I actually don't think that's fair to the Iraqis.

They didn't make any of these nutcase reporters sit in downtown Baghdad as one of the most brutal dictators in decades breathes his last breath.

These people are insane. What if Saddam decided to kill them all.

Or, more realistically, if Saddam and Qusay died and Uday took over, imagine what we would do to Western journos?

An explosion in one room of the Palestine is absolutely nothing compared to what could happen to these guys.

BBC At-a-glance:

0953: The BBC's Rageh Omaar says a mortar bomb appears to have caused the blast at the Palestine Hotel and the building was not deliberately targeted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2002/conflict_with_iraq/at_a_glance/default.stm

That makes a lot more sense.

That wasn't a 120 mm strike on the side of the building. There weren't even any holes in the side.

More likely a mortar exploding in the area.

Greg Kelly says it WAS a tank shell (120mm I assume) but it fired at the top of the hotel.

Very odd.

Fox really showing their tabloidesque nature.

They just interrupted Greg Kelly giving a live battle report in downtown Baghdad with the 3ID for a press conference from the family of Jessica Lynch.

Be a little fair here. The anchors gave Greg Kelly warning that they might do just that.

more from Rageh Omaar of BBC:
The situation with Al-Jazeera, initially, looks suspect. Their office had given Washington specific satellite references.

We were watching and filming the bombardment and its quite clearly a direct strike on the Al-Jazeera office. This was not just a stray round. It just seemed too specific.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/world/2003/reporters_log/default.stm

What Mason said. CNN and MSNBC are probably concentrating on that interview too. Cut Fox some slack - Jessie Lynch is THE big human-interest story of the war, from the American side, and the public is likely a lot more interested in hearing about her than they are in hearing about a bunch of al-Reuters reporters who were probably (based on the wire service's track record, anyway) slanting their stories against the US anyway.

Satellite references are valid for air forces, irrelevant to US tank ground forces.

It's not a stray round if its returning fire.

BBC's Rageh Omaar says that he thinks Al Jazeera may be being deliberately targeted: http://www.davidsteven.com/archive_etc/2003_04_01_archive.html#200113670

RE: The BBC's Rageh Omaar says a mortar bomb appears to have caused the blast at the Palestine Hotel and the building was not deliberately targeted.
The situation with Al-Jazeera, initially, looks suspect.

How can he be so logical on the one hand and so infuriatingly insane on the other? Oh, I guess he's human, that's why.

Not for nothing, but I appreciate the education and perspective I'm getting from you all on this.

And, I vote for John Lovitz to play Baghdad Bob.

What I'm reading about this and a lot of other stuff today so far is just speculation. David Chater of Sky has been pretty cool and calm so far and I see no reason to mistrust his direct observation that it was a tank round fired purposely at the hotel. That backs up kelly's account, and he too has been one of the cool customers in the heat of it.

Whatever the rules, the US politicians and Centcom know that targeting the journalists hotel with a tank shell is daft and disastrous PR for now and the postwar period.

Even if there was a sniper there, he could have been taken out by their own snipers. If it turns out he was toting a camera, that's going to make it even wose

I'd guess that once again someone on a hairtrigger has just thrown shit at the fan. That goes for the al-Jazeera hit too. CNN has a news link wirth al-Jazeera, and whatever else the Arab channel's reports might be trying to achieve, there is no excusing opening up on it.

It's true that all the journalists in that area are now in the battlefield, but this war is supposed to be carefully tailored to avoid such casualties. Accidents are inevitable, but deliberate fire is not, even if that means finding other ways to deal with the threat of an Iraqi sniper.

These guys have been able to provide reportage direct from the enemy capital (despite heavy censorship) and don't deserve this at the end of it. Now is the time when their long siege should pay off for media readers and viewer, seeing the endgame play out live.

Greg Kelly remarked today that the embeds had lost a quarter of their strength and they'd like to see the war over now. That goes for every single journalist who has put his or her life on the line to bring the world -- including US viewers -- the news. They are not there for thrills or prsonal entertainment, but to do a job few are prepared to risk.

I am a journalist, let me add for the sake of fairness.

As I recall, the reporters were moved from the al-Rashid hotel to the Palestine for safety's sake. I might be mistaken in this recollection of course.

Big difference between EMBEDDED reporters; and independants who decide to go there at there own risk. And therefore are requiered to stay where the Baghdad govt says they can stay. It wouldn't surprise me if the mother of all bunkers is under the independant reporter's hotel and the regime is having a hell of a party down there!

Greg Kelly said that they had lost 4 out of the 15 reporters that he came in with. There are 500 embedded reporters in this theatre.

From Centcom
INITIAL RELEASE: REPORTS OF ATTACK ON AL JAZEERA

CAMP AS SAYLIYAH, Qatar – US Central Command is investigating reports that an Al Jazeera news team may have been injured during hostilities in Baghdad.

Additional information will be released as it becomes available.

Central Command has repeatedly warned media representatives that Baghdad would be a dangerous place to be if the Coalition engaged the Iraqi regime in combat.

Dave F: one key point your comment (and most of the independent reporters in Baghdad) missed:

The Iraqi government took extreme advantage of the media situation, making them into super-human shields (shields who have the eyes & ears of the world on them) by forcing them all into one location intentionally placed in the middle of targeted facilities.

Before the next war, the Geneva Conventions will need a new article covering the protection and misuse of realtime, embedded and independent, reporters.

"this war is supposed to be carefully tailored..."

A tailored war? Even if one side tries to do it, the other side will frustrate such efforts.

A quick apology first and a cople of responses:

Yes, Greg K was referring to the 15 he came in with and I worded it very badly. So much for trying to write blog comments while meeting a news deadline ... Many more journalists have been casualties in one way or another of course, but not 25 % of them.

My point in referring to his comment and the general sentiment of war journos is that even the ones in Baghdad are not nutcases or in the large majority of cases "independent": they are working there on behalf of their employers at considerable personal risk. Those who decided to buck the Iraqi censorship rules were sent home or jailed and then sent home, so the choice the rest had was to quit or stay and report whatever was possible without telling outright lies (I don't mean "commentarors" like Fisky), which is a SERVICE to readers and other consumers of media because it gives us a look at the other side of the war and an insight into he Iraqi approach to propaganda etc.

Of course they realise they are running the risk of injury or death as does any war correspondent. But journalists hit by delberate fire in their direction from either side have a right to be bloody angry.

Also check John Simpson's piece for the Telegraph on the friendly fire carnage in northern Iraq. It is brilllant without ever slipping into hysteria or raving, even though he saw his translator killed.

DaveF --

I'm confused. You say that the journalists are working there at considerable risk, and imply that we should be grateful. Yet you say journalists reserve the right to "be bloody angry" when those risks materialize on the battlefield, of all places.

Umm... perhaps I don't understand.

Obviously, if the US were meticulously exterminating the independent journalists, I can see reason for outrage. However, these reporters are in the middle of a battle zone (whether by their choice or Iraq's), and making efforts to keep their equipment pointed at US troops. It's not terribly suprising that they would be occasionally fired upon.

hmm. 150,000 eighteen to twenty-five year-olds with big guns in the desert getting shot at by dudes in black ninja suits on top of buildings - I think an errant shot or two should be expected.

Angry? If the US is deliberately targeting the reporters, or is treating their positions with less care than other civilian areas, I can understand their anger, and would share it.

But mistakes happen, and as valuable as their reporting is, reporters have to understand that they make the jobs of the armed forces that much more difficult. They take risks themselves, but they are also putting our armed forces at greater risk.

Civilians die in war, and journalists are not to be held in higher regard than any other civilian. I hope I haven't misunderstood you. If you simply were saying that deliberate targeting of journalists was wrong, I would certainly agree.

Here is a little tidbit of additional info on the self professed 'journalists':

"Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based Arabic-language satellite news channel, said Tuesday that its Baghdad office was hit by a U.S. missile and that one of its cameramen, Tarek Ayoub, was killed. One other crew member was wounded, and a third was missing, it said. The station managed to remain on the air.
Kuwaiti television reported that Ayoub was standing next to Iraqi military gunners who were firing at U.S. aircraft and was killed when U.S. forces bombed the site.'

STANDIND NEXT TO IRAQI MILITARY GUNNERS...HMMM, were they holding a microphone OR HANDING THEM AMMO!?!?

There is an old saying: When you play with fire...!

Let's see if I understand this. The situation with Al-Jazeera looks suspect because the coalition forces know specifically where their offices are located. If the US really wanted to take them out, why would we wait until now?

If we deliberately targeted Al-Jazeera with an airstrike, don't you think there would have been more than one casualty?

We fire on targets that fire on us. If that target happens to be in a Mosque or a historical site we *might* not shoot back. If the Al Jazeera reporter was standing next to an Iraqi gunner, then he was an idiot. It seem very likely that the Iraqis put someone on the hotel for the express purpose of causing this to happen. That's unfortunate, but the reporters know damn well that this is a possibility.

As to all the reporters who have been killed thus far, they are, by definition, seeking danger. They also tend to be traveling in vehicles and places that make them more vulnerable targets (Mike Kelly was in a Humvee rather than a Bradley for example). This is really sad, but one must respect their dedication to their profession.

War isn't safe. War is a lot less safe if you are a reporter who is sympathetic to, and thus, usually in the company of, the side that is getting creamed. I have no doubt that Al Jazeera is so pro-Saddam that their reporters stand next to Iraqi soldiers in Baghdad all the time. They do so to report "atrocities" (defined as the imperfections in the most discriminating war in history). They also love to photograph "victories". The problem is, the Iraqis never have victories, and if you are standing next to them when they are shooting at us, you are going to die.

Dave F - what news organization do you work for ?

OK, here goes. Some people think journalists get in the way or are there for reasons other than doing their job. I would just say that the US military wanted the media "embedded" in the theatre precisely because they needed to show they were acting with care for civilians, removing the regime and not fighting Iraqis as such, etc. Tommy Franks went so far as to say: "I'm a fan of it(the extended media access)."

If people would rather get their news from propaganda machines, then fine, they can say the journalists have it coming.

Despite the ridiculous wriggling by Richard Brooks and the Pentagon, large numbers of journalists, many of them very experienced observers, were in that hotel. They say there was no firing of any description from the lobby or anywhere else in the building.
Bluntly, it's a cock-up. I don't think they were trying to kill journalists, just being reckless.

They knew very well that hotel should be avoided.

In the case where mosques were used to direct fire at the coalition, the troops refrained from firing back, by order. Even if the tank commander thought he was being "targeted" from the hotel, why could he not apply similar discretion here?

The result has been that instead of Centcom setting the agenda for the media today, the journalists have them on the bak foot. As Geoff Meade of Sky put it: killing journalists is not a good idea when you want them to help get your points across.

As to which news organisation I work for, it is an international one represented in the theatre. I don't ever post its name on the weblogs because I am expressing my own views, often using company facilities ...

I'm willing to bet they are not going to get away with a stolid defence here. Stand by for an inquiry.

"6) Iraqi sniper on roof of Palestine Hotel spotted by US tanks, appears to have RPG (possibly misidentified camera).
7) US tank fires at hotel under rules of engagement."

Are you kidding? what a crap statement.

Look where the tank round went, it went through the hotel about 30 feet below the roof.

are you saying our tanks miss by 30 feet..and if they miss they don't fire a second round? stop posting garbage that is not true, and known not to be true at the time of the post.