Is it fair to assume that you appear believe the best reporting comes from journalists having free access to war zones at their own risks during the heat of battle and not from press releases organised when the sides feel they have something to report (not a criticism of your view, just seeking clarification).

I think I've made that very clear by now.

Yes, I do feel that reporters from uninvolved nations are more likely to record the facts as they occure.

Point I am about to make is that US military finally learned how to 'manage' the press during the gulf war whilst allowing military planners to do their job without sending glaring signals to the other side.

And I view the Gulf War as a masterfully executed piece of propaganda. The best reporting came from Wolf Blitzer while he was in his hotel room behind enemy lines and unmanaged by the US.

And the above (top) point of view is is completely at odds with your own governement's best practices.

Do you mean anything "good" by "best practices" in that statement?

I do NOT trust my government to tell me the facts.

There have been far too many documented cases where the government has lied.

I just happen to agree with the US govt's approach.

I happen to not have that much faith in the people running the government.

This in its simplest form is, if you have a minimum of faith in the govt, then allow the military to do what they have to with a mimimum press interference.

WTF?

So, if I have a minimum of faith in the police and have documented incidents of police brutality, I should let the police operate with a minimum of press interference?

Wouldn't a minimum of faith seem so suggest a maximum of observation?

If there are serious questions afterwards - then raise them & seek changes if needed.

Are we talking about war still? The military? The organization that has as its primary occupation, killing people and breaking things? And you want to raise questions AFTER they're done? When no reporters were allowed on the field?

Israeli govt know damned well they won't get a fair hearing & have every right to challenge the visit.

Okay, now you've switched.

Before it was whether you trust the government.

Now it is the government not trusting the UN.

In EITHER case, having reporters on the field would SUPPORT the "good" guys.

Israel would have NOTHING to fear if film of them safely transporting women and children away from the battle was available.

Or if film of them NOT using prisoners as bomb detectors was available.

And so on.

To put it BLUNTLY....

The government is going out to KILL people and didn't want REPORTERS along to record its activities.

NOW, when the UN is questioning what happened, the government DOES NOT BELIEVE IT WILL GET A FAIR TRIAL.

Sorry, but that smacks of the based hypocrisy.

And it gets right back to my position.

>I< do NOT trust the government.

I want to see the facts of what ACTUALLY happened AS IT WAS HAPPENING.

The UN does NOT trust the government.

If the government had the film from reporters on the battlefield, it could show the UN that it didn't do anything "wrong".

It seems to me that there are LOTS of reasons for having reporters on the battlefield and no reasons for them NOT to be there.

Unless the government is trying to hide something.

That the press is always for the good of reporting news
That the press don't do any harm in war zones
That journalists tend to have pure motives

The "press" is "always for the good of reporting news". Once you get enough of them together. Individuals might have agendas. But with enough of them, the facts are uncovered.

The press does not do any harm in war zones. I keep seeing this claimed, but I recall that Vietnam had press all over the place. That didn't hamper our fighting.

As I've said above, individuals will have agendas. Get enough of them together and the facts come out. In this specific case, they can report on all the "massacres" they want to. But if none of them had film of it and none of them had witnessed it and none of them could point to the location....that is what reporters are for.

Yep. There would be problems with reporters releasing early.

So? I shouldn't be hard to find those that do and ship them home / arrest them.

Actually, that might be rather persuasive. If you release early, you get to do the rest of your reporting from the POW compound.

Yep. You don't trust the government. I don't trust the government. I see no reason to trust the government. I see PLENTY of reason to NOT trust the government to tell me the facts.

I also recall - virtually NOTHING SAID re the depleted Uranium shells we were firing all over the place.. not til years later, and then as a brief news story followed by silence - over the unintended consequences.

And I still do not see much about it.

The funny thing is, we used to mock Pravda and the Soviet's handling of their information.

Now we say it is a "good thing" when our leaders do so.