• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Fox News posts pictures of possibly dead Ambassador Stevens *warning - pic inside*

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,265
486
126
The CNN Effect



The CNN Effect as an Impediment to Continued Operations

In 1993 U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeline Albright declared that ‘television’s ability to bring graphic images of pain and outrage into our living rooms has heightened the pressure both for immediate engagement in areas of international crisis and immediate disengagement when events do not go according to plan’.[7]

The idea that grisly footage can undermine the morale of both troops abroad and the domestic masses has its roots in the Vietnam War. Iconic footage depicting the horrors of war, such as General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan’s public execution of a Vietcong officer[8] and the Vietnamese girl burned by Napalm,[9] rank as Number 16 and 1 respectively in the New Statesman’s most influential political photographs of all time.

[10] Never before had the realities of complete journalistic freedom in a warzone resulted in such public condemnation of foreign deployment. Not only were the methods used by the military questioned, but also the whole justification for the war. Cynthia Carter and C.K. Weaver note that ‘this type of coverage helped to capture in stark visual terms the growing human costs of the war, and as such was praised – as well as blamed – for helping to erode public support for the conflict’.

[11] In Livingston’s table it is also specified that, from an administrations point of view, limited access for journalists is a course of action that should be taken in order to minimise the graphic imagery of combat.


Since 1989 the Department of Defence has prohibited media coverage of American casualties being returned home in flag draped coffins.[12] The rationale behind such a ban is assumed to be that publicised images of dead soldiers will inevitably lead to an erosion of public support for any given conflict. This is more pertinent in deployments where vital U.S. interests are not widely believed to be at stake.

Osama Bin Laden himself publicly commented on the reluctance of the U.S. to accept casualties. He said ‘when tens of your soldiers were killed in minor battles [in Somalia] and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you.’

[13] Actually showing graphic images of carnage is difficult in the United States due to censorship from the networks themselves. In reference to the Iraq war, CBS’s John Roberts said that ‘there are certain pictures that you just can’t show…you had to sanitize your coverage to some degree.’

[14] Whether militarily enforced, or through network censorship, the real imagery of war rarely gets shown. When it does, in cases such as Somalia, public reaction to the mission overall is easily reversed if the goals of the deployment do not sync with vital U.S. interests. If casualties are not shown on television it can result in a video game war. The video game war was experienced in the Gulf

[15] as the media were heavily censored and the majority of images shown were of smart bombs falling towards targets and skirmishes through night vision goggles. They rarely showed the realities and aftermath of conflict. It was only after success in the Gulf War, during which the media were granted limited access,

[16] that George Bush could exclaim ‘By God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all!’[17] This censorship was a direct result of the impact of public opinion and exposure to graphic imagery during the Vietnam conflict. Carter and Weaver note that ‘the main lesson the U.S. military took away from Vietnam was that it would never again provide journalists with unlimited access.’

[18] Unlimited access was available in Somalia because troops were officially under the banner of the U.N., and not the United States.[19]
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
I love how some of you toe the line Republicans are saying Obama is an apologist. That is the biggest line of bullshit I have heard since someone said Romney is a man of principles.

Is it apologist to have a kill list? Is it apologist to have over three times the amount of drone strikes in even more countries than President Bush? Is it apologist to continue the fight in Afghanistan? Is it apologist to have fucked up Lybia or assisting in the Egyptian change? Is it really apologist for a Embassy to issue a statement of concern as opposed to "fuck you do as we say and abide by our way of life" when an embassy is supposed to BUILD RELATIONSHIPS with the host country?

I mean god damn you people are stupid. You have no argument here, there is nothing you can say that has the narrative match between rhetoric and honest to God facts.

It saddens me that I am a Conservative and have to deal with the bullshit the left throws around at times but holy shit this type of stuff shows a horrible lack of critical thinking skills.
 

Emos

Golden Member
Oct 27, 2000
1,989
0
0
I love how some of you toe the line Republicans are saying Obama is an apologist. That is the biggest line of bullshit I have heard since someone said Romney is a man of principles.

Is it apologist to have a kill list? Is it apologist to have over three times the amount of drone strikes in even more countries than President Bush? Is it apologist to continue the fight in Afghanistan? Is it apologist to have fucked up Lybia or assisting in the Egyptian change? Is it really apologist for a Embassy to issue a statement of concern as opposed to "fuck you do as we say and abide by our way of life" when an embassy is supposed to BUILD RELATIONSHIPS with the host country?

I mean god damn you people are stupid. You have no argument here, there is nothing you can say that has the narrative match between rhetoric and honest to God facts.

It saddens me that I am a Conservative and have to deal with the bullshit the left throws around at times but holy shit this type of stuff shows a horrible lack of critical thinking skills.
This +1. I'm not sure where people get that Obama is some anti-American commie, especially in foreign affairs. Everything over in the Middle East has simply been a continuation of the previous administrations policies (and the admin before that, ad nauseum)
 
Nov 29, 2006
14,638
2,432
126
I love how some of you toe the line Republicans are saying Obama is an apologist. That is the biggest line of bullshit I have heard since someone said Romney is a man of principles.

Is it apologist to have a kill list? Is it apologist to have over three times the amount of drone strikes in even more countries than President Bush? Is it apologist to continue the fight in Afghanistan? Is it apologist to have fucked up Lybia or assisting in the Egyptian change? Is it really apologist for a Embassy to issue a statement of concern as opposed to "fuck you do as we say and abide by our way of life" when an embassy is supposed to BUILD RELATIONSHIPS with the host country?

I mean god damn you people are stupid. You have no argument here, there is nothing you can say that has the narrative match between rhetoric and honest to God facts.

It saddens me that I am a Conservative and have to deal with the bullshit the left throws around at times but holy shit this type of stuff shows a horrible lack of critical thinking skills.
Welcome to the current GOP party. They dont care about facts or thinking. They run on emotions and fear. If it gets them riled up they are happy campers.
 

JKing106

Platinum Member
Mar 19, 2009
2,193
0
0
How is this guy not banned? I mean just read his posts......
How is this whole forum not burned to the ground? It's a collection of racists, bigots, homophobes and sociopaths. It's like the bastard child of a "conservative" propaganda blog and 4chan's /b. In other words, a total fucking embarrassment.
 

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0


Is this appropriate to plaster on the front page of your news site, if there's a possibility that that Ambassador Stevens was dead in this photograph? What kind of respectable news organization would do this if they were unsure?
Eh...

What kind of respectable news organization dumbs down and censors the news because they think people can't handle said news?

There's a reason alot of intelligent people turn to venues like RT and Al Jazeera for news. Because they don't pick and choose what they're going to show you as carefully as our network news.

When all of the arab spring stuff first started it was barely getting any coverage on local news. You HAD to goto al jazeera and RT to actually find out what was going on.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY