One of the blogs I read everyday is by Zoriah, a photojournalist currently embedded with US forces in Iraq. He takes beautiful pictures in what, at the best of times, can be deemed difficult circumstances, and writes with admirable honesty about the situations he finds there. I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in the situation there.
A few days ago, he posted his report and photos of the aftermath of a suicide bombing attack on US Troops and Iraqi civilians in the outskirts of Falluja. It's a straight piece of reportage on a gruesome and tragic event, but I was left in no doubt that his treatment of both Iraqi and American victims was fair and respectful. It was a shock to read the entry from today, written by his representative, saying that the US Marines Public Affairs had asked him to take the entry down. The representative had not stated a reason. Upon his refusal to do so, the military cancelled his embed with them in Iraq, thus, it would seem, effectively muzzling him.
Initially when I read today's entry, I thought that the military must have perceived an anti-American in the entry, but upon re-reading the original post, I can't believe this to be the case. The entry hardly mentions any behaviour by the Americans that could be misinterpreted, or indeed by Iraqis, except, conceivably, Zoriah's supposition that he was removed from the scene when he tried to take a photo of the injured/dead Marines. This would be a rather harsh interpretation of the report. It would also be strange for the Marines to claim an anti-US agenda from this post in particular, when many of his other posts are much more clearly (and, indeed, rightfully), critical of American action.
If the implication from the military is that any sensitive information could put troops at risk, the relevant reporting from major news outlets (New York Times etc.), is as (or more), explicit than Zoriah's post, so the supression of a less widely-read journalist's work would be heavy handed at best. The same would hold true for any material that would be emotionally distressing for the families of the victims.
So did the military ask him to remove the post? Hopefully Zoriah will be able to explain when he gets to a less volatile location. In the meantime, it's a shame that the military attempt to control journalists like this when there is such a dirth of independent reporting coming out of the country. It strikes me that this is another example of how embedding has contributed to preventing the press cover this war in the depth of those of the past.
He was not removed because of his blog he was removed because he posted graphic pictures of Marines killed in action before the families had a chance to grieve and even before they had their funeral. Furthermore, showing the aftermath so soon reveals details to the enemy about the attack, both of which are in violation of his embed agreement. That is why he was removed
Very interesting, thanks very much for answering that. The New York Times report also seems to post images from the bombing, at least of the Mayor of Garma. I imagine embed agreements only cover the US troops. Fair enough, I suppose as the US troops are the ones protecting the journalists. Thanks again for answering the question.