Army bans S&S reporter from Mosul

| June 25, 2009

There’s been a report, mostly from Stars and Stripes, about Heath Druzin, a reporter for the unofficial military perodical, who has been banned from embedding with the 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division by Col. Gary Volesky, their commander. Volesky claims that Druzin empahsized malcontented Iraqis in Mosul in an article he wrote on March 8th.

Many residents want only Iraqis to handle security, to show respect for the country’s sovereignty. And some say the U.S. presence actually makes the city more dangerous by offering more targets for bombers.

“Everywhere the Americans go they get (attacked),” said Sulah Ahmed Azam, a baker in the Shadad neighborhood.

Even some in the Iraqi military want the Americans gone.

“The coalition forces, they haven’t done anything bad to the people, but the truth is anyway that they came to invade Iraq and the people don’t like it,” said Iraqi 1st Lt. Asad Mehsin, who works closely with U.S. soldiers. “My viewpoint: I would like them to leave. You’re American, would you like Russia to invade your country?”

In an article today, the S&S quotes an Army spokesperson on the embed controversy;

“Despite the opportunity to visit areas of the city where Iraqi Army leaders, soldiers, national police and Iraqi police displayed commitment to partnership, Mr. Druzin refused to highlight any of this news,” Maj. Ramona Bellard, a public affairs officer, wrote in denying Druzin’s embed request. Officials also asserted that Druzin declined to answer a commander’s questions about his future stories and used quotes out of context.

In another article today, Mark Prendergast, the ombudsman for the S&S wrote;

In a raft of e-mail correspondence between Stars and Stripes and the military that began May 11, the colonel and the major emphasized that their problem was not with the newspaper but with Druzin — another Stripes reporter would be welcome in Mosul, they said. (Army officials in Baghdad offered to let Druzin embed somewhere else.)

So, once again, Stars and Stripes becomes the news instead of the events they’re supposed to be covering. Service members can turn to virtually any other newspaper or news source in the world and read how they’re not wanted in Iraq. However, Druzin can’t be bothered to toss in a few lines about successes in the Mosul region into his *yawn* article about how some Iraqis don’t want us there.

To his credit, he did write an article on March 22d that highlighted how the Kurds want us to stay there, but then, that’s old news, too. There hasn’t been a single American soldier killed in Kurdistan since the 2003 invasion of Hussein’s Iraq.

I remember when we used to read the Stars and Stripes because we got the news that no one else would write about the good we were doing in the world – how we fit into the big picture. If Druzin wants to write the same old bullshit, let him flak for the New York or Los Angeles Times. If a commander deems it hurtful to morale or the mission, he should have the right to toss one single reporter to the curb.

And if the story was that important, the Stars and Stripes should have sent another reporter instead of making a stand against their readership.

Category: Media, Terror War

16 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
NHSparky

Just one more bit of evidence that when it comes to the media, it’s not about the story, it’s about THEM.

ArmySergeant

The stand isn’t against all of their readership-just against the brass. I for one am proud of the Stars and Stripes for not being the propaganda puppet leadership might want it to be. I’ts supposed to be our paper, yeah-but that doesn’t mean a paper that just tells us what leadership wants us to hear. There are servicemembers on both sides of the ideas, you know, and they both deserve representation.

NHSparky

Oh, goody–then you won’t mind them telling some of the GOOD that’s going on there, Sarge. That was the whole point behind them denying the embed request–that he WASN’T telling both sides of the story.

Obfuscation–ur doin it rite!

AW1 Tim

You know that somewhere, Ernie Pyle is weeping.

There was a time when the press was on America’s side.

1stCavRVN11B

Well it seems back in 2008 when he was working for the Idaho Statesman he said this:

[Heath Druzin, a reporter for the Idaho Statesman, acknowledged this morning that he is at least one of the members of the press corps who has refused to recite the Pledge.]

Source: http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2008/03/26/editorials/edit01.prt

Yeah, I do believe he is a true American and on our side don’t you?

ArmySergeant

NHSparky: I don’t believe you should ever tell a reporter what to report. You can’t force a reporter to report what you want them to report any more than you can force them to report “boy scout rescues cat from tree” stories.

Athena

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. Seems Druzin is more interested in his ‘street cred’ with other (mostly hostile) journalists than with reporting the positives and negatives of a situation. I guess he thinks not reciting the PoA makes him MORE credible, when all that’s required to do his job is an open mind.

adagioforstrings

ArmySergeant guy says he belongs to IVAW. Ergo, if he’s sympatico with Druzin, Druzin must be flogging anti-war propaganda, as well. Why would S&S have an anti-war mole on their staff? Like you said, Druzin can work for just about any other US paper with a similar editorial position.

HM2(FMF/SW)Ret.

It wouldn’t matter to me if the Brass had refused Ollie North access, I would be against it. The military should not be able to choose who reports on them.

In 2003, my unit’s embeds were very clear with us that they allowed our regiment to approve their stories. As such, there was/is little interest in fair reporting. Denying access subverts the embed process. Why not just use combat camera and call it good?

YatYas

For years the Stars and Stripes as well as the Military Times have become nothing but paper for the porta-john. Like most media these days, they have a biased eye against America and the military as an institution.

ArmySergeant

adagio: because a lot of people (and soldiers) are against the war in Iraq, and their views deserve to be heard too.

NHSparky

Okay, AS–but when your (minority) opinion is the only one heard, then what?

brown neck gaitor

“I for one am proud of the Stars and Stripes for not being the propaganda puppet leadership might want it to be.”

AS,

If a reporter does not cover both sides of the issues, it is still Propoganda. Even if you, AS, happen to agree with the reporter’s stance.

Just so I am clear, if a reporter repeats statements in an article by IVAW golden child Matthew Chiroux but doesn’t put other statements that contradict Chiroux’s statements that too is Propaganda?

pmm

Nobody’s stopping S&S or Druzin from reporting–he’s just not going to embed with that unit. Contra armysergeant, S&S can report all views, but I don’t see why a unit has to facilitate reporting that degrades their morale or adversely impacts mission accomplishment.

If Stars and Stripes wants to be treated like a ‘real’ media organization with complete freedom of movement (regardless of how or to what extent they’re subsidized), then we should treat them just as we would if the reporter was from USA Today or ABC News. And that means the CO gets to make the call whether a given reporter is going to allow the reporter into his unit.

pmm

And the Ombudsman in the article above is way out there on this one:

‘By these lights, denying access to a reporter because one fears unfavorable articles amounts to “calculated withholding of unfavorable news.”’

So now withholding access is the same as withholding news? Does that mean the last several years of banning photography at Dover was the same as withholding news of our casualty reports? I always thought that we provided the access we did through the belief that a transparency with the media would further both our strategic and tactical missions. My bad.

adagioforstrings

re: ArmySergeant:”because a lot of people (and soldiers) are against the war in Iraq, and their views deserve to be heard too.”

If you don’t believe in your mission, why do you remain in the military? You should feel lucky that you’re not being prosecuted for insubordination.