OK - so I posted the news.

Now for some opinions/questions.

#1 - If they were aiming for the roof, why didn't they hit it? An M1A1 can engage moving tanks at 4 kilometers.

#2 - Who was receiving the fires and how important was it to suppress those fires?

#3 - How *do* we plan to fight around that hotel?

Finally, I note that the journalists have been warned repeatedly, and that they were not targeted intentionally.

What was the distance? An RPG-7 is ineffective against stationary armor beyond 500 meters.

Yes, very annoyingly. Maybe even, say, to not make their viewers realize that the US f'ed up big-time here. I used to scoff at people calling them government shills. No longer. They've gotta earn that back. They have a LIVE REPORTER ON THE SCENE of this horrific story and instead of letting him cover it they cut away to something which should engender the EXACT OPPOSITE feeling about the US military.

This is unacceptable. Fair and balanced? When you've got a guy on the scene of a major international incident you take the reporter on the scene, not the bumpkins giving a presser on their lovely daughter's medical progress. Unless, of course, you're running a propoganda wing and don't want the viewers at home to feel bad about their tanks screwing up twice in two hours, shooting reporters, and certainly we don't want to remind them about what the BBC reporter reports as the unmistakable targeting of the Al-Jazeera offices; an incident we've currently done twice in two different military actions.

Fox just lost my vote. Look at my website and see why this is a problem for Fox. I am their core audience.

Another view:

when news is breaking, and journalists are not only reporting on it but are deeply involved in it, a producer (me, for instance) may consider it more responsible to cut away to a resolved event until the breaking incident has calmed down enough for reasonable analysis based on multiple sources and points of view.

Clyde--

Sure. Except they've never done that before, except for other, more urgent breaking news. Greg Kelly's urgent news is easily the most urgent - far more so that the PFC Lynch presser, which could have been tape delayed and anything emergent in that immediately pre-empting Greg Kelly. I don't think FOX made the right choice.

Anon:

Its actually worse than you describe.

Fox didn't show the Lynch PC to engender positive feelings for the U.S.

They did it because they're so tabloidesque, they are turning the Lynch event into an Elizabeth Smart/Laci Peterson story.

They STILL haven't even asked Kelly about our potential cross of the Tigris River -- a huge story if true, and he is the only embed on teh ground there.

Not to mention that, to the ordinary American guy in the street, from a human-interest standpoint, Jessica Lynch is a lot more interesting. I bet (though I wasn't monitoring either of the other two networks) that CNN and MSNBC were also carrying that press conference live.

Frankly, I don't think Jessica Lynch, Al Jazeera's reporter or the Reuters reporters should be getting large amounts of coverage -- that's all the kind of emotional crap journalists (especially Fox) eats up.

Those stories are dwarfed a thousand times over by the strike on Saddam, our potential crossing of the Tigris, large scale killing of Iraqi forces and the RG's potential defenses in the North and around Tikrit.

But those aren't "sexy," like the Lynch or a couple of reporters dying stories -- all of which, we'll hear blathering about for hours.

I might agree with you if you can tell me what urgent news he had besides what he had already stated, when they cut away? Neither of us knows, but Fox could collect it without broadcasting it, and therefore allow themselves to do what Al-Jazeera et al should be doing but are obviously not doing: responsibly collect & edit before broadcasting, rather than just realtime-react from one source while events are unfolding.

That's it. Screw Syria and Iran, Fox is next.

Good point, rpongett. There have been several other instances during this war when the three cable news channels (Fox, MSNBC and CNN) played the same stories over and over and over and over again because they were "sexy", notwithstanding what might have been going on at the same time - to cite just one case in point, they spend a most inordinate amount of time on friendly-fire accidents, to the extent that the other day, you'd have thought that that incident near (I forget the name of the town) where a US/Kurdish convoy was accidentially bombed was the ONLY thing that had happened in the north of Iraq that day.

I can verify that MSNBC, CNNH and CNN also cut away for that conference. It ain't just Fox. It's the biz.

Okay, okay, I'm not so mad at Fox anymore. Still upset with the 3ID until some independent source comes out saying someone was indeed shooting at them from the Palestine.

I said this in another thread, but Fox gave Greg Kelly advance warning that they were expecting the news conference and might cut away without warning.

Fox has been breaking in *often* in the past few weeks for various news conferences. I wasn't offended by it. (I do get annoyed when they do that and then talk over the conference, though.. grr)

We are witnessing at least two of the bad effects of realtime war reporting:
1) instant personal reactions to unfolding events get reported as the whole story, when in fact by their nature they are one-sided and limited in analysis.
2) Since the reports are broadcast realtime, and often (especially in this case) are part of the story, the reports become motivating factors for further events--like the feedback you hear when you put a microphone in front of it's own amplified speaker.

BBC is reporting with film that damage seems too minor for a tank round. Likely an RPG. BBC reporter speculating as much.

Put it down to an Iraqi provocation!

Playing the last desperate cards!

okay, I'm not in the biz, but I'm in biz; and I also know that war is biz. So, I will be curious to see how all the events of the past 4 hours come together when we know all the facts. I just try to keep in mind what Rumsfeld said today, "that we never comment on the first report" or something like that. But it is very, very interesting entertainment if nothing else, with the embeds. Imagine, watching a war in real time! I wonder if those guys and gals on the ground and in the air have any idea; or had any knowledge beforehand that they would be this season's "reality show."

My prayers go to all the journalists and coalition members families who are mourning the loss or injury of a loved one. That keeps it all in perspective.

I have not heard anyone else mention this so:
How likely is it that the Iraqis are using the reporters' buildings to operate laser designators or do artillery spotting? Or just directing operations? I would take any of those as a good reason to hit them.
As for the shoulder/tripod cameras being mistaken for weapons, so what? If a cameraman sees someone hurt, he will film them die rather than help them, so if he gets hit himself, tough luck.

Come on, doing the cut away to the Lynch Family gave us all time to go to the bathroom.

What should be interesting is that only 1 round hit, rather than a whole salvo. Also I believe this hit the 16th floor? I think I read somewhere the Palestine Hotel has 20 floors, so thats a pretty serious gap between floors. My guess is that there may have been an RPG/sniper on the roof, the gunner or commander of the tank or a nearby spotter saw the general direction of the shot, may have gotten a bad visual or a glare off optics from a window/camera/whatever from that particular room and targetted it instead. I will say however it will get more investigation than the Iraqis will ever do for THEIR actions.

How hard would it be to secure the hotel and make sure it's not used for sniping?

Shawn: Very hard. Armor precedes foot soldiers. Clearly if the armor has only just reached the range of the hotel the foot soldiers are some ways off.

Greg Kelly stated during the report that the tanker apparently saw someone with binoculars and other people with "RPGs" observing them from the building. I did not hear him mention snipers or anyone actually firing from the building. In hindsight the tanker probably saw reporters with some high-power optics and cameras watching the battle and not someone spotting artillery rounds. But, when people are trying to kill you I guess you make some decisions that turn out to be incorrect. The Fog of War. It is unfortunate that non-combatants were killed and injured but that is what happens sometimes in a combat zone when you expose yourself rather than lie low.

Greetings:

======================

Armor precedes foot soldiers. Clearly if the armor has only just reached the range of the hotel the foot soldiers are some ways off.

=======================

Well, when I was in the Army...and we trained for urban warfare, armor and foot soldiers worked to support each other.

So, it could have been supporting fire from the tank because the foot soldiers thought they were in danger, or it could have been a mistake (how long has it been since these guys had a shower and a hot meal...let alone a good night's sleep?)...

Or, it could have been an Iraqi with a bomb inside the hotel setting up an incident.

More than likely, we'll just never know exactly what happened.

Seems to me that if you're at close range and see guys with optics and RPGs.. you don't wait for them to start firing those things at you.. even if you are in an M1A1...