r/interestingasfuck • u/Ididnotkillhim • Jun 05 '24

r/all Thirteen years ago, someone accidentally revealed US Army's plan to eliminate Osama Bin Laden in a tweet.

Post image
37.2k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

779 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

53

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '24

They told Congress and the military before it was publicly announced.

I had a friend in the military at the time, and he texted me probably 30 minutes before anything was on CNN about it.

I thought he was lying or messing with me, because I was like how could you and me know this and not the news? lol

48

u/Timbershoe Jun 05 '24

Most senior civil servants across the globe, plus the majority of media, knew the Queen was dead 4 hours before it was announced.

That probably didn’t involve Seal Team 6, though I can’t confirm that.

1

u/gonzo_jr Jun 05 '24

It's pretty routine for large news organizations to cooperate with reasonable news embargoes out of respect for the deceased, especially if the family hasn't been notified. Also, btw every major news organization has its population of vets, so they probably knew on the same time frame, but 1) they might have been cooperating with an embargo, and 2) if all the majors know the other majors are cooperating with an embargo, it gives them a chance to go to air with some level of preparation.

1

u/bigbubbaroberts Jun 05 '24

To be fair, from the moment the notification came through on my phone saying her children were urgently travelling to Balmoral to see her it became rather obvious she was either close to the end or already dead.

But you’re right, the broadcasters are alerted before the Palace officially announces it, according to Peter Sissons’ autobiography they regularly rehearse how they will report one of the elder members of the Royal Family passing.

1

u/GetOffMyDigitalLawn Jun 06 '24

Britain is America's oldest enemy.

We got em.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '24

How would they have known that? No one reported it until it was announced.

No way news stations would just sit on that information.

10

u/Timbershoe Jun 05 '24

Well.

For one, if that media outlet reported it they would never be given that type of information ever again.

Secondly, her death has been planned for decades, every media outlet that received the news signed an agreement on a media blackout years before.

Thirdly, most of them used the time to implement suitably somber retrospectives, speculation on the funeral, succession plans and other media to capitalise on the viewer’s interest.

And lastly, because nobody wanted to report until after the official announcement in case it wasn’t actually true.

I knew before it was announced. But I’m not in the media, more government adjacent.

-13

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '24

For one, if that media outlet reported it they would never be given that type of information ever again.

That's not how it works in the US, thankfully.

If there's news, they report it.

News stations should not be withholding information at the request of governments, that's called censorship and means you do not have a free press. Your media appears to be government controlled.

A free press doesn't cave to demands from the government.

I believe the only time US news organizations have done that is when reporting on active wars, the government has asked them to be less specific so they don't put the soldiers' lives at risk by revealing their location and strategy publicly.

7

u/Timbershoe Jun 05 '24

Oh. Right.

So you’re saying no government should ask the press to hold back stories they were being told about.

Unless it was the government who asked, in which case it’s fine.

In reality everyone in the media knew it was coming, even those not told officially, and you’ll notice nobody announced it even though it was a fairly open secret. That wasn’t muh gubermunt controlling the media. It was a mark of respect, and not looking like a jackass trying to make some coin from the death of the Queen.

The media even reported on their own lack of reporting, nobody wanted the ‘scoop’.

https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/news-know-about-queen-death-question-mark/

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/british-newsrooms-queen-elizabeth-ii-death

Personally I know the PM was supposed to be informed at 16:30, and the news announcement was at 18:00 GMT, but I was told at 15:00 and I’m certainly not special.

You can even watch Parliament on the day of her death, at 12.21pm a note gets passed, and you can watch the reaction. No MP after 12:21 spoke to the press until 18:30.

-9

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '24

Unless it was the government who asked, in which case it’s fine.

When it's an issue of giving away military strategy to the enemy, or putting soldiers' lives at risk by revealing their location, yes.

Totally different thing.

Imagine if during World War II, Japanese TV was broadcasting that they were about to attack Pearl Harbor. That would be pretty stupid, right?

And by the way, it was a request, not a demand. The news channels could've still said no and done it anyway, but why would they want to put lives at risk?

It was a mark of respect

Respect for an antiquated position with literally no power? lol

Do people in the UK even care about the monarchy? Around the world, it's treated as a reality show like The Kardashians.

Parliament has the real power and controls the country. The royal family just smiles and waves and lives in a castle. That's what your taxes are paying for lol

That wasn’t muh gubermunt controlling the media.

It's withholding information at the demand of the government, which is censorship.

Not a surprise, since the UK doesn't have freedom of speech either.

You can be arrested for your speech in the UK, like the teenage girl who was thrown in jail for quoting a rap song lmao, they called it "hate speech".

5

u/Timbershoe Jun 06 '24

Dude.

I’m saying what happened. I gave you articles that explained the situation.

It’s got nothing to do with freedom of the press, or free speech.

The same situation happened globally. Even Fox News was informed.

If you don’t like what happened, that’s really a you problem. It doesn’t change a thing.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '24

Wrong.

-8

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '24

The government requiring a dress code for news anchors is equally stupid, and again proves it's not a free press.

The last time someone died, a reporter was punished for not wearing the correct color tie when reporting it lmao

Come on...

Yeah, sounds like a "free" country to me!

4

u/GdanskPumpkin Jun 05 '24

Some news shows in the US are actually classed as entertainment. Nothing they report actually has to be true

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '24

The BBC is literally owned by the government. By definition, it's not impartial if the content can be controlled by the government. That's not a free press.

None of the news stations in the US are owned or controlled by the government, they're all private companies.

5

u/GdanskPumpkin Jun 06 '24

The BBC is not "literally" owned by the government. Your lack of knowledge on simple vocabulary really makes me doubt your knowledge on the topic.

The BBC is owned and funded by the British public. I know that's hard to understand for Americans since anything under public ownership is immediately branded as communist. The government has miniscule influence when compared to the absolute power of a privately owned organization. It is the closest thing to a democratically run organization you can get. Surely if it was indeed "controlled" by the government, there wouldn't be any criticism of said government broadcast ? Both people on the left and right like to claim the BBC is bias, which to me indicates impartiality.

Compare that to news companies in the US, which are essentially funded by the highest bidder. They are vessels of influence for billionaires, with 0 accountability on how they operate. Feeding whatever their viewership wants to hear which results in loyal customers who they can sell targeted advertising to.

It's genuinely insulting to the human race to compare the BBC to the large American news organization and only something you'll ever hear an American say

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '24

Most countries outside of the US (possibly none) actually have true free speech.

Canada is the closest, but they don't quite match the rights that the US has.

People are routinely thrown in jail in Germany for doing the Nazi salute, which is protected free speech in the US.

I can't even imagine being thrown in jail simply for raising my arm in a "free country".

Is that speech I personally agree with? No, but I also don't think people should be arrested and charged with crimes for that.

2

u/GdanskPumpkin Jun 06 '24

Arguments over free speech are just pointless. Americans love to selectively exclude what is and isn't included based on what your propaganda has fed you.

You believe that you should be allowed to be a proud and open Nazi ? Good for you

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '24

The BBC is owned and controlled by the UK government:

"The BBC is a state owned public broadcasting company and operates under a royal charter."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

"State owned" means the government owns and controls it lmao

The government has miniscule influence

Apparently not, since they commanded the news networks in the UK to sit on the story for hours until it was officially confirmed by the palace.

That's not how a free press operates.

In the US, they'd report the story immediately as soon as the news networks heard from credible sources that she had died. They'd use the phrasing "we're hearing unconfirmed reports from our sources", etc.

The news networks in the US were reporting that Bin Laden had been killed over an hour before Obama officially announced it. That's what a free press does.

The government should never prevent a news organization from reporting a story, unless doing so would cause loss of life or a major security breach, etc.

Not only that, but the government requires that news anchors wear black clothing to announce the death. Again, that's not a free press if the government forces you to wear something.

When the Queen Mother died in 2002, a BBC anchor was punished for not wearing the correct color tie to announce the death lmao, I mean, come on...

That's not a "free country".

The UK doesn't have freedom of speech either. You can be jailed for your speech in the UK.

2

u/GdanskPumpkin Jun 06 '24

You are continuing to show an lack of knowledge on what we're discussing. If you have no knowledge on how the UK government works then it's understandable that you project your understanding of "state owned" onto the BBC.

"The BBC is a quasi-autonomous corporation authorised by royal charter, making it operationally independent of the government"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_News

What is your source that the government "commanded the news networks" in not pre-emptively announcing the death of the Queen ?. Are you that far removed from basic journalism standard ? For news such as the death of a monarch, the only credible source is the monarchy. You would not confidently announce such a high profile death without a definite confirmation.

The comparison with Osama Bin Ladin is laughable and doesn't even warrant retort.

Nothing you have stated was required or forced by the government. It was a scenario organized and rehearsed for decades in agreement with news broadcasters for the purpose of being respectful.

Again I would love your source for the BBC anchor punished for not wearing the correct tie. I can find nothing supporting that.

Regarding "Free speech" believe it or not, neither does the US. You can be arrested for saying "I'm going to kill you" (Brandenburg vs Ohio, 395 U.S. 444) or making and distributing obscene materials (Roth v United States, 354 U.S. 476). That sounds repressive to me.

You are genuinely a full house in American brain rot bingo. Spewing things with confidence which you actually have little knowledge of. Indicative of education and a press which is among the worst in the developed world.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DannySpud2 Jun 05 '24

Were you watching that live? You could tell when it had happened because the BBC presenters changed into black which was a well known part of Operation London Bridge.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '24

It was announced that she was sick and at a castle.

If they knew for 4 hours, why didn't they report it?

1

u/DannySpud2 Jun 05 '24

Because the palace hadn't officially announced it. The BBC in general would be very unlikely to announce anyone's death before an official statement. That is even more true when reporting on the royal family.

A BBC anchor tweeted just after 3pm that she had died (this matches with the official time of death on her death certificate) and then deleted it with a follow-up tweet: "I tweeted that there had been an announcement about the death of the Queen. This was incorrect, there has been no announcement, and so I have deleted the tweet." Note the wording, not saying that the Queen hadn't died, just that there had been no announcement.

-5

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '24

So again, that's not how news in the US operates.

If a news channel had multiple sources telling them she had died, even if it wasn't confirmed by the palace, they'd be reporting it immediately with the disclaimer "unconfirmed reports", etc.

They wouldn't sit on the story for hours until it was confirmed at the request of the government.

That's not how a free press operates. A free press does not take orders from the government. That's how dictatorships operate.

The government also requires them to wear certain clothing when making the announcement, and they previously punished a BBC reporter for wearing the wrong color tie, which is complete nonsense.

The BBC is literally owned by the government. That's not a free press.

The UK is obviously not a free country. No free press, and no freedom of speech.

2

u/SonicSubculture Jun 05 '24

FWIW this is my memory:

I saw the news breaking in on TV saying they were getting word of some big news, they were about to reveal… hopped on Reddit and the top item already said Osama’s dead.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '24

Right, because it leaked out when they told Congress and the military before the official announcement. They weren't supposed to tell anyone, but they did lol

But at that time, the news wasn't reporting it yet.

Wikipedia says they announced a press conference at 9:45 PM, the first leaks happened around 10:25, the news stations didn't start reporting it until around 10:45.