Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Forces In Iraq Ban GPS Phones
Brian Enigma writes "According to a report last night on NPR and these two articles, Central Command has banned a particular satellite phone from reporters. It seems that it not only has a GPS--to help locate which satellite to use--but also (if activated) transmits the users location back to the phone company. Eavesdropping this signal is nontrivial, but still possible."
Again, the reporter simply asserts, with no sourcing that US troops are `shooting anything that moves' and are `shellshocked'. Given that the report is made from an area where there have been widespread incidences of Fedayeen Saddam militias shooting into crowds of civilians trying to get to US troops or to get out of the cities.
Nor does the reporter say that he is embedded with this unit, or has talked to anyone in it but two privates in the scene -- where do you draw this conclusion from?
So again, this is assertion and clearly biased interpolation of facts the reporter doesn't have. You do the same thing when you assert that they must have been killed by our troops if they were killed near them.
That you make these assertions the same day that the reporters embedded with British troops at Basrah shot video of Fedayeen militiamen firing mortars and machine guns into crowds of civilians trying to reach the safety of allied lines, and the same day that four American soldiers died in a murder-suicide bombing exactly because they do ask questions first, shoot later only hilights the bald bias in those interpolations.
With due respect, the bias of the article is perfectly clear in its breathless tone and choice of language `shellshocked' troops firing at `anything that moves'? Was the reporter not moving?
To paraphrase the punchline of an old joke, ``We've already settled what the bias of the article is. Now we're just haggling about the facts.'' And facts, as opposed to breathless interpolations, are something the reporter provides precious few of.