A first-hand account by the reporter that broke the "shooting" story...

A long but worthy read:
==================================================================

http://www.kevinsites.net/

<snip>
Since the shooting in the Mosque, I've been haunted that I have not been able to tell you directly what I saw or explain the process by which the world came to see it as well. As you know, I'm not some war zone tourist with a camera who doesn't understand that ugly things happen in combat. I've spent most of the last five years covering global conflict. But I have never in my career been a 'gotcha' reporter -- hoping for people to commit wrongdoings so I can catch them at it.

This week I've even been shocked to see myself painted as some kind of anti-war activist. Anyone who has seen my reporting on television or has read the dispatches on this website is fully aware of the lengths I've gone to play it straight down the middle -- not to become a tool of propaganda for the left or the right.

But I find myself a lightning rod for controversy in reporting what I saw occur in front of me, camera rolling.

It's time you to have the facts from me, in my own words, about what I saw -- without imposing on that Marine -- guilt or innocence or anything in between. I want you to read my account and make up your own minds about whether you think what I did was right or wrong. All the other armchair analysts don't mean a damn to me.

How can Mr. Sites say that in one paragraph and then in the very next paragraph claim that he's playing it "straight down the middle"?

If "ugly things" do indeed happen in combat, then isn't it his duty to report those ugly things exactly as they happen? Or does his fealty to playing it straight down the middle mean that he automatically excuses or sugar-coats the ugly things so that he doesn't appear to be "taking sides," whatever in hell that phrase might still retain in his amoral reportage?

Sorry Mr. Sites; as much as you want it both ways, you can't have it both ways.

What's interesting to me about this piece is how closely identified the reporter is with the Marines. He feels he has to apologize for having reported on this incident and confesses to having considered destroying the tape and forgetting all about it. Makes you wonder how many other reporters have listened to that particular inner voice and suppressed unflattering evidence. He also admits that what I suspected from reading NBC's writeup of this event is true: they deliberately attempted to do everything they could to 'mitigate' this soldier's conduct. It's quite clear that although Sites does seem to still feel some allegiance to the truth, it has a lot of competition from his allegiance to the troops.

Farther down, there's a very depressing quotation from one of the commanding officers about how the U.S. is there to fight a "gentleman's war" and that they should always remember that they are "the good guys." Sites apparently still believes this, and that seems to be part of the reason he used the footage: he wants this to be true, and he doesn't see how it can be true if American soldiers are going to go around doing what he just videotaped them doing.

He's posted this in part as a response to the avalanche of criticism and death threats he's gotten since the tape aired, and the entry is headed "an open letter to the devil dogs of 3.1," which could just as well be subtitled, "Please do not shoot me in the back the next time I am embedded with you just because I did my job."

It's gonna be a long four years.

The Plaid Adder