A VC« Nuggets | Main | Google To Buy YouTube? »
Freedom of Uploading?
Does the concept of freedom of speech extend to uploading videos of our troops being shot at in Iraq and elsewhere around the world?
That's the question that arises in this front page article in The New York Times today. In typical New York Times fashion, they run screen shots of the videos in question when they could easily embed the videos. I'd say "linking is tired, embedding is wired" but the New York Times doesn't link to the videos either.
So I went over to YouTube and looked for the two videos shown in the New York Times article. One called "Sniper Hit" has been taken down "due to terms of service violation". The other one can be found here. I thought about putting the video right into this post, but if the video is real (and I have no idea if it is), it shows US troops being shot by Iraqi insurgents. I can't put that on this blog as much as I want to embrace the idea that opening our eyes is a good thing.
Here is a comment to the video I linked to:
YouTube is to be commended for allowing this video to remain posted. YouTube should, in the future, resist pressure to remove such videos. This video provides useful information to Americans about our enemies in Iraq and the region. What the video portrays is not, by any means, the total picture. The video, however, does contribute an important piece of the picture that has been lacking in the media. YouTube is helping to correct that problem.
This is a complicated issue because the terrorists may be using YouTube to spread lies and misleading images. But our own troops are also using YouTube to tell the stories of their time in Iraq.
My gut tells me that a world in where our eyes are opened to the truth and the lies and we are allowed to determine the truth is a lot better than a world where organizations like Fox News, The New York Times, CBS, and the White House decide for us.
So I am with the commenter. YouTube, Google, MySpace, and everyone else who has these videos should keep them up. And we should watch them.
Comments (8) | Posted October 6, 2006 in Politics , Venture Capital and Technology
Comments
What did the president call it, "bypassing the filter", I believe. Careful what you wish for, Mr. Bush.
Posted by: Craig Plunkett | Oct 6, 2006 10:08:05 AM
Honest question… How would you feel about the converse? I get videos every now and again of fire fights, sniper shots, aerial combat operations, etc... from some of my military friends that depict some pretty graphic stuff befalling our enemy at the hands of our troops. I’m pretty certain that none of it ever had clearance for release by centcom PAO, but rather made it’s way into cyberspace the same way these videos you’re discussing did. Should they be available on YouTube as well? While I support the idea in the spirit of the first amendment, I wonder if it’s such a wise thing to endorse. Much of our planned combat operations are video taped. Assuming a viewer could handle the graphic nature of some of the things I’ve seen, I think most would be impressed with how effective our tactics, technology, and the men and women are, and what our military is actually capable of.
The last video I received was of a nighttime operation in Afghanistan. It was an ambush on a Taliban camp in which 35+ terrorist fighters, their women and children, were encamped. The camp had a few buildings including a mosque. The video was shot from a helo gunship with real time radio chatter between the air support and the recon teams of spotters on the ground near the camp. Once the friendly positions were painted to avoid friendly fire mistakes, the spotters commenced the attack. First, a distraction rocket to scatter the enemy. Then, very carefully these teams provided details of who and where to shoot. Each combatant was identified individually and pursued until his untimely fate was met. The mosque was specifically NOT targeted (all the women and children ran into it). For me, once the 20 minutes of video was over, I was struck by how professional, how careful, how strategic, these types of operations are, and how painstakingly cautious our guys are when carrying them out. As I watched each night vision illuminated figure disappear in a cloud of dust as they ran into caves, bunkers, vehicles, etc… it certainly impressed upon me that our technology is so overwhelming that there is NO escaping an attack of this nature. It was like looking though x-ray specs. Every single one of the 35 combatants were eliminated with a single round fired from a helicopter. Again, I think most common folk would be impressed with what this video depicts overall. Maybe people should see it, I don’t know. I’m fairly certain it would change the minds of those who think combat is a bunch of raving lunatics charging up/down a hill ala Gen. Custer. I’ve commented before that the most non-military Americans have little knowledge of their own military, maybe seeing this stuff might help?
I can’t post the video I describe to YouTube since it was provided to me in confidence, but I also think that possibly somewhere out there is someone who might know one of these poor bastards and would be horrified seeing them killed on the internet over and over and for the same reaason, I think the same holds true for the videos you describe of our guys getting it.
BTW… One of the clips in the picture in your post (if you didn’t manage to find a copy to view) was shot from the vantage point of the terrorist insurgents who planted a round squarely in the chest of the US soldier. The scumbags start in with there “Allahu Akbar” chants. Then, much to their surprise, the soldier gets up exactly how he was trained to do and takes position behind the humvee. One of the insurgents was killed, the other captured which is why we have the video. The insurgents are completely dumbfounded to see that guy get right back up. That video was played for soldiers deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan to encourage them to wear their flack vests even in the oppressive heat. I’d say it’s a pretty effective training tool. I know if it were me after seeing that, I’d sleep in the damn thing every night.
Posted by: Tony Alva | Oct 6, 2006 11:11:58 AM
tony,
i think your comment only reinforces my feelings that this stuff should be "out there" for everyone to see.
i think the truth is important, regardless of what it is that is in fact true.
fred
Posted by: fred | Oct 6, 2006 1:26:50 PM
I strongly believe that these videos should not be posted because in the real world soldiers on both sides die. I have seen death in war (and civil insurgencies) and they are very, very unpleasant. Human beings with their guts hanging out crying for their mothers and god(s) because they don't want to die. It can go on for hours - it's not Hollywood. No one ever dies like they do in Hollywood. Would you want to see your son dying publicly on YouTube.
You could argue that it would be good for the politcians to understand what they are putting soldiers in the way of (hot lead mostly).
However there is inherent censorship at source. The guys posting these videos aren't posting videos of their buddies dying, nor of them being ambushed and running around like headless chickens in the first few minutes of a contact (does not matter how good you are it will happen). Keep war where it belongs and YouTube is not it.
Posted by: Alistair Stobie | Oct 7, 2006 1:59:41 AM
This is a complicated issue because the terrorists may be using YouTube to spread lies and misleading images.
I always suspected Bush's $1.5+B a year propaganda budget was being spread around to more than just the NFL and Comedy Central programming.
Now I want to see that terrorist Condi on YouTube. Show me the clip of her plane making the nose-dive landing to avoid mortar fire and also the clip of her meeting with the Iraqi puppet regime - in the dark - after the terrorists had their electricity knocked out. Brilliant stuff.
Posted by: Peter | Oct 7, 2006 2:07:02 AM
If Google and YouTube and company want to become universal platforms for video content, they have no choice but to allow these videos to remain. If one chooses to become a media company with an editorial angle, sure, they can change the user-generated feel of the site and remove things.
More importantly, we're sending soldiers there to get killed so that Iraqis can have freedom of speech and of the press; right?
Yet over here, we leave freedom of press to the mainstream media, the same one that misinforms people, like this past week when FOX labeled Congressman Mark Foley a democrat.
Only because mainstream media fails to show a true glimpse into what is happening abroad does the need for a YouTube even come up. I wrote more about this here:
http://www.watchmojo.com/news/blog/?p=585
Posted by: ashkan karbasfrooshan | Oct 7, 2006 9:27:13 AM
this seems like a moot argument -- the web being the web, any/all videos that anyone wants to make available, will be available.
fred, the more difficult issue is raised by your repeated use of the word "truth". if we start to confuse arbitrarily posted videos on the web with "truth," well, let's just say Dr. Goebbels will be delighted but the cause of justice may not be helped.
also, say what you will about our media and government, but their propaganda efforts are nominal and pale in comparison to the efforts of our enemies. here's just a taste:
http://www.memri.org
Posted by: steve | Oct 8, 2006 4:24:59 PM
informacion en espanol
Posted by: sonia gonzalez | May 12, 2007 1:40:33 PM
Main RSS Feed of All Posts
VC and Technology Posts Only
