The Television War-Journalists in the Middle East

[johnjohn320]

Maybe I'll be stepping on some toes here, but I think we need to get all the journalists out of Iraq. Honestly, what good are they doing? They're not helping the war effort in any way, and whether or not they intend to, they could very well be hindering it. We all know about Giraldo Rivera, so I won't dwell on it, but that's just an example of how a reporter trying to be the big man in the news world can get our boys (and girls) killed. It's no big secret that during the First Persian Gulf War in the 90's Saddam Hussein got CNN in his bunker and watched it to keep up with the war? Doesn't that bother anyone?

On top of this, I feel horrible for the families of the troops over there. The sentiments they've expressed are no surprise to me, they're absolutely glued to their TVs. They don't want to be, but could you peel yourself away from it, knowing what it's broadcasting? It's making their lives even more miserable and paranoia-filled than they already are.

I just don't see what is accomplished by having them there, and i see a lot of negatives...

 

[Mallow]

I personally think they are crazy. The other night a bomb hit within 100feet of the Palestinian Hotel (or whatever it's called) which is the hotel where most of the international media are in baghdad. However, the craziest ones are the imbedded journalists... they are off their rocker.

 

[pulse8]

If they were really a problem, the military would've removed them just like they did Rivera.

As for the families watching it all on television, well, they should just turn off the TV if they don't want to watch it.

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: pulse8
If they were really a problem, the military would've removed them just like they did Rivera.

As for the families watching it all on television, well, they should just turn off the TV if they don't want to watch it.

Yeah, I'll send your kid over there and then broadcast it 24/7 and tell you "not to watch it if you don't want to." Of course they don't want to, but they have to, y'know? And the military removed Rivera after he fvcked up, keep that in mind. And I'm not just talking about screwing things up in terms of reporting troop movements like he did, either.

 

[johnjohn320]

bumparooski

 

[WinkOsmosis]

It's called journalism... you know, what informs us of what is actually happening...

 

[LethalWolfe]

I think having the journalists there is a very good thing. If for nothing else than for capturing the war for future generations. If journalists weren't allowed we'd have very little footage of WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, etc. These people are risking their lives to document history.


Lethal

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Mallow
I personally think they are crazy. The other night a bomb hit within 100feet of the Palestinian Hotel (or whatever it's called) which is the hotel where most of the international media are in baghdad. However, the craziest ones are the imbedded journalists... they are off their rocker.

If embedded journalists are off their rocker, just how crazy are the soldiers who are the target of the enemy?

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe
I think having the journalists there is a very good thing. If for nothing else than for capturing the war for future generations. If journalists weren't allowed we'd have very little footage of WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, etc. These people are risking their lives to document history.


Lethal

The issue isn't even so much that there are journalists there, as you've pointed out, they've always been there since WWI. But things are different now, journalists are frankly being very unethical a lot of times. Despite what they say, a lot of networks are releasing the names of the dead before the military has informed the family, etc. My parents were explaining to me just the other night at how journalism was OK in the other previous wars because the journalists and news networks followed the rules. They didn't venture off where they weren't supposed to, they didn't compromise information about their location or plans, and the news channels didn't report casualties until the families were informed by the military. I'm not saying all reporters/news networks are acting inappropriately, but a good handful are in their quest to get the hot scoop or best shot.

It's called journalism... you know, what informs us of what is actually happening...

I hardly think that the public so desperately needs to know infinite details about the war (as in, it's being broadcast 24/7 on multiple networks), especially seeing as it can compromise the safety of our soldiers.

 

[ElFenix]

at least they're not out-right lying about whats happening like they did in vietnam.

 

[Kev]

what did geraldo do? i was 10 back then...

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
Maybe I'll be stepping on some toes here, but I think we need to get all the journalists out of Iraq. Honestly, what good are they doing? They're not helping the war effort in any way, and whether or not they intend to, they could very well be hindering it. We all know about Giraldo Rivera, so I won't dwell on it, but that's just an example of how a reporter trying to be the big man in the news world can get our boys (and girls) killed. It's no big secret that during the First Persian Gulf War in the 90's Saddam Hussein got CNN in his bunker and watched it to keep up with the war? Doesn't that bother anyone?

On top of this, I feel horrible for the families of the troops over there. The sentiments they've expressed are no surprise to me, they're absolutely glued to their TVs. They don't want to be, but could you peel yourself away from it, knowing what it's broadcasting? It's making their lives even more miserable and paranoia-filled than they already are.

I just don't see what is accomplished by having them there, and i see a lot of negatives...

So what if Saddam gets to see his city getting bombed on CNN. How does that help him? It's not like he can stop the bombs.

As for the families of the troops. How do you know it's making them more miserable and paranoid? The heaviest supporters for the war are conservatives, and they're the most likely to enlist in the military.

If anything the journalists have made this war popular by showing how well it's been executed.

 

[chiwawa626]

Originally posted by: maladroit
what did geraldo do? i was 10 back then...

he hosted an insane jerry springer rip-off show.

 

[kermalou]

live from al capone's vault......................

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe
I think having the journalists there is a very good thing. If for nothing else than for capturing the war for future generations. If journalists weren't allowed we'd have very little footage of WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, etc. These people are risking their lives to document history.


Lethal

I agree completely. It's not important that, say, FOX News brings us Greg Kelly live via videophone in the middle of a firefight, but documenting the various engagements from the soldier's point of view is something that is important for history. In the first Gulf War, one of if not the greatest tank battle in history went unrecorded. Yes, there will be jackasses like Geraldo who forget the rules for the sake of sensationalism, but for the most part these journalists, both embedded and otherwise, have been exemplary.

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
Maybe I'll be stepping on some toes here, but I think we need to get all the journalists out of Iraq. Honestly, what good are they doing? They're not helping the war effort in any way, and whether or not they intend to, they could very well be hindering it. We all know about Giraldo Rivera, so I won't dwell on it, but that's just an example of how a reporter trying to be the big man in the news world can get our boys (and girls) killed. It's no big secret that during the First Persian Gulf War in the 90's Saddam Hussein got CNN in his bunker and watched it to keep up with the war? Doesn't that bother anyone?

On top of this, I feel horrible for the families of the troops over there. The sentiments they've expressed are no surprise to me, they're absolutely glued to their TVs. They don't want to be, but could you peel yourself away from it, knowing what it's broadcasting? It's making their lives even more miserable and paranoia-filled than they already are.

I just don't see what is accomplished by having them there, and i see a lot of negatives...

So what if Saddam gets to see his city getting bombed on CNN. How does that help him? It's not like he can stop the bombs.

As for the families of the troops. How do you know it's making them more miserable and paranoid? The heaviest supporters for the war are conservatives, and they're the most likely to enlist in the military.

If anything the journalists have made this war popular by showing how well it's been executed.

I'm not talking about Saddam watching as Baghdad is invaded, I'm talking about Saddam watching as reporters are giving info about troop movements and the US's strategy for an upcoming battle.

How do I know it's making the families miserable? Cause I know them, that's how. There was a pretty decent report about it on the news not too long ago that summed it up pretty well. Put yourself in that position, man. How would you feel, knowing your kid might be on TV getting shot at? If you're telling me you wouldn't watch, you're a damn liar.

The journalists have showed what!? Excuse me, who were the ones reporting over and over again every mistake that has been made by coalition forces? Who are the ones that are constantly showing images of burning homes, and talking about how the US is bombing residential areas? Don't you remember the whole "baby milk factory" fiasco and everything else that Peter Arnett started during the first Persian Gulf War?

 

[Looney]

I'm not talking about Saddam watching as Baghdad is invaded, I'm talking about Saddam watching as reporters are giving info about troop movements and the US's strategy for an upcoming battle.

Um yeah... that happens A LOT. The one time i'm aware of, Geraldo got booted out. I spent most of the time watching CNN, and i never heard of any direct troops movements. And hell, the Generals gave press conferences on it themselves. Maybe you should leave out what's strategic and what's not to the military. I don't think you're highschool eduation is up to standards with theirs.

How do I know it's making the families miserable? Cause I know them, that's how. There was a pretty decent report about it on the news not too long ago that summed it up pretty well. Put yourself in that position, man. How would you feel, knowing your kid might be on TV getting shot at? If you're telling me you wouldn't watch, you're a damn liar.

How the hell would you know what i would or wouldn't do?

The journalists have showed what!? Excuse me, who were the ones reporting over and over again every mistake that has been made by coalition forces? Who are the ones that are constantly showing images of burning homes, and talking about how the US is bombing residential areas? Don't you remember the whole "baby milk factory" fiasco and everything else that Peter Arnett started during the first Persian Gulf War?

You're an idiot. Either you haven't been watching the news, or you don't understand what you're watching. And why are you bringing what happened in the first gulf war into this discussion? The media didn't have anywhere near the access as they did in this war. When something happens, you get to see it happen almost immediately. If something goes FUBARed, you see it... and if something goes well, you get to see it. Wouldn't this help regulate the military so they'll try to do more good then FUBARed, since they won't have a chance to spin what happened?

 

[Mill]

Wrong Forum. We have a forum specifically for the War and the Middle East.

 

[Sketcher]

Get the journalists out.

Though, at least now they're showing the Liberation! And the Iraqi people expressing themselves.

 

[yoda291]

wrong forum

and another thing

Does anyone here think that shock and awe is slightly less effective if the enemy KNOWS it's a psychological attack?

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: yoda291
wrong forum

and another thing

Does anyone here think that shock and awe is slightly less effective if the enemy KNOWS it's a psychological attack?

I don't think you would say that if your eardrums were being pounded by explosions.

 

[pulse8]

I hardly think that the public so desperately needs to know infinite details about the war (as in, it's being broadcast 24/7 on multiple networks), especially seeing as it can compromise the safety of our soldiers.

Who are you to say what the public needs to or wants to know?

 

[Amused]

The journalists are there for a reason. The US military thought this one out long and hard, and decided the imbedded journalist was the best plan to use.

Why?

If we did not have western journalists in Iraq, and in the action, the only news would be from Middle Eastern news sources. They'd follow behind our troups, and report everything with their own less than honest spin. We've seen how skewed ME reporters and newscasts can be. If we didn't have our own reporters over there, the news would be filled with ME news reports of civilian slaughters and GI looting. This is stopped cold by having reporters from all over the world right there in the action. Look at the BS the Iraqi information minister was trying to pull. That propaganda might have worked were there not reporters with our troops.

If you really think about this, the US's decision to imbed reporters was a very good one. It does have it's pitfalls, but the advantages far outweigh them. If you heard reports of a civilian slaughter --perpetrated by a unit that was reported on constantly by a western reporter who saw or reported nothing of the kind-- would you believe it? You might had the reporter not been with the unit the entire war.

 

[Anubis]

i think they deserved to be killed

because we should STOP SHOWING TEH WAR ON TV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

they wanna be there. fine! give them a gun and say good luck

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: yoda291
wrong forum

and another thing

Does anyone here think that shock and awe is slightly less effective if the enemy KNOWS it's a psychological attack?

"Shock and awe" was a propaganda tool. It was a diversion. A feint, if you will.

Main Entry: [1]feint
Pronunciation: 'fAnt
Function: noun
Etymology: French feinte, from Old French, from feint, past participle of feindre
Date: 1679
: something feigned; specifically : a mock blow or attack on or toward one part in order to distract attention from the point one really intends to attack
synonym see TRICK