雖然這次台灣的電子媒體在颱風期間接受災民call-in，間接幫助了救災，但是在報導內容的專業度上卻經常讓人不敢恭維，尤其是跟軍事有關的部分。今天美軍的一架KC-130載運救災物資抵台後，TVBS出了一篇題為「敏感！美軍機抵台塗軍徽 避爭議」的報導，其中提到：
美方今天下午先派遣運輸機C-130到台南機場，過程非常低調，機身刻意塗掉軍徽跟編號，接下來還會有重型直升機陸續抵台。但為了降低敏感性，運輸機裝卸物品之後，隨即離開，就是避免外界在台美關係上作文章。
從軍聞社發佈的照片來看，這應該只是美軍的低視度塗裝，國徽和編號還是看得見。不過沒圖沒真相，所以我找到一張同一架飛機今年4月被拍到的照片，可以證明這架飛機的塗裝本來就是這樣，不是為了來台灣才刻意「淡化」處理！
雖然TVBS搞了烏龍，但知恥近乎勇，也在此表揚一下。顯然他們發現早先的報導不對，所以把標題改成「低調！台美斷交後 美軍機二度馳援」，原來的文字也改成：
美方今天下午先派遣運輸機C-130到台南機場，過程非常低調，機身不仔細看，很難發現美軍軍徽跟編號，接下來還會有重型直升機陸續抵台。但為了降低敏感性，運輸機裝卸物品之後，隨即離開，就是避免外界在台美關係上作文章。
8月17日中國時報「物資載出 又回原地 指揮太亂枉美火速援」（吳明杰／台北報導）：
究竟趙世璋和李天羽的否認，是知情而不願承認，還是不知情而無法承認？九二一地震後，美軍的C-5載運救援團隊降落在中正機場，我在當時曾經寫e-mail向派出這架C-5的空軍單位致意，也收到他們的回信，那時候也有航迷在中正機場拍到這架飛機的照片。會不會因為這架運輸機是降落在民用機場，所以連軍方高級將領也不知道？
無論如何，美國國防部在美國時間1999年9月21日舉行的記者會已經證實這個消息，美軍TRANSCOM的司令也在他的證詞中提到。這種事在Google上仔細搜尋一下就可以得到答案，應該不用「外傳」就可以證實吧？
台灣媒體的看家本領就是看圖說故事。只要有圖，完全不用查証就自由心証，隨便扯。那沒圖呢？沒問題，想像一張圖出來，其他步驟照用。
今天的中國時報又讓我大大的搖頭。先是這則「要種馬 來海龍 我軍傻眼」（吳明杰／台北報導）的新聞說：
雖然人不可能知道所有的事，但有道是「沒常識也要看電視」，當天的電視新聞就可以看到這架直昇機兩側的油箱上漆著大大的一個馬頭和VANGUARD的英文字樣，只要上Google一查，馬上就可以確認是第十四水雷反制中隊。即使沒看電視，當天軍聞社發佈的照片上也可以看到HM-14的單位編號。這兩種查證方式都不難吧！
另一則由同一記者寫的「美軍拒掛重機 援台美意打折」就誇張多了：
請問CH-53E到底有什麼攻擊性？我翻了家裡的相關書籍，都找不到CH-53E上有什麼攻擊性武器。只因為它的主要任務是運兵嗎？MH-53E也可以用來運兵，而且因為它的油箱特別加大，航程比CH-53E更遠，真要硬扯「攻擊性」的話（說這樣好像降低了我的「水準」），MH-53E似乎還更勝一籌咧。美國這次協助救災當然會有其政治上的考量，記者應該從決策的層面深入挖掘，而不是自己看圖說故事（說不定連看圖都沒有）。至於所謂「不刻意展現軍徽」，去請教TVBS的記者吧！
記者們都是把自已的推理當真理。這樣的媒體監督，政治不爛才怪。唉…
Wasn’t the last time a USAF transport aircraft arrived in Taiwan was just last year to take back the nuclear warhead fuses sent to Taiwan by mistake and Taiwan kept it for 18 months? And AIT had to get a C-130H or C-17 to take it back to US?????
It seemed that a non-military aircraft was used. Otherwise, aircraft spotter would have photographed the military transport and posted them on the web. Just my guess.
So the New York Times report on August 23 that said …”US aircraft apparently arrived in Taiwan with masked insignia, causing some handwringing in Taipei..” was wrong. If what you say is correct the NY Times is wrong, and there was no masking involved on the Hercules plane or the choppers used in south Taiwan or on the USS Denver and other ships used to transport the choppers from Liucho (Okinawa). Somebody should correct the NY Times and write a letter to that newspaper, just to correct the record. There was no cover up or masking of US military insignia, from the photos you show, it’s par for the course for planes and choppers to look that way. Somebody got it wrong.
It is absolutely certain that no masking was involved. But I am not able to find the New Times article. Maybe you can write to the Times to correct them.
Sir
Here is the New York Times article that incorrectly reported that “masking” was involved. You should write a letter and tell them: letters@nytimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/world/asia/24taiwan.html?_r=2&hpw
– – –
QUOTE:
Even Mr. Ma’s decision to accept emergency supplies from the United
States, Taiwan’s staunchest ally, produced hand-wringing among those
who questioned why military insignia on American aircraft were masked.
According to Taiwan Airblog’s comments, the word 淡化 means to make something less visible (or less concentrated, in other contexts).
Also, please note that according to the Taiwan Airblog’s comments, the linked image [above, of the US Hercules transport] was not the USA airplane’s actual photo landing in Tainan during the Morakot rescue operation, BUT IT was taken from another routine practice in the Philllipines.
However, planespotters in Tainan and photos in local papers showed that the Hercules that landed in Tainan also looked similar to the photo, almost exactly, no decals, no insignia, no USA flag. This is apparently the way the USA operates overseas around the world, keeping its profile low so that terrorists will not attack their aircraft and equipment. Otherwise, they would proudly display the USA flad and Navy and Marine logos. It’s a different world now. In 2004, during the US helping out in the Indonesia tsunami relief efforst the USA ships and planes and chopppers DID display USA insignia and the USA flag. But that was then, this is now. 2009 is not 2004. The world has changed. China is menacing. Bin Laden is threatening. Obama is under fire at home. And Ted Kennedy is dead, the Lion is dead!
Thank you for the link to the article. As far as I can understand, it doesn’t seem that NY Times was at fault. Note that it says “among those who questioned why military insignia on American aircraft were masked”. So it is not NY Times who thought the aircraft were masked. It is those who questioned who thought the aircraft were masked.
Yes, you are quite right. It was not the NYTimes at fault. They were just reporting ”those who questioned” etc etc, whoever THEY were…..probably some sources the reporter talked to in Taipei. You are right: the NYTimes did NOT say that, it just reported what SOME people in Taiwan thought or said on background. Would have been better if the reporter actually reported WHO he talked to, real names etc.
As a Frenchwoman in Taipei, I been following this little contretemps here at this blog and I think there is some disinformation out there now. Someone I know recently heard from a very reliable source that the US govt is denying completely that there was any masking of military insignia on its planes or ships and choppers in Taiwan recently. So the New York Times got it wrong this time, apparently.
It would have been better if NY Times had written “although there was no masking at all” in the sentence.
Masking or no masking, I think it’s pretty obvious that it’s NOT one of Taiwan’s C-130s. Where else would it have come from?