posted on April 6, 2003 06:21:52 AM new
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - David Bloom, co-anchor of NBC's "Today" show weekend editions, died in Iraq while covering the war, NBC said on Sunday. He was 39.
Bloom's death was not combat-related, NBC said. He died after he suffered a pulmonary embolism.
Bloom was "embedded" with the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division, and had reported on the unit's advance toward Baghdad in recent days.
He joined NBC in Chicago in 1993, and served as White House correspondent before taking over as co-anchor of the "Today" show weekend editions in March 2000.
Bloom is survived by his wife, Melanie, and three daughters.
posted on April 6, 2003 06:23:03 AM new
Strange to think that just a couple day we were discussing his reports while "hanging off the side of a tank" and now he is gone.
posted on April 6, 2003 06:34:57 AM new
Mornin' - Yes, I believe there have been 3 or 4 reporters killed while reporting on this war. It's a dangerous job they took on. Sorry to hear of this latest one...but it could have happened while he was at home too.
A quick 'google' search shows:
----
A BBC camerman was killed in Iraq when he stepped on a landmine.
----
A British TV reporter was found dead in a N. Iraq hotel. Seen walking up to the hotel's roof...then he fell ?
------
An Australian journalist was killed in Iraq. Not sure if this was a cameraman from the Australian Broadcasting Corp. Paul Moran
----
Michael Kelly - from the Atlantic Monthly - reported for Fox News - died in a humvee accident.
----
A French reporter was killed in Kuwait covering a training exercise - hit by a tank [12-02]
-----
Terry Lloyd - outside Basra. Killed by friendly fire when the jeep he was in was machine gunned.
---------
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 6, 2003 07:00 AM ]
posted on April 6, 2003 07:02:24 AM new
Look who's talking....
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
In addition to David Bloom, these reporters are dead since the war began in March. Some are missing.
Michael Kelly, a former editor-in-chief of The Atlantic Monthly, was killed in an accident involving a Humvee military vehicle on Thursday, making him the first American and first "embedded" journalist killed in Iraq.
BBC cameraman Kaveh Golestan was killed by a land mine as he climbed out of a car in the northern town of Kifri last week.
Australian cameraman Paul Moran, was killed in the north last month by a car bomb Kurdish officials blamed on the militant Islamic group Ansar al-Islam.
Terry Lloyd, a reporter with Britain's Independent Television News, was killed after coming under fire on the way to Basra in the south. Two of his crew are still missing.
Britain's Channel 4 TV reporter Gaby Rado was found dead at an Iraqi hotel, but his employers said the death appeared to be unconnected to combat.
"In times like these, a journalist's contribution to his country is measured in terms of illustrious commitment and sacrifice," NBC Chairman and CEO Bob Wright said in a statement announcing Bloom's death Sunday.
posted on April 6, 2003 07:36:38 AM new
Isn't a pulmonary embolism what people who are on long plane or car trips are at risk of developing? A blod clot forms in your leg, breaks off, travels to your lung? It's a wonder that doesn't happen more often in war.
posted on April 6, 2003 08:07:09 AM new
According to webmd -
Pulmonary embolism is a blood clot, air, fat, or other material that travels through the bloodstream and becomes lodged in one of the arteries that deliver blood to the lungs. Blood clots cause most episodes of pulmonary embolism.
Then they list other reasons some researchers believe are causes:
1) An inherited trait
2) From surgery
3) Trauma to a vein
4) Slowed blood flow
Other reasons were also listed but found to be more infrequent.
It doesn't surprise me that we don't hear more incidents for those at war. They're young, health and physically fit.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 6, 2003 08:14:04 AM new
Linda, I gotta agree, that was a very calous statement. The point of posting the piece was not so much where or how he died but simply that this person who became such a constant presence in the past couple weeks, who put his life on the line to bring us news, updates and who aided soldiers in the field communicating with the loved ones passed away.
posted on April 6, 2003 08:20:04 AM new
"They're young, health and physically fit."
Maybe that was his problem, he wasn't sedentary enough and his body couldn't adjust. Sitting in a tank for 18 or 20 hours a day wouldn't bother me; just take a laptop.
All these years I thought I was wasting my time and now I realize I've been in rigorous training. I'm like a secret weapon.
Airline passengers are advised to walk around every 60 to 90 minutes to avoid clots forming in the legs, breaking off and traveling to the lungs.
Traveling with troops in a jeep without that kind of exercise could lead to an embolism. Troops get more exercise while embedded reporters spend a lot of time inside a vehicle for safety reasons.
posted on April 6, 2003 08:31:01 AM new
Donny - yes, there were complaints from a number of groups when airlines started putting seats closer and closer together that the restricted ability to move on long flights could lead to blood clots. There are an average of 10 deaths per year attibuted to what was nicknamed "economy class syndrome" and as a result of lawsuits from family members British, Quantas and Ansett Airlines have printed warnings and advice on tickets, handing out pamphlets to passengers and British even created a video shown on transatlantiic flights.
In addition to getting up and moving around, they reccommend taking asprin before extended flight as its blood thinning effects help to deter blood clots.
More than likely the reason they are not seen more often in those at war is that even though there is not a lot of room to move, soldiers seem to gobble asprin like M&Ms.
BTW - before someone decides to point out to me the tendancy for marching, etc - I referring more to Tank crews.
posted on April 6, 2003 08:34:41 AM newLinda, I gotta agree, that was a very calous statement.
Well...I did say I was sorry to hear of his death. How is that calous? I expected Helen's statement, but it comes as a surprise from you. Of course every death is a shame. My point was they KNEW the risk they are taking when they chose to take on this task. Saying that, takes nothing away from his death. My point was that this same death could have occurred anywhere.....not war related. No matter, a death is a death.
Ever think maybe sometimes it's the way YOU take what is written, rather than the intent? No.....
The point of posting the piece was not so much where or how he died but simply that this person who became such a constant presence in the past couple weeks, who put his life on the line to bring us news, updates and who aided soldiers in the field communicating with the loved ones passed away. Yes, but you did mention those things and I responded to them. As I pointed out, so have many others who have chosen to take on these dangerous assignments.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 6, 2003 08:43:51 AM new
Muérdame Colin. I have posted numerous times asking you direct questions to various random trips to the soap box you have made. You have never bothered to answer a single one. If you wish to address me, do something other than swoop in with your judgemental drudge and then run for cover.
Linda is a big girl who has proven herself quite capable of stating her mind and defending her comments and opinions. The beautiful thing about it is that at least when she and i disagree we do it on an equal playing field and don't resort to cheap shots and self righteous insults. For this, while I may disagree with Linda on a vast array of topics, SHE has my respect.
posted on April 6, 2003 08:58:08 AM new
::Well...I did say I was sorry to hear of his death. How is that calous?::
I guess I have gotten used to you expressing compassion, hope and sympathies for so many that have passed that from you I expected something more than.......
"Sorry to hear of this latest one...but it could have happened while he was at home too."
That really reads cold. It's almost as thouggh he died a lessor death because it ws not war related. Rather than your usual expressions of sypathy and prayers for his surviving family, you comment is almost like a wave of the hand ... a big yeah, sad, but... Somehow I don't think a natural death makes it any less a loss to his family, friends and those that have watched, enjoyed and respected his efforts as a reporter.
posted on April 6, 2003 09:11:59 AM newa big, yeah sad, but.
Boy....so "sorry to hear of this latest one" and an unhappy face is taken as waving off his death. That's a calous judgement of my words. If you took it as a 'waving off' that's the way YOU took it, in a negative way. Doesn't mean that's the way it was meant.
I've already pointed out his death has not been the ONLY death of those who chose to 'report on sight' of this war. All deaths are very sad....this one is no different nor MORE important than the others who have died.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 6, 2003 10:07:41 AM new
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 6, 2003 10:33:37 AM new
::That's a calous judgement of my words. If you took it as a 'waving off' that's the way YOU took it, in a negative way. Doesn't mean that's the way it was meant. ::
You are right, it was how I took the statement. Please allow me to explain....
You are among the most emotionally expressive posters I read in this area. You normally very generous with expressions of sympathies, inclusion of strangers who a well written story has made seem a little more real in your prayers, God Bless's, etc. In comparision with what I have come to see as a very compassionate posting personality, the matter of fact, rather detached tone of this one definately surprised me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On another note - Hypothetical question came to mind in regards to a statement that has appears to now have been edited out. (Helen - you are about to become the bad guy but I think you kinda have a little fun being bad so please forgive me)
JoeTheHypotheticalPoster posts a news clip giving the details of the background and death of a US Soldier.
Helen promptly replies - "He knew what the possibilities were when he signed up for duty."
Now, are you going to:
A: Agree with the factual truth of the statement and move on, or.....
B: Point out the heartlessness. Point out that this soldier put himself in a dangerous situation to protect ideals that he felt were worth the possible price and state that he deserved nothing less than admiration and respect and his family the thanks of a greatful nation.
Now if the answer is (and I really believe it to be) B, why would you would you apply that same reply to the death of journalists who could have stayed home, reported from afar, sat at desks and played talking head but instead but themself into harms way to uphold a basic belief in the peoples right to know what is going on in their world. I think that whether a person is for or against this war, they have a responsibility to be as well informed as possible to the realities of both sides. Without reporters making that decision and in some cases the ultimate sacrifice, we do not have that opportunity. Our press, while far from being without fault, is our pipeline to the truth and realities. While we rant and rave and complain and critique the press at large, do we not owe a thank you to those individuals who put it on the line to bring us the three sides of each story that allow us to make an informed opinion regarding truth lies and plausabilty? Should our reaction to passing of individuals that dedicated thier lives to and in the cases of all of the men mentioned in this thread, gave their lives, while rooting out the facts, the stories and the people that allow us to be aware of the world beyond our daily existance be something as matter of fact and dispassionate as......They knew they possibilites when they signed up.
posted on April 6, 2003 10:55:46 AM new
neo,
If you asked me a question and I didn't answer it was probably because it was a callous question or I didn't see it.
Helen,
I may throw a few barbs but I don't do it without thinking.
The "Callous" statement of yours was calculated to make Linda look bad. I consider this a ploy to get others on one side.
It projects the them against us syndrome.
posted on April 6, 2003 10:55:51 AM new
neonmania - This was my first post to this thread.
Mornin' Thought I was starting out on pretty friendly terms, this morning.
Yes, I believe there have been 3 or 4 reporters killed while reporting on this war. Here I'm agreeing that yes, he and others have been killed[/i]. Do you find offense in my mentioning that FACT?
Then I state It's a dangerous job they took on. Recognizing the fact that they put themselves in harm's way in order, as you stated, to give us their view of this war.
Sorry to hear of this latest one with an unhappy face just wasn't enough saddness for your liking? That's your problem.
But it could have happened while he was at home too. Was NOT meant to take anything away from his dying. NOTHING. I probably should have made it another sentence. Well, guess what? I didn't. But what I stated is TRUE. Many people who haven't gone to report on a war have died from the same thing.
Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, if you don't start a conversation with an insult like Helen did, and you agreed with, that you might just understand a post by ASKING the person if your understanding the way you've taken their post? Helen starts out slamming my statement, and you agree and and add VERY calous to it. Do you believe that encourages positive communication?
It's my opinion that my reply has absolutely NOTHING to do with this gentleman's death, but rather our disagreement on this war.
Maybe next time I'm happy to see an NBC reporter killed [in your mind - or not showing enough respect], I'll post these...so you'll KNOW how I feel, without asking.
You're knit-picking beyond reason.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 6, 2003 11:00:44 AM new
No, Colin, you're not wrong. And thank you for not viewing my original post in that way.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 6, 2003 11:02:25 AM new
Linda, A silly face or a sad face is not sufficient. Add just one of these faces,.... .... and then your every thought will be thoroughly covered.
posted on April 6, 2003 11:12:19 AM newI may throw a few barbs but I don't do it without thinking.
LOL!
The "Callous" statement of yours was calculated to make Linda look bad. I consider this a ploy to get others on one side. It projects the them against us syndrome.
Am I wrong?
colin,
You've been around long enough to know that I'm not seeking approval or friends on my "side". If that were the case, I would tell Linda that although I don't agree with her that I do RESPECT her. LOLOL!
posted on April 6, 2003 01:24:29 PM new
:: Do you find offense in my mentioning that FACT? ::
So I take the time and extend the respect to "speak" with you in extremely civil, and even complimentary tones. I explain why I reached my conclusions based on your very compassionate posting style and personality and I am rewarded with condesension and sarcasm?
:id you ever think that maybe, just maybe, if you don't start a conversation with an insult like Helen did, and you agreed with, that you might just understand a post by ASKING the person if your understanding the way you've taken their post? Helen starts out slamming my statement, and you agree and and add VERY calous to it. Do you believe that encourages positive communication? ::
Linda, I made independent observation of your statement completely and utterly lacking in influence from others. IOW - I had not seen Helens reply when I first read your statement. I saw your statement, was surprised by it's tone, decided to comment on it but realized I was very thirsty and wandered of in search of an icy mug of Diet Cherry Coke. I then got caught up in TV coverage which coincidentally was on NBC and Meet the Press which happened to have ended in a very touching tribute to Bloom. Eventually I wandered back to my computer where I saw that I was not the only one that found your statement less than compassionate. The fact that I started my post with "I have to agee" does not mean that I was joining Helen in an attack on you. Basically it was to point out that whereas you dismissed Helens read due based on the source, that I also felt it came across as something less than the level of compassion you usually express at the loss of another human being. If you reread my comments, I say that the STATEMENT is calous and that IT reads cold and that my surprise was that I felt that that was in such contridiction to the usual level of compassion that I associate with you. I did not insult you. On the contrary I have repeatedly thru this thread credited you with a great deal of humanity and empathy. Hardly an insult.
::You're knit-picking beyond reason.::
IMO - you are being overly defensive and allowing your ire with Helens comments cloud your interpretation of mine. Please take a deep breath and reread my comments pertaining to your posting style, personality, and my opinion of you. Also, as opposed to nitpicking or disecting your every word, I was making an attempt to claryify and explain why I came to my initial reaction to your statement.
posted on April 6, 2003 01:41:51 PM new
::neo,
If you asked me a question and I didn't answer it was probably because it was a callous question or I didn't see it. ::
Colin, as a general rule, the questions have been a request for you to clarify accusations made during the missives that you toss out.
I am not surprised that you would have missed them. You seem to have a habit of floating into a thread, posting a diatribe which vaguely at best pertains to the subject at hand and seems to focus more so on insulting those posters that have a differing opinion than your own, then disappear only to do the same in another thread.
The one thing that puzzles me the most is your audacity to pass judgement on others when you fail to stick around long enough to enter an exchange that would allow you to make an informed opinion.
.... and then your every thought will be thoroughly covered.
id you ever think that maybe, just maybe, if you don't start a conversation with an insult like Helen did, and you agreed with, that you might just understand a post by ASKING the person if your understanding the way you've taken their post? Helen starts out slamming my statement, and you agree and and add VERY calous to it. Do you believe that encourages positive communication? ::