, freelancers and most often Al-Jazeera staff).

Good to see that Number 10 staff have absolutely no problem with this state of affairs. Presumably, in this case, there are too many reporters for Allawi to shoot himself (see allegations here: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0716-01.htm ) – can’t we send more "advisers" to help him?
Comment by Lee Bryant — 16 Aug 2004 on 5:37 pm | Link
I do not believe I just read that.

Reading the PMS’s statement just feels surreal. It would be funny if it were not the genuine opinion of the Government. Once you decipher the Newspeak, the Government is quite clearly saying that it has not problems with the IIG shooting journalists who do not leave Najaf. And is advising the UK media not to go there.

I am just stunned.
Comment by square peg — 16 Aug 2004 on 8:34 pm | Link
Do you reckon then that our government knows anything about the games the yanks are playing, or are they just so stupid they don’t see it?!?!
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 16 Aug 2004 on 8:43 pm | Link
From what I have read this morning, the Iraqi "police" took their orders very literally and personally threatened several journalists. Nice to see early signs of democracy flourishing in Iraq…
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 17 Aug 2004 on 10:14 am | Link
Sandor, a lot of us disagree. We don’t think the British government was "misinformed" at all. We think they lied, pure and simple.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 17 Aug 2004 on 12:15 pm | Link
"In my judge nobody knows the truth about the original reasons of this war"

Well, IF the government is to be believed, we DO know why we went to war. We went to war because Iraq was an imminent threat and had WMD capable of deployment within 45 minutes.

Effectively then, what you are also saying is that you do not believe the reasons given by the government. That being the case, what else do we have left but speculation?
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 17 Aug 2004 on 2:45 pm | Link
Anyone with a grain of intelligence knows (knew) why Iraq was invaded. It’s all over the Internet, anyway.

The only ones who don’t are (a) 40 million Republican voters (b) New labour voters (c) Conservative voters.

That still leaves a billion people who know.
Comment by Veronica — 18 Aug 2004 on 10:26 pm | Link
Oh, yes … I forgot … and John Kerry.
Comment by Veronica — 18 Aug 2004 on 10:27 pm | Link
Since the mass media peddle lies on behalf of their power handlers, and are no doubt not telling us a fraction of what is happening in Najaf and the rest of Iraq, it does not seem to matter whether they withdraw from Najaf or not, and the PM\xB4s press officer simply reflects that reality. Blair confidently expects to be re-elected anyway.
Comment by eelpie — 19 Aug 2004 on 7:10 pm | Link
I’m sure the family of Stephen Farrell, the Times’ journalist in Najaf, who barely escaped with his life when he was kidnapped in Iraq earlier this year, is thrilled to hear him slurred as a corporate lackey.

Whenever I look at this site, I see moderation from the PMOS which I often disagree with, and shrill, excitable ranting in the comments section.
Comment by Rob — 20 Aug 2004 on 2:01 pm | Link
What would you have people do, Rob? Repeat what the PMOS says?

What a pointless thing to say!
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 20 Aug 2004 on 3:04 pm | Link
Rob:

The words "corporate lackey" only appear on this page where you wrote them. (No longer true; I now wrote them as well.)

Nobody is sitting around discussing whether or not journalists should be "removed from najaf" by force, or for that matter, for any other reason – we’re all fundamentally aware that the journalists on the ground are our only ears and eyes into any true situation on the ground.

The issue, as always, is as to whether or not "embedding" of journalists leads to a good portrayal of "truth on the ground".

Now, looking back on the actual war, we had two kinds of reporting:

– Nice, "safe" reporting, by embedded journalists, of what was happening on the Western side of the front. Very little in the way of true critical analysis, and quite a bit of reporting of "what our boys are seeing".

– Non-embedded journalists, both of a range of freelancers and the Al-Jazeera and other non-embedded journalists living inside the warzone, doing some real reporting of the actual suffering and casualties of the warzone; people reporting the actual impact of the war on the daily lives of individuals, and snapping some absolutely amazing shots of some of the most important scenes in the war – many of which simply wouldn’t be possible without their existence.

The value of embedding was proven in that war; in the future, expect even more pressure from the military for all journalists to embed "for their own safety"; meanwhile, all of the real journalism will come out of the freelancers and other non-embedded journalists, who aren’t being drip-fed information by their surrounding military comrades and led around from scene to scene.

Personally, I think we’re all here to ensure a free press. Free, not only from the tyrannical rantings of an Iraq which wishes to be free of negative press in Najaf, but of the influence of military commanders on the press. If I get to choose between watching five minutes of butt-covering by military command and the opinions of people living in a house that was just missed by a "smart bomb", I know who I’d choose.

That isn’t to say that there’s no value in embedding: it’s to say that there is no value in treating embedding as the whole solution to reporting during conflict.
Comment by Gregory Block — 23 Aug 2004 on 9:29 am | Link
That’s better. 😉
Comment by Rob — 27 Aug 2004 on 4:35 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Monday, August 16, 2004

Iraq

14 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries