« Press | Main | The last word »

March 25, 2003

Goodbye for now

My editors have demanded that I stop posting to this site until the war ends. And they pay the bills, so what can I do. Thanks everyone for reading, and I hope to be back here soon. Peace, Josh.

March 25, 2003 in Culture | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Goodbye for now:


I guess the lesson between what happened to you and Kevin Sites of CNN is "if you're a journalist, don't let your blog get noticed." What B.S. Anybody know of a good war blog that hasn't gotten unplugged recently?

Posted by: andy | Mar 25, 2003 11:19:46 PM

Yup, fly under the radar and keep with word of mouth to keep the spice flowing, er, the information flowing.

Makes you wonder which side TIME is on, getting information out or hoarding it.


Posted by: Chris | Mar 25, 2003 11:40:20 PM

been following your blog since the start. sorry to see it go as it was a good insight into what was going on there w/o the NEWSFILTER. Hope to hear from you soon. Be safe.

Posted by: Kelly Pollock | Mar 26, 2003 12:07:05 AM

So sad to see yet another independent voice silenced. Hopefully your editors will allow you to "speak out" in your articles. Will be searching for your byline. Stay safe.

Posted by: Meg | Mar 26, 2003 1:29:24 AM

Josh, sorry to see you go. I got your back, tho. I'll be there in a week to relieve you.

Posted by: Christopher Allbritton | Mar 26, 2003 1:45:53 AM


Maybe you should have written it under a pseudonym, such as "Josh Pax."

Sorry to lose your voice.

Posted by: Sheila Lennon | Mar 26, 2003 2:17:41 AM

Considering that the Blog as it has been will stay available, and has been read by man--I feel your editors are being follish as well as more obviously tyrannical. One way or another, the more inconvenient facts you have discussed will get out there--and, in addition, the fact that they breifly covered those facts over. So it goes.

Posted by: Benjamin | Mar 26, 2003 7:16:55 AM

It's not a secret anymore, but the blog referenced above by Sheila and in the Boston Globe column at dear_raed.blogspot.com is actually quite a good read.

Is it really surprising that AOL/Warner is taking the same approach the recording industry did? As if people are only going to read this website, but not Time's dispatches from reporters in the field.

Posted by: Eric | Mar 26, 2003 2:41:48 PM

Your blog appears to have been one of the very few independent sources of information on the Kurdish people, and your corporate empire is telling you to shut up. Would it be too much to inquire as to the reasons behind this command? Why is it that American media, so inquisitive about what's happening to everyone else in the world, is so close-mouthed regarding its own judgments and the ''thinking,'' if that's what it is, behind them?

Posted by: tom matrullo | Mar 26, 2003 3:31:10 PM

Hi Josh, i am from Gral. San Martín, Argentina, and i want say: no war, no murders, but i wish end the war now.
thaks for write from iraq and i wish a nice day for fou and i offer my hands for your help.
wuen you need, only write me.
sorry for my english, but i'm learning now.

Posted by: Alejandro | Mar 26, 2003 3:45:25 PM

Josh, this is incredible. We was lied about free of speech in USA.
I'm from Argentina too. In my country we are paying big attention to the information and the biggers newspapers are posting in their pages the links of the weblogs like this.
Sadly, I find you out. Don't stop writing, we will need your words to know the truth, to build the truth of this war.
PEACE and good luck.
Forgive my english

Posted by: Daniela | Mar 26, 2003 4:38:37 PM

Sad to see how abovious enconomic interest handle this war. Your site was good while it lasted.I am sorry to see it end.
Peace for all.

Posted by: Nathanel | Mar 26, 2003 5:10:56 PM

By paranoid Joshua
Good luck my felou. Stay in calm


Posted by: Ryflex | Mar 26, 2003 5:50:47 PM

Daniela, también soy Argentino y vivo lo tragico desde Chile, donde se bajan los pantalones delante de Bush.
http://live.curry.com/ ahi hay otro blog en marcha.

Posted by: Ryflex | Mar 26, 2003 5:55:51 PM

en español se llama censura

Posted by: FELIX | Mar 26, 2003 7:23:35 PM

damn. enjoyed reading while it lasted, josh. stay safe.


Posted by: Sarah Knight | Mar 26, 2003 7:53:55 PM

It's possible than after you, I'm the second person that is sad and dissapointed for your temporary and forced end. Because I know very well how you enjoying doing.
But the most important of this is not the blog, but the things you discovered you can see, fell and offer to others.
Days better will come, here and there.
Forgive me for be pathetic (because I know you always forgive my Carolinski English).

Posted by: Carolina | Mar 26, 2003 10:00:46 PM

It´s a real pitty.
It would have been wonderfull to have some information about what´s going on there.
Perhaps the mass-media are too much conservative to allow you to say uncomfortable things.
It´s also a pitty that you have to stay there, undergoing such a risk, without the benefit of telling the truth to the world.
Thank you very much, good luck:


Posted by: Ignacio Urteaga | Mar 27, 2003 12:17:38 AM

This is simply UNBELIEVABLE: take a glimpse of this "blogs of War" related article on CNN.com... http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.soldier.blogs.reut/index.html

Posted by: Fernando | Mar 27, 2003 12:35:34 AM

This really is a shame. Yesterday I was all excited because they mentioned you in the new (Gulf War II) Time (Page 8, top of the center column) but I guess we'll have to do without.

Well, keep a good journal and maybe when this is over you can update your blog. Should make for good reading.

Posted by: David Cranor | Mar 27, 2003 2:01:23 AM

Oh, America!!! Land of freedom!!!

Posted by: Ariel | Mar 27, 2003 6:00:46 AM

Dear Josh,
It's a shame to see how money nowadays can silence the truth.
I've been seeing CNN a lot to contrast the information with other sources of other countries. The only thing I could say is: CNN is telling lies to the amerian people and the world. Their vision about the war is parcial and uncomplete to support the "american interests" but not the truth.
I'm very sorry for this.
PS: I quote Ariel: "Oh, America!!! Land of freedom!!!???"

Posted by: meko360 | Mar 27, 2003 6:48:50 AM


I'm truly outraged, although I suspect that in the end those dumb-asses posing as editors may have given you an even better story to write, one that reflects as poorly on them as they deserve.

Posted by: Marc E. Johnson | Mar 27, 2003 7:56:02 AM

So, Josh, let me request an additional entry or two (unless you're in hot enough water with your editors to make that foolish) relating your editors' 'demand' to the journalism profession and media corporations in general. Posting this as a comment to see if anyone else wants to pick up this thread as well.

What I'm thinking about is how to reconcile market demand for journalism with the real-world delivery of product. I note I have been far more interested in your writing and commentary than anything I've encountered in mainstream U.S. media since the initiation of hostilities, and it's not just because I know you. For the most part, the only way major media conglomerates are thus far attempting to satisfy immediate demand is by reporting (VERY repetitively) what type of small arms the Iraqi "paramilitaries" are using, or whether their TV station is on the air, how many U.S. soldiers have been hurt, how many bombs have been dropped, where the planes come from, or the like. In short, details I struggle to find any interest in and that bear no longer-term relevance. Presumably, the snooty print journalism I read will eventually rectify this, but obviously they need time to manage it.

I understand what an exclusivity contract does and why it often makes sense for journalists' employers to have them in place. What I don't know is, say, why your employer didn't jump at the chance to host your mentioned-in-the-Boston-Globe blog at their own site. Is it issues related to editorial control over content, fact-checking, slander liability, brand tarnishment, or something similar where the risks of letting you loose on a corner of their website outweigh any benefit? Are they just too focused on their own black-letter job descriptions to see any reason to do so? Do they just see your type of writing as not "news" or otherwise outside their intended coverage? Is it that the idea hasn't crossed their minds? I think you see where I'm going: please discuss.

Posted by: David Pille | Mar 27, 2003 8:48:26 PM

David -

In order to have reporters "embedded" with U.S. forces, they had to agree to certain restrictions on what they could report. Mr. Kucera's employers may fear that his reporting could violate such an agreement, causing expulsion of those embedded.



Posted by: George | Mar 27, 2003 11:16:58 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.