ehopper@attmail.com (01/18/91)
One of the little nagging questions last night was how CNN was getting audio out of Baghdad while everyone else was shutdown. In fact, when NBC was interviewing the CNN crew, CNN declined to say how. One Associated Press story this morning said that CNN was using a four-wire phone line (I assume a dedicated circuit). There were also references on CNN to "turning off the microphone so that we can hear Atlanta". Any speculation as to how this was done? Perhaps a leased loop to Amman, Jordan where CNN's "Fly-Away" satellite dish is located? Unfortunately, CNN apparently did not have the still frame video equipment with them that they had at Tianamen Square. Then they sent out still frame color video within a few hours over dial up lines. Ed Hopper
bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Bob Sherman) (01/19/91)
In <16149@accuvax.nwu.edu> ehopper@attmail.com writes: >One of the little nagging questions last night was how CNN was getting >audio out of Baghdad while everyone else was shutdown. >In fact, when NBC was interviewing the CNN crew, CNN declined to say >how. One Associated Press story this morning said that CNN was using >a four-wire phone line (I assume a dedicated circuit). There were >also references on CNN to "turning off the microphone so that we can >hear Atlanta". The four-wire stuff was two lines, one in so they could hear the AFB line from Atlanta with incoming audio, and the other was for the outgoing audio which is what you heard. Once the phone lines and the electric were gone, they had outgoing audio only, and could not hear AFB at the same time. In fact for much of the time they had no idea if what they were saying was even being heard by anyone, let alone getting on the air, and much of the time they were broadcasting while lying under a table on the floor. Only one of them kept their head up to look out the window at a time. Shaw and Holliman are out of Iraq now and safely in Jordan. Arnett elected to stay behind in Iraq against the advice of CNN in Atlanta. But then he has covered many wars before (has won a Pulitzer Prize among other awards in the past) and is no doubt enjoying every minute of it. It was the first war for Holliman (and his wife who remained behind in Washington), and Shaw was not really there to cover the war, but it broke out while he was there. I was with Shaw some years ago in Jonestown, Guyana when hundreds of people went on a grape kool-aid drinking binge, and I can tell you that he has a very good head on his shoulders. He was not working for CNN at that time, but was with ABC. bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN
crawford@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Brian Crawford) (01/20/91)
In article <16192@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Bob Sherman) writes: > Arnett elected to stay behind in Iraq against the advice of CNN in Atlanta. Was this before or after Iraq officially expelled western journalists? I would be curious to know if he remains there despite the expulsion. Brian Crawford INTERNET: crawford@stjhmc.fidonet.org PO Box 804 FidoNet: 1:114/15.12 Tempe, Arizona 85280 Amateur: KL7JDQ USA
lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) (01/20/91)
In re. all this CNN stuff, I had an interesting series of thoughts the
other night; given the tiny size of home-quality video equipment these
days, combined with the small size of cellular equipment (and
presumably Iridium equipment, when it comes out) once Iridium exists,
there will no longer be communication-type barriers to ENG
(electronic-news-gathering.)
Think about it: Take the motors, gears, and so forth out of one of
those tiny Sony 8mm vtr-cameras, and what's left isn't much. Add back
the size of a handheld cellular, and you're back to the original.
Factor in the R&D that professional ENG customers can afford to pay
for, and you've got *at least* still-frame buffering, and possibly
compression and multi-banding sufficient for full motion.
If somebody wants to prevent information-flow, there going to have to
take away anything larger than a paperback book from *every* reporter
present.
Laird P. Broadfield
UUCP: {akgua, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!lairdb
INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Bob Sherman) (01/21/91)
In <16212@accuvax.nwu.edu> crawford@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Brian Crawford) writes: >In article <16192@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Bob >Sherman) writes: >> Arnett elected to stay behind in Iraq against the advice of CNN in Atlanta. >Was this before or after Iraq officially expelled western journalists? >I would be curious to know if he remains there despite the expulsion. My initial remark was posted the night before ALL journalists were expelled from Iraq. As best I know Peter left when ordered to by the government the next day. bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) (01/23/91)
In article <16221@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes: > In re. all this CNN stuff, I had an interesting series of thoughts the > other night; given the tiny size of home-quality video equipment these [discussion of miniaturization possibilities] > If somebody wants to prevent information-flow, there going to have to > take away anything larger than a paperback book from *every* reporter > present. Yes, it is possible to smuggle information out. Let the record acknowledge that that is not the way CNN did it in Baghdad. They were persistent in asking for permission (I think he said "three calls per day"), they were scrupulous in their treatment of the story - not bashing their host. Then, when the big story broke, they avoided attracting attention (this is funny, in the light of the whole context, but it took climbing five flights of stairs and searching the wing to find them and they avoided it a few times). Eventually they sounded too much like forward bomb spotters and the government sent someone to silence them. The messenger said "Stop, now", apologetically, and the senior CNN official on the scene said "Yes, SIR". Some of what CNN did that night was accomplished because they were overlooked during the excitement, but it was possible because of hard negotiations in advance and scrupulous care to report the story, not broadcast editorials. I'm reminded of Jesus' parable of the five wise virgins and the five foolish virgins. Dan Herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
carroll@ssc-vax.uucp (Jeff Carroll) (01/25/91)
In article <16212@accuvax.nwu.edu> crawford@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Brian Crawford) writes: >In article <16192@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Bob >Sherman) writes: >> Arnett elected to stay behind in Iraq against the advice of CNN in Atlanta. >Was this before or after Iraq officially expelled western journalists? >I would be curious to know if he remains there despite the expulsion. My understanding is that Arnett was specifically exempted from the expulsion. The Iraqis are not as dumb as we would like to think, and this is ample evidence of that. Whereas there was no possibility of amply censoring *all* the news stories going out on *all* the news services while everyone was there, it's very easy for them to censor *one* reporter - who just happens to work for the news service that everyone in the world - including the BBC has been relying on through the crisis. (It was strange to hear the Beeb playing tapes of Shaw, Arnett, and Holliman through the first couple days of the war. On the other hand, I was able to hear the BBC even without my shortwave set through our local NPR affiliate, who broadcast BBC World Service instead of the usual classical music.) Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com
danj1@ihlpa.att.com (Daniel Jacobson) (01/30/91)
= [This is a recording.] The following netnews may interest you. No
= feedback to me is necessary unless you are getting overloaded with
= these forwarded articles. The views below are not necessarily
= endorsed or even thoroughly read by me [except if I wrote them
= myself]. Dan_Jacobson@ATT.COM
From: klg@george.mc.duke.edu (Kim Greer -- rjj)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Subject: Re: CNN from Baghdad
Date: 29 Jan 91 16:35:17 GMT
Organization: Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Can we please put an end to this? If you don't read any thing else in
this message, please at least read this next list of *reasons* why I
continue to keep saying the four-wire used during the initial days of
audio-only from Baghdad was *wires* and not ham radios, or Inmarsat or
smoke signals or flashlights or whatever -
Short version:
1. a CNN engineer told me on the phone the 4-wire was *wires*
2. Shaw and Holliman themselves described it as *wires*
3. a report on p. 60 of the January 21 issue of "Communications Week"
describes it as *wires*
4. a Time magazine description of the setup
(I know that calling something "four-wire" doesn't make it actual
wires, but read or listen to the descriptions.)
Long version:
1. I just got off the phone talking to an engineer at CNN.
The company policy is to not give out names. You can call them
yourself at 1-404-827-1500 and ask for engineering. The man I spoke
to said that yes, the initial days of contact was by *wires* running
from Baghdad to Amman. On questioning, he said that *that* phase of
reporting was by *wires* and *not* satellite or cellular phones or any
other goddamn thing. Whatever Peter Arnett is using now is not under
discussion; nobody cares if he is now being shown in front of a
satellite dish. He said there is a very good report of it in last
week's Time magazine. That's *wires* as in "copper strands". So that
there was no possible confusion of terms, he said after specifically
asking about satellites, cellular phones, etc : (paraphrase): "No, it
was a set of wires".
2. Interviews with Shaw and Holliman on Larry King Live (once
they were back in the US) : S & H said that they were using a
dedicated line that everyone else wanted to use, that they could not
use the satellites. If you don't believe me, then write to the Larry
King Live show and pay for a transcript of the show. I wish I had
taped it.
3. From a posting made by Larry Johnson: On p. 60 of the
January 21 issue of "Communications Week" ("The Newspaper For Network
Decision Makers") there is a short article titled "Dedicated Line Pays
Off For CNN." It says:
...Charles Hoff, managing director of CNN News Beam, explained
it this way. In addition to regular telephone connections,
CNN installed a dedicated, four-wire circuit from its Baghdad
hotel room to an Iraqi-provided telephone switch. CNN also
arranged a priority overseas connection with AT&T....
The line was "hard wired" so the connection did not travel
through relay points, Hoff said. During a power failure,
dedicated circuits are more likely than regular switched phone
connections to keep working. In fact, when the fighting
started, he said, normal telephone communications had ceased.
(end quote from posted article)
4. Time magazine article - look it up for yourself. The CNN
engineer I spoke to described it as "a very good article" - his exact
words.
Now skip the rest if you are as tired of this as I am.
In article <3633@anasaz.UUCP> john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes:
>Uh... before you get too carried away...
Don't really think I am. I'm just tired of idle speculators trying
to contradict (with no evidence whatsoever) everything that so far has
been published and broadcasted.
>A four wire is a telecommunications and broadcasting term for a
>full duplex link, where there is a separate circuit for each direction.
>The term comes from the old technology days where there were literally
>four wires running between the end points: in broadcasting, between the
>studio and transmitter. Today, however, "four wire"
>means that the telecommunications terminal provides 2 600 ohm, wide
>band equalized circuits - one in each direction. It does NOT mean
>that four wires (or any wires at all) are used.
I never said that it had to be wires. I'm saying that all the
published articles and broadcasts that I've seen and heard said that
it was wire.
>For example, the Arizona National Guard has a VHF repeater system
>that is statewide (and for which I designed and now manufacture
>the control system). Guess what they call the terminals that
>come out of the microwave backbone? Yep... "four-wire." And yet,
>in that case it is clearly microwave.
... and Arizona National Guard is not CNN. Mostly irrelevant.
>This is not to say that they didn't use telephone lines. It is to say
>that your evidence for same is worthless, since all it depends on is
>the definition of "four wire."
I say that I have a lot more evidence on my side. And please don't
try to confuse the issue by now calling it "telephone" lines.
>your evidence for same is worthless
I guess we will all have to stop listening to CNN broadcasts, CNN
correspondents, CNN engineers, Time magazine and Communications Week.
Where is your evidence to contradict all of these people and
organizations??
> your evidence
Where is yours ??? You have none. I've spelled mine out.
>VSAT (Very Small Aperture Terminal) systems can provide "four wire"
>service - typically on Ku band.
Because they can does not mean VSAT *was* used. No "evidence"
anywhere that I've seen said satellites were used. All evidence
specifically and pointedly says just the opposite. See above.
> It is possible that they were using this.
Pure speculation. Please back it up with something that says they were.
>As far as that making it a target - the ECM aircraft have
>sophisticated systems for discriminating between radars, command links,
>and other systems. They really don't want to waste an expensive
>missile on someone's VSAT uplink. I don't think that CNN was in
>much danger from radiating 10 Watts in a tight beam up to a satellite
>(if in fact that is what they were doing).
Military satellites in the above-Iraq area, AWACS and probably F117A's
can "see" ten watts of microwave. And they most likely are not going
to eavesdrop long enough to see if the originator is Iraqi or foreign.
With pinpoint strikes of microwave dishes possible, who would be
stupid enough to use them?
>John Moore HAM:NJ7E/CAP:T-Bird 381 {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!john
>Opinion: New protest song:All we are say...ing.... is... Give BOMBS a chance!
Finally, John, we can agree on something. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Kim L. Greer
Duke University Medical Center klg@orion.mc.duke.edu
Div. Nuclear Medicine POB 3949 voice: 919-681-5894
Durham, NC 27710 fax: 919-681-5636Jim.Redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu (Jim Redelfs) (02/02/91)
Brian Crawford wrote: >> Arnett elected to stay behind in Iraq against the advice of CNN in >> Atlanta. > Was this before or after Iraq officially expelled western journalists? > I would be curious to know if he remains there despite the expulsion. As of 21:00, 1-20-91, he was reporting, voice-only, from Baghdad. CNN Headline News was VERY proud to announce that theirs was the only service allowed to stay - based on their balanced reporting! JR Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14)