PBS Frontline World: Reporting the War

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://www.pbs.org/frontlinewo.../iraq401/thestory.html
The days of a plane's gentle descent into the Baghdad airport are long gone. Ever since arriving planes became targets for Iraqi insurgents armed with rockets, planes bound for Baghdad do a corkscrew dive to the tarmac as passengers like FRONTLINE/World correspondent Nick Hughes white-knuckle their armrests.

"These days, the flight from Amman to Baghdad is pretty empty," Hughes says. "A few Iraqi businessmen, one or two security contractors, and a couple of fellow reporters."

Hughes, a veteran cameraman for the BBC, made his way to Baghdad to report on the enormous dangers that journalists face there every day.

At the Hamra, a hotel once bustling with journalists and now nearly deserted, Hughes runs into Scott Peterson, a photographer with Getty Images and a reporter for The Christian Science Monitor. Peterson has just returned to the Hamra after spending 30 days embedded with U.S. troops in Fallujah. Peterson shows off his flak jacket and the "kill number" written on his wrist that would be used to identify him if he were injured.

Then Hughes meets up with Los Angeles Times reporter Alissa Rubin. She's planning a visit to a predominantly Shi'iah neighborhood, and she shows Hughes a map with possible routes to the area -- all of which are dangerous.

Rubin allows Hughes to join her, but with conditions: He has to use a hidden camera and he can't show what she looks like when she's veiled for fear that someone might recognize her disguise.

In the car, she nervously asks Hughes to keep his camera low. "I feel quite insecure with you in the car today with the camera," she tells him. Hughes follows her through the streets of the neighborhood as she scurries about in her disguise -- determined to see what's happening for herself and to speak with ordinary Iraqis.

Next Hughes meets up with Rory McCarthy, a correspondent from the Guardian (U.K.). His Iraqi stringer and translator, Osama Mansour, has just called to let him know that a British convoy was bombed, and McCarthy arranges to meet him. While many journalists will travel only in bullet-proof cars with armed escorts, McCarthy prefers to make his way around Baghdad in a regular car and without any weapons.

"I am very reluctant to have guys and guns with us," McCarthy says. "We don't have guns in this car, we don't have guards with guns working for us. At the end of the day, we're journalists."

He adds that part of the problem with reporting on the war in Iraq is that there are no front lines -- a battlefield can be anywhere. More and more, he says, he dispatches Mansour to gather information in areas that might be particularly risky for a Western journalist.

Hughes notes that 10 Iraqi stringers like Mansour have been killed since the war began in 2003.

While driving around Baghdad, Mansour acknowledges that his work is dangerous. But, he says, he just tries to stay alert. "You will die if you think about death and death and death. If you keep thinking about security. If you keep thinking about all those things, you will get killed someday."

Footage from September 2004 shows Mazen al-Temeizi, a reporter for Al-Arabiya television, preparing a standup in front of a burning Humvee. He died seconds later when U.S. helicopters fired missiles a few feet away from him. "I'm dying, I'm dying. Seif, Seif," he cried to his cameraman, Seif Fouad, while the camera rolled.

Fouad, who now works for Reuters, remembers his colleague fondly and tells Hughes, "Every day when I wake up, I hope nothing will happen to me. But I also need the work, and my work is to film bombings."

Fouad's boss, Khalid Ramani, is grimly aware of how his decisions could mean life or death for his staff. "I don't want to feel guilty one day," he says.

Hughes says that 35 Iraqi journalists have died since the war began. Most were killed by U.S. gunfire or because they were working for Western news organizations. Nineteen foreign journalists have also died in the war, including Enzo Baldoni, an Italian reporter who was kidnapped and beheaded.

Because even leaving the hotel to pursue a story is so dangerous, Hughes says that now the safest way to get a good story is to be embedded with U.S. troops. "Generally, all it takes is one email to some lieutenant," he says. "A few days later, you're in a sardine can bumping along Highway 1."

Hughes joins John Burns of The New York Times, photographer Jason Howe and Reuters photographer Alastair MacDonald -- all on an embed in an area called "the triangle of death." They first receive an hour-long military Power Point presentation. "You have to remember you are only getting one side of the story, and it's a very convincing narrative," MacDonald says.

Hughes then meets up with Jackie Spinner, a reporter from The Washington Post, who is hunkered down beside a concrete wall, trying to file a story by satellite. She laments her dependence upon Iraqi stringers and the military for information. "I can't be my own eyes and ears anywhere," she says.

The next day, Hughes goes with the other embedded journalists to the banks of the Euphrates to search for insurgents. It winds up being a 14-hour day, during which they find three Kalashnikovs and a bag containing a severed head. On the way back to base camp, a truck in their convoy is attacked.

That night, Burns files a story in which he draws comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. "Vietnam," he wrote, "is rarely mentioned among the troops. It is considered a bad talisman among those men and women, who privately admit to fears that this war could be lost."

Another New York Times reporter, Dexter Filkins, has just returned from two weeks of covering the battle for Fallujah. He was with a company of 150 U.S. Marines. A quarter of the company was killed or wounded during the October offensive there. "I thought, my god, what have I signed up for?" he says, remembering the hours of combat. "It made everything else I've covered look like a tea party. You know, I'm a writer -- and words failed me completely."

Exhausted, Filkins is departing Baghdad for a break -- but he still has to make it to the airport, along a road where there have been 15 suicide bombings in the past month. Filkins is distracted and nervous as his security guard notices a suspicious car on the road, but they make it through safely.

"Just the other day, my colleague went to the airport, and I think he had to drive through one car bombing and then through a gun battle," Filkins says. "It's just such a measure of how troubled this enterprise is. Nineteen months into this thing and we can't really drive to the airport with any kind of assurance. And it's only a couple miles down the road."
I don't know if anyone has seen this yet on PBS. It's nice to see a spin-off of Frontline. This will give us more in-depth coverage of current events from, imo, the best in the documentary business.

This story showed how the reporters no longer leave their compounds unless it's as an embed. Iraqis are the ones going out doing interviews and research and reporting back to the journalists. It's just become too dangerous for a westerner to go out. At this point, almost as many journalists have been killed in Iraq in less than 2 years than during the whole Vietnam War.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
It was on the other night here and I watched it. Interesting documentary, if a bit overblown. However, there are some things to keep in mind.

These reporters are in a place were the insurgents are known to be in heavy concentrations.

They are actively looking for danger. If they actually wanted a non-dangerous area there are plenty of cities they could be instead. They want to report blood, guts, murders, and everything that goes along with that though. If they simply wanted Shia opinion they could get it much easier in Basra or one of 100 other cities where the situation is not nearly so dangerous.

They or their bureau chiefs have placed themself in this position to get their idea of news, otherwise known as sensationalism.

They are doing the equivalent of going to a volcano in Hawaii and pronouncing the entire state a huge danger because, well, look at the volcano bubbling and spewing lava. 'It's terrible and dangerous. so don't come to Hawaii.'
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,802
6,358
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was on the other night here and I watched it. Interesting documentary, if a bit overblown. However, there are some things to keep in mind.

These reporters are in a place were the insurgents are known to be in heavy concentrations.

They are actively looking for danger. If they actually wanted a non-dangerous area there are plenty of cities they could be instead. They want to report blood, guts, murders, and everything that goes along with that though. If they simply wanted Shia opinion they could get it much easier in Basra or one of 100 other cities where the situation is not nearly so dangerous.

They or their bureau chiefs have placed themself in this position to get their idea of news, otherwise known as sensationalism.

They are doing the equivalent of going to a volcano in Hawaii and pronouncing the entire state a huge danger because, well, look at the volcano bubbling and spewing lava. 'It's terrible and dangerous. so don't come to Hawaii.'

When US Soldiers sitting down for Lunch in a "Secure" area are getting attacked, I'd take the Reporters word over yours.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was on the other night here and I watched it. Interesting documentary, if a bit overblown. However, there are some things to keep in mind.

These reporters are in a place were the insurgents are known to be in heavy concentrations.

They are actively looking for danger. If they actually wanted a non-dangerous area there are plenty of cities they could be instead. They want to report blood, guts, murders, and everything that goes along with that though. If they simply wanted Shia opinion they could get it much easier in Basra or one of 100 other cities where the situation is not nearly so dangerous.

They or their bureau chiefs have placed themself in this position to get their idea of news, otherwise known as sensationalism.

They are doing the equivalent of going to a volcano in Hawaii and pronouncing the entire state a huge danger because, well, look at the volcano bubbling and spewing lava. 'It's terrible and dangerous. so don't come to Hawaii.'
Cities like what?

Mosul?

Samarra?

Ramadi?

Tikrit?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was on the other night here and I watched it. Interesting documentary, if a bit overblown. However, there are some things to keep in mind.

These reporters are in a place were the insurgents are known to be in heavy concentrations.

They are actively looking for danger. If they actually wanted a non-dangerous area there are plenty of cities they could be instead. They want to report blood, guts, murders, and everything that goes along with that though. If they simply wanted Shia opinion they could get it much easier in Basra or one of 100 other cities where the situation is not nearly so dangerous.

They or their bureau chiefs have placed themself in this position to get their idea of news, otherwise known as sensationalism.

They are doing the equivalent of going to a volcano in Hawaii and pronouncing the entire state a huge danger because, well, look at the volcano bubbling and spewing lava. 'It's terrible and dangerous. so don't come to Hawaii.'

When US Soldiers sitting down for Lunch in a "Secure" area are getting attacked, I'd take the Reporters word over yours.
WTF are you talking about?

Did I say anything that is not already pretty well known? Is Baghdad not one of the worst cities in Iraq to be in for Americans? Do reporters not look for blood and guts to sell you in their articles?

Then we have folks following with remarks like "What cities?"

Let's not play dumb people. I know you're not that stupid. Or, conjur, are you trying to imply that every city in Iraq is just as dangerous as Baghdad? If you are, please just come out and say it. Your tapdancing is not a pretty thing.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was on the other night here and I watched it. Interesting documentary, if a bit overblown. However, there are some things to keep in mind.

These reporters are in a place were the insurgents are known to be in heavy concentrations.

They are actively looking for danger. If they actually wanted a non-dangerous area there are plenty of cities they could be instead. They want to report blood, guts, murders, and everything that goes along with that though. If they simply wanted Shia opinion they could get it much easier in Basra or one of 100 other cities where the situation is not nearly so dangerous.

They or their bureau chiefs have placed themself in this position to get their idea of news, otherwise known as sensationalism.

They are doing the equivalent of going to a volcano in Hawaii and pronouncing the entire state a huge danger because, well, look at the volcano bubbling and spewing lava. 'It's terrible and dangerous. so don't come to Hawaii.'

He's right guys we shouldn't take small instances of violence and pretend that the whole country is like that. There's only a few minor cities that are dangerous, like this little village called Baghdad - well the entire "Sunni Triangle" actually, oh and then there's this dinky little town called Mosul and a large swath of territory surrounding that, there's the border region with Syria... oh wait but Basra seems pretty quiet.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was on the other night here and I watched it. Interesting documentary, if a bit overblown. However, there are some things to keep in mind.

These reporters are in a place were the insurgents are known to be in heavy concentrations.

They are actively looking for danger. If they actually wanted a non-dangerous area there are plenty of cities they could be instead. They want to report blood, guts, murders, and everything that goes along with that though. If they simply wanted Shia opinion they could get it much easier in Basra or one of 100 other cities where the situation is not nearly so dangerous.

They or their bureau chiefs have placed themself in this position to get their idea of news, otherwise known as sensationalism.

They are doing the equivalent of going to a volcano in Hawaii and pronouncing the entire state a huge danger because, well, look at the volcano bubbling and spewing lava. 'It's terrible and dangerous. so don't come to Hawaii.'

He's right guys we shouldn't take small instances of violence and pretend that the whole country is like that. There's only a few minor cities that are dangerous, like this little village called Baghdad - well the entire "Sunni Triangle" actually, oh and then there's this dinky little town called Mosul and a large swath of territory surrounding that, there's the border region with Syria... oh wait but Basra seems pretty quiet.
So what did you just describe? Maybe 10% of the terrortiry in Iraq?

Wow. I never knew 10% = 100%. Is that what they call new liberal math?
 

Tommunist

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2004
1,544
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was on the other night here and I watched it. Interesting documentary, if a bit overblown. However, there are some things to keep in mind.

These reporters are in a place were the insurgents are known to be in heavy concentrations.

They are actively looking for danger. If they actually wanted a non-dangerous area there are plenty of cities they could be instead. They want to report blood, guts, murders, and everything that goes along with that though. If they simply wanted Shia opinion they could get it much easier in Basra or one of 100 other cities where the situation is not nearly so dangerous.

They or their bureau chiefs have placed themself in this position to get their idea of news, otherwise known as sensationalism.

They are doing the equivalent of going to a volcano in Hawaii and pronouncing the entire state a huge danger because, well, look at the volcano bubbling and spewing lava. 'It's terrible and dangerous. so don't come to Hawaii.'

He's right guys we shouldn't take small instances of violence and pretend that the whole country is like that. There's only a few minor cities that are dangerous, like this little village called Baghdad - well the entire "Sunni Triangle" actually, oh and then there's this dinky little town called Mosul and a large swath of territory surrounding that, there's the border region with Syria... oh wait but Basra seems pretty quiet.
So what did you just describe? Maybe 10% of the terrortiry in Iraq?

Wow. I never knew 10% = 100%. Is that what they call new liberal math?

I'm sure some areas where no one lives are pretty peaceful. :)
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was on the other night here and I watched it. Interesting documentary, if a bit overblown. However, there are some things to keep in mind.

These reporters are in a place were the insurgents are known to be in heavy concentrations.

They are actively looking for danger. If they actually wanted a non-dangerous area there are plenty of cities they could be instead. They want to report blood, guts, murders, and everything that goes along with that though. If they simply wanted Shia opinion they could get it much easier in Basra or one of 100 other cities where the situation is not nearly so dangerous.

They or their bureau chiefs have placed themself in this position to get their idea of news, otherwise known as sensationalism.

They are doing the equivalent of going to a volcano in Hawaii and pronouncing the entire state a huge danger because, well, look at the volcano bubbling and spewing lava. 'It's terrible and dangerous. so don't come to Hawaii.'

He's right guys we shouldn't take small instances of violence and pretend that the whole country is like that. There's only a few minor cities that are dangerous, like this little village called Baghdad - well the entire "Sunni Triangle" actually, oh and then there's this dinky little town called Mosul and a large swath of territory surrounding that, there's the border region with Syria... oh wait but Basra seems pretty quiet.
So what did you just describe? Maybe 10% of the terrortiry in Iraq?

Wow. I never knew 10% = 100%. Is that what they call new liberal math?

Are you trying to make a fool of yourself? If so, it's working. Even if it is the arbitrary "10% figure" which you pulled out of no where- it's 10% of the most densely populated area of the country! I didn't think anyone cared about the security of the vast deserts in southeastern Iraq :roll:
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,590
86
91
www.bing.com
Iraq dangerous for an unarmed, unescorted westerner with a camera? OMG No Way!

like this wasnt true before we invaded.

conjur, do you have the transcript from the dateline documentary on the Fox 2/5 Marines in Falluja? I cought the tail end of it and was hoping to catch the whole thing.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was on the other night here and I watched it. Interesting documentary, if a bit overblown. However, there are some things to keep in mind.

These reporters are in a place were the insurgents are known to be in heavy concentrations.

They are actively looking for danger. If they actually wanted a non-dangerous area there are plenty of cities they could be instead. They want to report blood, guts, murders, and everything that goes along with that though. If they simply wanted Shia opinion they could get it much easier in Basra or one of 100 other cities where the situation is not nearly so dangerous.

They or their bureau chiefs have placed themself in this position to get their idea of news, otherwise known as sensationalism.

They are doing the equivalent of going to a volcano in Hawaii and pronouncing the entire state a huge danger because, well, look at the volcano bubbling and spewing lava. 'It's terrible and dangerous. so don't come to Hawaii.'

He's right guys we shouldn't take small instances of violence and pretend that the whole country is like that. There's only a few minor cities that are dangerous, like this little village called Baghdad - well the entire "Sunni Triangle" actually, oh and then there's this dinky little town called Mosul and a large swath of territory surrounding that, there's the border region with Syria... oh wait but Basra seems pretty quiet.
So what did you just describe? Maybe 10% of the terrortiry in Iraq?

Wow. I never knew 10% = 100%. Is that what they call new liberal math?
But 80-85% of the population.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Train,

This is all I could find on Dateline:

Transcripts: Transcripts for NBC News Programs are available for purchase through the Burrell Transcript Service by calling 1-800-777-TEXT

Video Tapes: Only selected segments of NBC's news magazines are available on VHS cassette. For information call 1-800-420-2626
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,590
86
91
www.bing.com
It was Nightline, not Dateline, sorry. I did find an article about Fox 2/5 from them, but it was completely different from the one I saw on TV, I think the only one I could find on the web was from a few months ago.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was on the other night here and I watched it. Interesting documentary, if a bit overblown. However, there are some things to keep in mind.

These reporters are in a place were the insurgents are known to be in heavy concentrations.

They are actively looking for danger. If they actually wanted a non-dangerous area there are plenty of cities they could be instead. They want to report blood, guts, murders, and everything that goes along with that though. If they simply wanted Shia opinion they could get it much easier in Basra or one of 100 other cities where the situation is not nearly so dangerous.

They or their bureau chiefs have placed themself in this position to get their idea of news, otherwise known as sensationalism.

They are doing the equivalent of going to a volcano in Hawaii and pronouncing the entire state a huge danger because, well, look at the volcano bubbling and spewing lava. 'It's terrible and dangerous. so don't come to Hawaii.'

He's right guys we shouldn't take small instances of violence and pretend that the whole country is like that. There's only a few minor cities that are dangerous, like this little village called Baghdad - well the entire "Sunni Triangle" actually, oh and then there's this dinky little town called Mosul and a large swath of territory surrounding that, there's the border region with Syria... oh wait but Basra seems pretty quiet.
So what did you just describe? Maybe 10% of the terrortiry in Iraq?

Wow. I never knew 10% = 100%. Is that what they call new liberal math?
But 80-85% of the population.
Which is a meaningless percentage as well as an overstatement. How many actual insurgents are there? There are at least, wow, a few 10,000 thousand, an overall insignificant percentage of the population.

And to go back to the original point, there are plenty of safe cities where these reporters could get their interviews. But hey, let's pretend the whole damn country is dangerous instead by focusing on a few major cities.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was on the other night here and I watched it. Interesting documentary, if a bit overblown. However, there are some things to keep in mind.

These reporters are in a place were the insurgents are known to be in heavy concentrations.

They are actively looking for danger. If they actually wanted a non-dangerous area there are plenty of cities they could be instead. They want to report blood, guts, murders, and everything that goes along with that though. If they simply wanted Shia opinion they could get it much easier in Basra or one of 100 other cities where the situation is not nearly so dangerous.

They or their bureau chiefs have placed themself in this position to get their idea of news, otherwise known as sensationalism.

They are doing the equivalent of going to a volcano in Hawaii and pronouncing the entire state a huge danger because, well, look at the volcano bubbling and spewing lava. 'It's terrible and dangerous. so don't come to Hawaii.'
He's right guys we shouldn't take small instances of violence and pretend that the whole country is like that. There's only a few minor cities that are dangerous, like this little village called Baghdad - well the entire "Sunni Triangle" actually, oh and then there's this dinky little town called Mosul and a large swath of territory surrounding that, there's the border region with Syria... oh wait but Basra seems pretty quiet.
So what did you just describe? Maybe 10% of the terrortiry in Iraq?

Wow. I never knew 10% = 100%. Is that what they call new liberal math?
But 80-85% of the population.
Which is a meaningless percentage as well as an overstatement. How many actual insurgents are there? There are at least, wow, a few 10,000 thousand, an overall insignificant percentage of the population.

And to go back to the original point, there are plenty of safe cities where these reporters could get their interviews. But hey, let's pretend the whole damn country is dangerous instead by focusing on a few major cities.
Meaningless percentage? Nice way to minimalize the bulk of Iraq's population. And, for your information, it's been reported the insurgency is 200,000 in size. 200,000 people with automatic weapons, explosives, etc. can wreak a lot of havoc (and they are).
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
To Get the Story, You Have to Get to the Story
Journalists are already hampered by security concerns, but delays and bad weather can steal the chance for a story, a correspondent finds.
http://www.latimes.com/news/na...ory?coll=la-home-world
AMARAH, Iraq ? With Iraqis poised to elect a new government ? at a time when it is particularly compelling for the world to hear their thoughts ? most Western journalists are forced to operate on a short leash, unable to casually approach many Iraqis or leave Baghdad without the help of the U.S. military.

A year ago, reporters generally were able to interview Iraqis on the capital's streets and travel across the nation. Now, because of the deteriorating security situation, they can hardly go out in Baghdad, much less the rest of the country.

In Baghdad, they make appointments, traveling swiftly to and from their interviews with barely a moment to take in the mood of the street. Some journalists now live exclusively in the heavily fortified Green Zone, cut off from most of the country.

Traveling by road outside the capital has become unsafe since abductions became commonplace during the summer; an Italian and two French journalists were among those taken hostage. And most Western reporters have determined that their only option is to turn to the U.S. and British embassies for transportation help.

The embassies, with the power to commandeer military helicopters, armed with gunners and personal security details, allow journalists to leapfrog the ring of danger around Baghdad and visit the rest of the country.

After being airlifted in, some reporters are able to go out on their own in relatively safe areas such as Kurdistan and parts of southern Iraq. Others stay for long periods with the military. (Journalists also routinely use Iraqi interpreters and correspondents to report on places unsafe for Westerners.)

But in most cases, reporters seeking to do their jobs must rely on the embassies, especially for one- and two-day trips focused on the Jan. 30 election.

But with the mobility come some hindrances. Western government officials exert control over the journalists' itineraries, set up interviews, and decide who and what will be seen. The arrangements can make the trips efficient but preclude the type of free-ranging reporting that journalists usually do on their own.

Still, most journalists think this is better than not getting out at all. Yet even under these conditions, there is no guarantee there will be a story, as reporters learned Saturday on a British Embassy-organized trip to Amarah, a turbulent town in southern Iraq.

The trip was meant to show firsthand the election campaigns of various slates and to allow reporters to gauge voters' attitudes in this predominantly Shiite Muslim southern province, whose people view themselves as fiercely independent of Baghdad and of the British troops stationed in their midst.

The trip was also touted as a rare chance for reporters to visit the indigenous Marsh Arab population, one of the groups most persecuted by former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

The departure time for Maysan, the province of which Amarah is the capital, was set for 7:25 a.m. The journey on a U.S. Black Hawk helicopter would be about 90 minutes.

The day dawned gray and chill, a thin mist turning Baghdad's usually dry air damp. Some of the reporters gathered at the Green Zone checkpoint staffed by Nepalese Gurkhas shivered.

A dozen reporters were scheduled to go, but as is often the case, several were no shows.

One had been trapped in a checkpoint line, waiting to have his equipment scanned by U.S. soldiers before he could enter the Green Zone. There are no express lines for reporters, and when trying to enter the heavily fortified area, they stand in the same queues as Iraqis, whom the soldiers search meticulously.

A second had thought that the meeting time was 8 a.m. rather than 7. That reporter had misheard the British Embassy public affairs officer ? the telephone lines are so poor.

Those on hand waited eagerly for the choppers as the mist turned to rain and the wind whipped the palm trees that edge the field.

Eight o'clock, the designated liftoff time, came and went with no sign of the helicopters. They had mechanical problems, we learned, and were still in Balad, a military base about 45 miles northeast of Baghdad. They would arrive at 9 a.m., we were told.

British public affairs officer Victoria Whitfield frantically tried to reach officials in Amarah on her cellphone to let them know we would be late. She also tried to reach dispatchers to seek alternative choppers.

Worried by the delay, and determined to make the trip work, she explained that we would be briefed by a military officer who best knew the election picture on the ground. The reporters, she said, would then split into two groups, one interviewing political candidates and the other visiting a village of Marsh Arabs.

It wasn't until close to 10:15 a.m. that we finally heard the whir of the propellers.

We ran across the wet tarmac, the wind and the weight of our flak jackets slowing us to a lumbering jog. As the helicopters lifted off, rivulets of rainwater skittered along the loose door frames, soaking those seated nearest.

On the way to Amarah, we stopped to refuel in a wind-swept airfield where the rush of the propellers sent swelling puddles coursing across the tarmac.

In Amarah, it was raining in earnest and those who had not been dampened in the helicopter were now as soaked as those who had been. Some reporters' teeth were chattering uncontrollably; few could grasp a pen in their numb fingers, let alone write. An Iraqi journalist struggled to get a green plastic garbage bag wrapped around his camera as the wind whipped it away from him.

As we stood in the rain, the bad news came quickly: The local British Embassy officials had canceled the event. Because we were so late, the candidates had gone home.

Moreover, the British military officer who worked most closely with local election officials was in town and could not brief us. And, we learned, the marsh trip had been called off too.

Several reporters pleaded with an officer for some kind of briefing or ride into town to look at election banners and interview local police.

The British troops, all from the 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, usually based near Cardiff, Wales, were unfazed. The window had closed for the election event, they said. They could not brief reporters and they did not have the security forces to take us into town.

The most they could offer us was that most British of comforts: a cup of tea.

A little later, perhaps taking pity on the bedraggled group, they threw in an English lunch: bangers and onions, two kinds of potatoes, green peas and gravy. And more tea.

Because of the rain and security concerns, we had to be back on the bone-chilling choppers no later than 2:30 p.m., barely two hours after our arrival. Almost at the last minute, Whitfield prevailed on senior military officials to at least give a quick briefing.

The commanding officer, Lt. Col. Ben Bathurst, ran over the main features of Amarah, occasionally deferring to his Iraqi interpreter on political questions.

Among the main points: Despite rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr's strength in the province, his loyalists were not blocking the election; and Iraqi police were fully prepared to patrol and monitor the polling places but British troops would be at police stations, moments away if needed.

In addition, he said, car bombs were viewed as the biggest threat on election day and to counteract them most people would have to walk to polling places. It could take several days for the voting to be completed, he said, because of likely delays caused by the travel limitations, the sheer number of people expected to participate and their unfamiliarity with the process. Bathhurst did not yet know whether the national election commission would allow such an extension.

It was a briefing that we could have gotten only by going to Amarah, but hardly enough for a story.

Shivering, wet and with little in our notebooks, we flew back to Baghdad. After landing we talked about what we would file from our 10-hour day.

The consensus: Not much.