Untrained photogrphers are not allowed in Afghanistan

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Mar 10, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070310/ap_on_re_as/afghan_us_censorship;_ylt=AnWB.OG6o1xWXm29DhVgHV5w24cA

    Victor Petrenko... Looks as its 80's now and I read an article by col.Peterenko in army newspaper Zvezda.
  2. Aside from OPSEC and consideration of families of victims there are very few reasons to not to allow publication of any footage. For me it comes down to a moral argument; it's the people's taxes that are paying for the war, and they should therefore be able to see what their money is being spent on.
  3. For once Sergey; I agree, this is hardly 'truth' is it?

    Although not everyone will be aware of 'Isvestia' or 'Pravda'...
  4. OPSEC and the families be damned. There is no reason why any footage be erased. They did not just prevent the footage from being published, they erased it. There is no reason for that other than covering up a potentially embarrassing situation or outright crime. It wasn't the photographers' taxes that pay for the war but it's the world that wants to know what is going on regardless of who paid. If we want other countries to respect our journalists documenting events, we should respect their's as well as ours. If there is a question of OPSEC or exploitation, seize the footage and release it to the organization at a later date after possibly agreeing to some edits.
  5. Given the resentment expressed in this forum to photographic 'evidence' that has escaped into the public realm, I cannot see that anyone here can object at what was done. What is worthy of comment is the way it was done. Erasure should have been withheld until the footage had been viewed at a higher level than a grunt in the heat of the incident. So - yes to it being taken. Yes to it being reviewed and No to it being deleted on the spot.
  6. What was the old joke Sergei? There's no news in Pravda and no truth in Isvestia. Plus ca change and all that.
  7. So they just don't want the truth told.

    Can't see why they're picking on journos though.

    Telling the truth is the exception rather than the rule.
  8. There were some anecdotes of this sort. All of them were founded on names of Soviet newpapers.

    Pravda = The Truth
    Izvestia = The News
    Sovetskaya Rossia (or Rossia) = Soviet Russia (or Russia)
    Trud = The Labour (a newspaper of trade unions)

    A conversation of a buyer and newspapers seller
    - Pravda?
    - There is no Pravda.
    - Iszestia?
    - We haven't any Izvestia.
    - Rossia?
    - Has been sold.
    - Trud?
    - Costs 2 copeeks. (very low price).

    As I remember I was told this anecdote in the kindergarden.
  9. I'm surprised your teachers didn't end up in Siberia. I spent six months in St Petersburg in '92 and I remember being told similar by a Russian friend at the time. 15 Kopeks for a call from a public telephone (if they were working) and one Rouble to go anywhere on the metro. And vodka was the equivilant of 50p for half a litre. Happy days they were!
  10. I was in St Petersburg in 2004. Inflation is a barsteward. Vodka is now £2 per litre bottle! :D

    The spams will do themselves even less favours in the international community now with this sort of carry on. The only reason that would require this sort of action would be a cover up-nothing else.
  11. RP578

    RP578 LE Book Reviewer

    Apart from being downright wrong, the act of making the photographer delete his images on his digital camera was redundant. 'Erased' images can be easily recovered with commercially available software.

    Col Petrenko's statement:
    could have been lifted straight out of Orwell's "1984".