Found!

Greyhawk actually finds mention of CBS's problem cameraman on their web site. But it took a bit of work.

It has always been odd, has it not, that the networks have always had more than enough footage of enemy fighters, er, fighting?

Greyhawk has CBS's statement, and a series of questions. (Of course, there were plenty of questions about those AP photos too, so lots of luck.)

It's well known (and often discussed here) that every American outlet hires Iraqis and uses them widely and broadly, based precisely on the single qualification that they are Iraqi and can therefore go where Westerners cannot -- every outlet is upfront about the fact that these people are not being hired based on anything resembling something that would count as journalistic credentials in the West.

"They're asked to be cub reporters in a very complex time," says Los Angeles Times Baghdad correspondent Alissa J. Rubin.

The Post Baghdad bureau employs five Iraqis who assist in reporting, as well as four or five stringers in outlying cities, who are paid by the job. The paper enrolled two of its Iraqi staffers in a weeklong training program run by the Knight Foundation, but most Iraqis working for Western press have depended on their translation skills to learn the job of journalism as they go along. Their backgrounds vary—English major, architect, doctor, airline employee, hotel receptionist, pharmacist, and professional translator, to name a few.

After all:

What's gained with the use of Iraqi stringers and staffers, obviously, is coverage. In these dangerous times, Iraqis can blend into the scene in a way Western reporter can't. They can talk to people without arousing suspicion. They understand the important differences between tribes. They can phone in breaking news. They can talk to women without accidentally violating local taboos. They're not as ripe a target for kidnappers. "They're Iraqis, and they know how to talk and act," says the Washington Post's Anthony Shadid, an Arabic speaker who will return to Iraq in three weeks after several months of book leave.

More:

But even placing talented Iraqis in off-limits places like Samarra to report doesn't solve all the problems—any information they send back to Western reporters must be weighed carefully for its truth value because 1) the sender's local protectors might be spinning him; 2) he may not be accurately interpreting the information coming his way; and 3) the points of independent, professional corroboration (news wires, TV, telephonable sources) are too few.

But Shafer, in that piece, was worried about the ethics of putting Iraqis into danger Americans themselves were unwilling to face. He didn't, other than in that quote above, contemplate the dangers of using Iraqis whose backgrounds and allegiences might not really be known. What if the spinning wasn't being done by the Iraqi stringers "local protectors" but by the Iraqi himself, because of his divided loyalties?

How would his American employers ever know that? Surely it's clear from Shafer's article that these are brave men and women, that they are proud of their work, that they are the core of what will eventually be an Iraqi news industry, and that they are vital to the current reporting Americans rely on. But it would take only one. If an Iraqi kept pushing the line that all was chaos and despair in a city, or even simply that it was far too dangerous for an American to venture forth into that city -- how would an American know different?

Would you take the risk that information was wrong? I certainly wouldn't.

But how terribly easy it would be for an Iraqi to assist a terrorist campaign that is, after all, a media campaign. Far from threatening any Iraqi who cooperated, I would think that placing a sympathizer with an American broadcast outlet would be a dream. You could then pretend to threaten, just to make it more credible.

By the way, let me just say -- why CBS?

My guess is this: bad luck. I can't imagine that there's any reason why CBS would be more vulnerable to this than any other outlet with the possible exception that since footage is more powerful than stills, broadcast outlets are likely more targeted than print. CBS has said they hired this guy on the recommendation of someone they've worked with, someone they trust a great deal. What other kind of check is available, how else can these kinds of checks be done? It's not like Ba'ath party roles or membership lists in jihadist mosques are going to be available to them. I suppose it's possible they could have asked the military if the man was previously known to them, but the chances are good he wouldn't have been.

Was he producing footage that was perhaps a bit too good? That's where alarm bells should have gone off.

But, please. The networks, as I've been complaining for awhile, will take footage straight off of terrorist web sites. So even if this guy's stuff was good enough to set off alarm bells, it's doubtful CBS would have done anything at that point. (Like, say, contact the military on their own hook.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not excusing CBS if that was indeed the case, if the footage that has the Army all hot and bothered was ever handed into them and used on air rather than given to the military. What I'm saying is that if they got that footage, wondered about it, but used it anyway, (or even decided it was too disturbing to air, but still didn't contact the military, because they decided they had a great cameraman on their hands) there is nothing in that behavior that I believe makes CBS in any way, shape, or form different and unique from other outlets. My point is that this didn't happen because it was CBS qua CBS.

It happened because the enemy has figured out how American media outlets operate.

Comments

[Bachbone]

The media have known for decades that 'spontaneous demonstrations' began when their cameras started rolling. They've also been caught using footage of something other than what they are reporting on, without advising viewers. They've also been caught creating the effects they wanted (e.g., Chevy pickups catching fire) and not advising viewers they caused the gas tank to explode. The difference between media Ernie Pyles and Dan Blathers is that the Pyles did not harbor a basic hatred for anything, or everything, conservative or American.

[dauber]

You're making a jump, though, from their getting caught taking shortcuts to their harboring hatred for certain values. One is behavorial and therefore provable, yes?

[Richard Aubrey]

The direction of the shortcuts shows us something.
It would be different if they'd filled the truck's gas tank with water, say.
Or faked documents showing Bush with a Distinguished Service Cross.
Or done a distance shot to show us the "crowd" takes up a fraction of the street and half the sidewalk.
Or given as much ink to the female Kentucky Guard NCO who broke up an ambush and killed a bunch of terrorists as they did to Jessica Lynch.
Some things are ipso facto.