What a camera in a gunsight does to an audience, and what news organisations owe the people in the frame.
The footage arrived already interpreted. It had a title, an edit and a press conference. Understanding what happened to public opinion in April 2010 means separating what the camera recorded from how it was presented — by WikiLeaks, by the newspapers that covered it, and by the military that had kept it back.
If you are new to the subject, these in this order will give you the whole of it. The main pages come first because everything else refers back to them.
Names the record holds for this part of the story.
A Washington Post journalist embedded with the same battalion. His 2009 book described the airstrike and quot…
Everything filed under this topic, newest work first.
Written casualty figures change almost nobody's mind. Thirty seconds of video changes a great many. That gap is worth understanding, includ…
A practical method for anyone who sees a conflict clip and wants to know whether it shows what the caption says. It takes about ten minutes.
The footage led the news for about a week. Then the coverage changed subject, and the shift from the airstrike to the publisher is the most…
A reporter embedded with the same battalion published an account of this engagement in 2009, quoting the cockpit radio, while Reuters was s…
Reuters had been asking for this recording for three years and learned what it showed from someone else's press conference. Other newsrooms…
Not a legal question, an ethical one. When is it right to publish something a government has classified, and what test would tell you?
The phrase sounds like an excuse and is actually a legal category. Understanding what it does and does not permit is the difference between…
The footage raised four separate ethical questions and they keep getting mixed together. Taking them one at a time is the only way to get a…
Opinion on the war had already turned before 2010. What the releases changed was not whether people supported it but what they thought it c…
Each answer below is the summary; the link goes to the page that sets it out against the record.
The rest of the archive, and where each one picks up.
What happened in the sky and on the street in New Baghdad on 12 July 2007, phase by phase.
The people who were killed doing journalism, and the people who risked everything to make the footage public.
How the footage got out, how it was published, and what it did to the idea of a government secret.
Court-martials, indictments, extradition hearings and the question nobody has answered: who was held responsible?
Baghdad in 2007, the surge, the counting of the dead, and why one morning in one district looked the way it did.
The war that began on 28 February 2026, and the strike on a girls' school in Minab that became its defining atrocity.
The incidents that set the terms for how civilian deaths in war are counted, argued about and answered for.
