Sent to LA TImes Editorials, OP-ED at letters@latimes.com.

Damn the lives, and full ratings ahead!

Good afternoon.

Before I go on, and I shall, I would just like to point out that I do understand issues regarding Freedom of Speech, so there's really no reason to lecture me about it.

Now then:
Paul Watson is listed as a Times staff writer. Reading his report titled "Silent Men Speak to a U.S. Presence in Afghanistan" for November 5, 2001 at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-110501quiet.story
...I find a few problems.

This is a very personal issue for all citizens of the United States of America, but it remains one of accountability, and one involving a lot of Constitutional gray area. In the end, though, it's up to the media propagation house, in this case the LA Times, to act and report news responsibly. In the article above, there was really no reason to mention either the color of the van, or the color of the curtains in that van, and definitely no reason to list aircraft N-numbers. We do have American and Allied lives on the line here, and it might even be someone I once knew in the Military. I don't like that.

Uncalled for, as this sets a timetable for an Allied action against the Taliban:
"The troops were in their second day of rehearsing for maneuvers scheduled for today, either as a huge propaganda exercise or a prelude to an offensive on the front north of Kabul, the Afghan capital."

Uncalled for, as this sets persons matching this description as potential targets, and not just within the Panjshir Valley region:
"One of the observers was wearing a Marlboro Classic shirt with the sleeves rolled up, exposing an expensive watch. Another had on silver Oakley sunglasses. All were dressed in chinos, and all sported Afghan scarves worn as bandannas or tied to cover the whole head, except for the designer shades."

Uncalled for, as this implies that these potential targets are still within the region of the Panjshir Valley:
"The same men were spotted earlier Sunday in the white Toyota van with no license plates as they drove along a rough road in the Panjshir Valley. It was leaving an area where villagers said they saw mysterious containers dropped by parachute in the dead of night."

Uncalled for, for the same reason as above:
"Asked how he could tell they were Americans, Hoshang said that it was common knowledge in the valley who they were and that he personally had seen them at least three times driving one way or another on the rutted dirt track that passes through the valley."

Uncalled for, as this identifies a craft as being likely of U.S. origin, as well as marks the craft for future observation:
"The only marking on the white aircraft was the tail number: N6160."

From a military standpoint, the above was simply poorly written. Freedom of speech guarantees that the media will dig for information the military does not wish for them to have, and once they have obtained it, they will publish it. Whether the data revealed is factual or not, critical or not, does not appear to matter to the media until well after the fact, implying that the sole purpose is to publish, and for the simple reason that the public has a right (not a need) to know.

"Damn the lives, and full ratings ahead! We've got a scoop!"

There appears to be only one discrimination in the media. If a topic will sell, they will print. ...And that's it.

Now, given what I've written above, we have a media source with global publication ability (thank you MCI, WorldCom, & UUNet) of military activity, and they can (and do) distributed data in near-real time. Whether the information is true data or false data is unimportant. It remains critical data. Info/disinfo does not enter into the formula here. The media is supplying current data to a current puzzle that our current enemy is currently working on.

That's my two cents,
Daniel Spires
UUNET, a WorldCom Company
NSI: WAN Software Translations Technician

"History is an imperfect record, at best an approximation skewed by transient passions and by the eccentric spin of competing events. Some things small receive disproportionate attention. Some things great are lost forever."
-- Howard Mansfield