BBC website solicits tips on Iraq troop movements
posted at 3:21 pm on June 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I’m way late to this, I know, just like I know the Beeb’s leftward tilt is so acute as to be the stuff of punchlines. But have they really sunk so low?
Politicians reacted in disbelief to the revelation that for over two hours yesterday, the BBC News website carried a request for people in Iraq to report on troop movements…
[A]ccording to accounts last night, a story on a major operation by US and Iraqi troops against al-Qa’eda somewhere north of Baghdad contained an extraordinary request for information about the movement of troops.
Last night the BBC confirmed the wording of the request was: “Are you in Iraq? Have you seen any troop movements? If you have any information you would like to share with the BBC, you can do so using the form below.”…
The Ministry of Defence was not aware of the affair yesterday until alerted by The Daily Telegraph.
However, a spokesman said: “We would take this incredibly seriously if it’s true. We are checking this with our guys out in Iraq.”…
Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, voiced his shock at what he claimed was a “bizarre” request for information about army movements.
“I am appalled because it shows either a wilful disregard for the safety of our Armed Forces or a shocking lack of understanding about their safety.
Supposedly the tip request appeared at the end of this article. You’ll find friends, family, and British vets themselves ripping the Beeb to shreds in this military bulletin board thread, but pay attention to what the people are saying about their comments on the BBC piece not being published. It sounds like the tips were being moderated instead of appearing instantly on the site. In which case, is this really as bad as it was made out to be? It sounds like maybe they simply wanted to know where the action was so they could relay the info to their people in Iraq and send them to the scene. Or am I missing something?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Aren’t the beeb reporters always embedded with the enemy? They are with the taliban – if memory serves, I believe they are with insurgents too, correct? So, if they want to know where the “action” is by telling their reporters. Aren’t they just giving tipoffs to those the reporters are embedded with?
lorien1973 on June 21, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Key here is that the BBC, like our MSM journalists use stringers…
So, you send the info… BBC gets it, then sends an IRAQI stringer of unknown alegeince the info… stringer tells the bad guys…
Or, scenario two… BBC guys suddenly start to move to the area of ops… but the bad guys, who do know how to READ, know the BBC guys are probably moving on troop info, and so follow them…
The media really does NOT need to know operational information on troop movments…
Romeo13 on June 21, 2007 at 3:32 PM
Well, there are lots of ways that, even if the tips were not appearing online for the world to see in real-time, it could still constitute a serious problem that could endanger the troops. Just one example: What if a civilian BBC employee on the receiving end of the tips is sympathetic to the jihad? There are, after all, plenty of jihadists and sympathizers in Britain, many of whom don’t particularly look or act like they would be. Just a cell phone call to the right (wrong) people in Iraq, and it could be serious trouble.
aero on June 21, 2007 at 3:32 PM
The US and Coalition forces need to boot any embedded Beeb affiliated reporters then, if they are going to become a liability to the guys that are on the field and their operations. I don’t see what else you can do.
Bad Candy on June 21, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Dude, all the employees at the BBC are sympathetic to the jihad. They practically prostrate themselves at the feet of the Palestinian terror groups, and consider the US and the British soldiers as the enemy. The BBC are on the other side in the fight against terrorism, and they were up to no good with that “request” for troop movements.
Stormy70 on June 21, 2007 at 3:37 PM
If the military wanted the BBC to know where they are going, they’d tell them. Plenty of journalists embed. The BBC by publicly seeking information from outside sources for potential transmission back to Iraq and/or publication puts lives at risk. You don’t think they were going to rush a British reporter to some dangerous scene on their own do you? More likely, they relay the information to a local stringer who is part of the insurgency. The British people know that and hence the outrage.
TheBigOldDog on June 21, 2007 at 3:41 PM
“Never suspect malice when [gross] incompetence will do.”
And I agree with AP… they prolly just wanted to know where the action was.
AlexB on June 21, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Sympathetic to the jihadis or not, it really doesn’t matter. They have no business with the information about troop movements they were seeking.
Why not let the rest of us have the same information — or highly classified information of some other kind — if we don’t plan on publishing it? Information is classified for a reason. We don’t let individuals and organizations make the decisions for themselves.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on June 21, 2007 at 3:44 PM
If you want to really understand why the BBC knowing anything that affects operational security is such a big issue, read the link below. Just having that information known inside BBC HQ is potentially life threatening.
LGF Exclusive: How Much Does It Cost to Buy Global TV News?
TheBigOldDog on June 21, 2007 at 3:46 PM
I wonder if you have felt the same way on D-Day and the BBC was asking for information on troop movements so they could relay the info to their stringers in France so they would “know where the action was”
Please.
TheBigOldDog on June 21, 2007 at 3:50 PM
According to Yon most recent post, any reporter in the TOC would know just about everything happening in-theater. That isn’t enough of a gem for Beebers in reporting the news first and bestest?
Oh damn, I forgot, it would probably be light on reports from enemy sources.
Dusty on June 21, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Any entity that puts our soldiers at risk and threatens their lives should be regarded as an enemy of the United States . . . and that includes the BBC or any other left wing media organization.
rplat on June 21, 2007 at 3:51 PM
What next?
On the scene hints about the ‘weakest areas’ in coalition body armor?
Which are the most effective shapedcharges you’ve seen in the field?
Crazy, brainless mofo’s!
The possibilities for online sedition/treason are endless using this model.
profitsbeard on June 21, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Well maybe …. like BBC’s track record, for example.
fogw on June 21, 2007 at 4:27 PM
I think it is time for the US to bomb the
BBCHQ of the enemy’s Military Intelligence.Tim Burton on June 21, 2007 at 4:59 PM
The only media that should be allowed in Iraq are MM and Bryan. We know and trust them to tell the truth and not help the enemy in doing so.
csdeven on June 21, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Perhaps the militaries should have looked at this as an opportunity, either to misdirect them, or lure them into ambushes?
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on June 21, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Even so, AP, wouldn’t they do better to get that info from the military, on the QT? I’m sure they’d love for the media to actually send people where the troops are so they could report first hand, and accurately, instead of trying to report the war from the balcony of a Baghdad hotel.
Mark V. on June 21, 2007 at 7:04 PM
There is no justifiable reason to solicit anyone but official command about the movements of troops, period.
unamused on June 21, 2007 at 9:56 PM
Isn’t the BBC an official media organ of the British Government?
With a new Prime Minister coming in who’s signalling with bonfires that he’s hard Left on the War, what does this little activity forebode?
naliaka on June 21, 2007 at 10:18 PM
No, Allah, you’re absolutely right.
And while we’re on that subject, I’d like to draw everybody’s attention to the sad plight of a group of people unfairly arrested and, in some cases, executed during WWII by that war-mongering, censoring fascist, Churchill.
I am talking, of course, about the many innocents rounded up and imprisoned for lurking around British ports, sending communiques about convoy schedules back to the legitimate German media who only wanted some accurate information to print, dammit!
The interest of the general public, don’t you know?
Misha I on June 22, 2007 at 12:02 AM
?
No. It’s an autonomous ‘government corporation’ supported primarily by a yearly tax that all British owners of TV sets pay.
Yes, if you own a telly in the U.K., you pay a yearly fee, and most of it goes to the BBC. So, no commercials, but both of their networks are a Constant Non-stop Commercial for socialst PC bullsh+t
Janos Hunyadi on June 22, 2007 at 12:09 AM
I agree with Romeo13, That is why the media does not need to know about troop movements until after they occur.
The media is using stringers in Iraq, the objective of the stringers is not verifiable.
No one can say what will happen if the info is passed onto them in the name of “getting a story”.
It is basic OP-SEC.
F15Mech on June 22, 2007 at 1:49 AM
The enemedia, like the rest of the Left, want us to lose this war, and have been actively undermining it since day one. Why they’re given anything like the kind of access they have is utterly beyond me, considering that they aren’t on our side. You never had to worry about whether guys like Ernie Pyle were rooting for our guys to win, but unfortunately you can’t take patriotism for granted any more. If it was up to me, the press wouldn’t get anything but releases from the Public Affairs Office several days later, and you can’t convince me that my way wouldn’t result in more live Americans and more dead tangos. Trying to make nice with a hostile media has been yet another failure by the Bush administration to fight this war seriously.
ReubenJCogburn on June 22, 2007 at 2:26 AM
Amen brother. The President has been far more “Compassionate” than “Conservative” with these…people. They have needed a visit to the woodshed for 7 years now.
Pilgrim on June 22, 2007 at 7:26 AM
Comment pages: