Foleygate: It’s All For Naught

Linda Foley, President of the Newspaper Guild did a Eason Jordan just last week, claiming that US Troops Military was killing journalists.

“Jordan, CNN’s chief news executive, suggested at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland that some of the 63 journalists killed in Iraq had been specifically targeted by U.S. troops. Jordan quickly backed off his suggestion, but constant exposure from political weblogs led to his resignation. He also admitted last year that CNN withheld news of atrocities taking place in Iraq under the regime of Saddam Hussein because the network was afraid it might lose access to the country.(WND)”

Also in the World Net Daily article, they mention an article on the Newspaper Guild’s site, which can be found here. According to the article, which is about The story of Telecinco cameraman Jose Couso:

“The recent attack on the Italian journalist shows yet again that the U.S. military has decided that journalists are fair game in Iraq,” [Cuoso’s Brother] explained.”We believe that a full, independent investigation is long overdue into the attack which killed my brother. Then, those responsible should be brought to justice.”

Linda Foley is mentioned:

“The Pentagon’s report on the shelling at the Palestine Hotel, wrote TNG-CWA President Linda Foley, “has been inadequate and unconvincing, raising more questions than it resolved.”

The entire article holds extreme bias which is clearly seen.

“when asked about Couso’s slaying, President Bush reflected an official American nonchalance about the incident by responding, “I think war is a dangerous place.” The Pentagon report on the shelling had more menacing overtones, observing that “The media were repeatedly cautioned that the battlefield was a dangerous place and especially so for non-embedded reporters…News agencies were specifically advised that DOD could provide no guarantee of safety or any sort of specific warnings when it came to their reporters in Baghdad.”

Can you say anti-Bush?

“According to a tape of her remarks, Foley said: “Journalists, by the way, are not just being targeted verbally or…ah, or…ah, politically. They are also being targeted for real, um…in places like Iraq. What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there’s not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq.”

Foley continued, “They target and kill journalists…uh, from other countries, particularly Arab countries like Al–, like Arab news services like al-Jazeera, for example. They actually target them and blow up their studios with impunity…” (WND)

And you have to check this out:

During the past few months, an unprecedented number of journalists have been cited for contempt in federal court for refusing to name confidential sources. The following statement has been signed by more than 4,500 journalists, of whom more than a thousan–their names are listed on this page–are Guild members. To review the complete list and obtain background information on the several cases, go to

For well over a century, reporters have recognized an ethical duty to protect their confidential sources. If journalists could not and did not honor this guarantee, significant sources who fear reprisal would be afraid to reveal what they know; valuable information about government conduct would not reach the public.

Reporters recognize that this duty must be defended uniformly. It should not be compromised whenever questions are raised about possible sources, or it will be lost in all situations.

We support the reporters in current federal court proceedings who are refusing to testify about their confidential sources and now face stiff fines, even jail. We commend these reporters for standing firm and standing up for First Amendment principles.

Guess who signed? Linda Foleygate.

We are demanding evidence for her statements, which were obviously out of line, and without any evidence except for her own bias. She can’t say “Confidential sources that can’t be shown to you” or “To protect the source…” No. None of that. The back-peddling has already begun. Bring out the evidence, show us why you said what you said. Not this:

“When asked if she believed U.S. troops had targeted journalists in Iraq, she said, “I was careful of not saying troops, I said U.S. military. Could I have said it differently? There are 100 different ways of saying this, but I’m not sure they would have appeased the right.”


“Foley’s comments, which she says have been distorted, have already drawn the ire of several conservative news organizations, including, The Washington Times, and Sinclair Broadcasting, charging that she accused the U.S. forces of deliberately targeting journalists.”

“Foley told E&P Thursday that her words were taken out of context by critics and said her original intent was to discuss how journalists are often scapegoated for their coverage. “This was almost an aside,” she said. “But it is true that hundreds of journalists are killed around the world, and many have been killed in Iraq.”

I said it, it was out of context, and misquoted, but what I said was true still.

(Thanks to La Shawn on this story)

My E-mail to the Guild:

“Dear Guild,

I was interested in hearing what you have to say about those reporters slain in Iraq. I noticed this article on the Guild’s site and wondered what your take was on it. ( I found that article very intriguing. Have many reporters been killed by US Military? And how do you know this? Do you have evidence to back up your claims?

Thanks for you help!

Tim Sweetman”

One response to “Foleygate: It’s All For Naught”

  1. Carmen Electra

    All about beauty Carmen Electra… welcome! Thanks and best regards.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *