Iraq is the ‘deadliest conflict for journalists.’
By on Feb 4th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Iraq is the ‘deadliest conflict for journalists.’
An annual report released today by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) found that worldwide, “65 journalists were killed in 2007,” which marks “the highest toll in more than a decade.” Thirty-two journalists were killed in Iraq in 2007, bringing the total toll since the 2003 invasion to a record “174 media personnel” killed.. The report also stated that the Iraq war is “the deadliest conflict for journalists in recent history.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Deadly for journalists, eh?
That means most of the MSM from the United States would be safe, no?
February 4th, 2008 at 1:26 pmIraq war is “the deadliest conflict for journalists in recent history.â€
…Never mind the iraqui people!!!
February 4th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Sounds like a win for Bush!
February 4th, 2008 at 1:28 pmMaybe Faux Snooz will send KKKarl out in the field for some perspective. Hell, I’m all for them relocating their news office to the Green Zone.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:35 pmAccording to the same website cited by TP, more journalists were killed in 1994 than in 2007.
Comment by good_golly — February 4, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
CLINTON DID IT!
February 4th, 2008 at 1:35 pmAnd think of how many would have been killed if the MSM hadn’t pulled their reporters once things in Iraq got dicey. As far as I can tell, none of the major MSM have reporters in Iraq.
Also, our resident troll GiGi is pulling numbers out of her a$$ again. I don’t suppose she wants to link to the proof that more journalists were killed in 1994 than in 2007.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:38 pmIt is also the deadliest conflict for Iraqi’s.
Buck Fush
February 4th, 2008 at 1:38 pmAccording to the same website cited by TP, more journalists were killed in 1994 than in 2007.
Comment by good_golly
So, what’s your point gigi? That it wasn’t the worst year ever? That you still have some work to do? That you’re a souless scumbag who takes joy in the suffering of others? help me out here.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:41 pmIf you follow the link and search around they have the stats there. In 94 there was one more journalist killed. I guess that counts as a victory in gigi’s world.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:43 pmAlso, our resident troll GiGi is pulling numbers out of her a$$ again. I don’t suppose she wants to link to the proof that more journalists were killed in 1994 than in 2007.
Comment by bilbobaggins — February 4, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
Actually, she’s not. That statistic is from the Committee to Protect Journalists:
The point GiGi’s trying to make, well, that’s anyone’s guess.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:44 pmAccording to the same website cited by TP, more journalists were killed in 1994 than in 2007.
Comment by good_golly
I assume that either GiGi is trying to say that “Clinton did it” or trying to say that this post is incorrect. In order to be incorrect, GiGi needs to not know what a “decade” means. He is right that more journalists were killed worldwide in 1994 than in 2007, 66 were killed in 1994. That was the year when Algeria and Rawanda were imploding. But, there is no conflict that matches the number of Reporters who have died because of the occupation of Iraq (174).
February 4th, 2008 at 1:46 pmAccording to the same website cited by TP, more journalists were killed in 1994 than in 2007.
Comment by good_golly — February 4, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
Oh, dear. Here’s more compelling evidence of Gigi’s reading comprehension problem.
Uh, Gigi… the headline and article on TP discussed the deadly nature of the Iraq conflict for journalists. Get it? IRAQ is a PLACE. 2007 is a YEAR. Y’know… as in POINT IN TIME?
Now, we all know you’re very advanced in your thinking and have already successfully integrated the whole four-dimensional space-time continuum in your mind, but the rest of us still consider PLACE a different concept from TIME.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:46 pmJournalists have no business reporting, according to wingnut fools. Only the wingnuts are proud of their ignorance, and are happy with the forcefed propaganda from their fascist leaders.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:49 pmI suppose journalists would be better to stay out of war zones.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
OBigFootInMouth hit it on the head. American journalists are staying out of Iraq. They are allowing their Iraqi brethren get killed so they don’t have to get killed. As far as I know, Michael Ware is the only non-iraqi journalist left in Iraq and he an Australian reporting for CNN.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:50 pmNotice that the cowards on the right, who stay out of war zones so that their children can die in them, would have journalists stay home as well. Is there not a single rightwing patriot?
February 4th, 2008 at 1:51 pmNotice that the cowards on the right, who stay out of war zones so that their children can die in them, would have journalists stay home as well. Is there not a single rightwing patriot?
Comment by Lefty Patriot — February 4, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
May I offer one correction, Lefty? I suggest you amend yoru first sentence to read “the cowards on the right, who stay out of war zones so that OTHER children can die in them“.
Seems more accurate. Now if you were talking about PAYING for them, then you’d be good with what you said.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:56 pmI suppose journalists would be better to stay out of war zones.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — February 4, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
Better yet, it’d be better for journalists and everyone else if the United States quit creating war zones in the first place.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:02 pmhttp://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/04/roland.martin/index.html?iref=topnews
The article counters what may be conventional thinking, but would that be good or bad news?
Sorry for the O/T.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:20 pmAnd if the rest of the world would stay in line, the United States wouldn’t have to continue to clean up the world’s messes.
I thought that was what the United Nations was for…oh yeah, the U.N. is a failure.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — February 4, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
I find the enormity of this stupidity in Oh BigFool’s latest comment to be beyond the scope of rational response.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:24 pmComment by O. Bigfoot — February 4, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
Fahrenheight 9/11 (Remember?) is still on the spot.
LEAVE IRAQ NOW.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:29 pmShows what you know…absolutely nothing.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — February 4, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
Oh yeah? Sez you!
February 4th, 2008 at 2:46 pmAnd if the rest of the world would stay in line, the United States wouldn’t have to continue to clean up the world’s messes.
I thought that was what the United Nations was for…oh yeah, the U.N. is a failure.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
OBigFootInMouth seems to believe that it is the United State’s duty to clean up the world’s messes. He certainly is unclear on the concept of sovereignty. He apparently thinks we should continue to be the world’s bully running around invading countries because we don’t like their leaders.
If we would stop butting our noses into other people’s business, the world would be a much more peaceful place.
OBigFootInMouth is also unclear on the concept of the United Nations. The United Nations goes into a country if they are asked. They don’t invade nations because they don’t like their leaders or their politics like the US does.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:58 pmShows what you know…absolutely nothing.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — February 4, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
Oh yeah? Sez you!
Comment by ralph the wonder llama
Ralph – stop engaging with this fool tool troll. Talk about him, not to him. When you talk to him you validate his existence. If you talk about him, you invalidate him.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:00 pmThe surge is working!
February 4th, 2008 at 3:05 pmReports coming out of Iraq are all positive!
So we’re killing them there so we don’t have to have them transcribing over here?
February 4th, 2008 at 3:11 pmGot ya, bilbo. BigFool has convinced me of the utility of your strategy.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:21 pm