The Television War-Journalists in the Middle East

[sciencetoy]

Geez, you guys are idiots.

It's all about "spin". From the top down. That's what politicians do. Any good military dude has to be a good politician or he doesn't get very far.

As the dude says, this is what journalists do.

Spin is publicity, controlled. Publicity comes thru the media. The media is all those reporters. While the administration would love to control all of the media, they don't.

This war is almost as interesting from the point of view of the reporting of it, as it is for the war itself.

As for the families of the military, I don't think it was better back in my years (Vietnam) when everybody sat at home and didn't have a clue, just waiting day and night for that official notification. That was no fun. Being a military family is tough.

 

[Anubis]

This war is almost as interesting from the point of view of the reporting of it, as it is for the war itself.

no its not. the war is NOT intresting at all. i have watched less teh 5min of news about it. my roomate yesterday asked me "are we still at war with Iraq"? i told him I didnt now cause i didnt. war shouldent be televised. all they should say is that we are dooing good or dooing bad.

War shoudl be faught on the principles of Total War. where you dont obey any rules you just do what you need to to win. if that means killing everyone or burning a whole town to the ground. so be it. its war people die. there is too much pussy footing arround in todays "war".

and thoes jurnalist are fair game also. fuk if i was out there id shoot them first cause they make me sick.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TheEvil1

This war is almost as interesting from the point of view of the reporting of it, as it is for the war itself.

no its not. the war is NOT intresting at all. i have watched less teh 5min of news about it. my roomate yesterday asked me "are we still at war with Iraq"? i told him I didnt now cause i didnt. war shouldent be televised. all they should say is that we are dooing good or dooing bad.

War shoudl be faught on the principles of Total War. where you dont obey any rules you just do what you need to to win. if that means killing everyone or burning a whole town to the ground. so be it. its war people die. there is too much pussy footing arround in todays "war".

and thoes jurnalist are fair game also. fuk if i was out there id shoot them first cause they make me sick.

Meanwhile, back in realityland, your "total war" would have you out of office in less than one term. The public just will not stand for indiscriminate collateral damage anymore.

As I said in my previous post, the plan the military adopted for imbedded reporters was well thought out. It was the only way to counter the propaganda that spews from the Middle East news outlets.

 

[Moonbeam]

You mean, Amused, the propaganda where the middle east broadcasters show the tearing down of Saddam's statue and the cheering mocking Iraqi public?

We also got from them pictures of our dead and multitudes of woonded civilians including children which, for some strange reason, we never see on our networks. It's probably tough to sell a Mc Donalds burger on the commercials after pictures of human intestines splattered on the street, no? A sanitized war that glues people to the ad delivery machine is just the ticket to economic recovery, I should think. Create that old appetite to buy buy buy.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You mean, Amused, the propaganda where the middle east broadcasters show the tearing down of Saddam's statue and the cheering mocking Iraqi public?

We also got from them pictures of our dead and multitudes of woonded civilians including children which, for some strange reason, we never see on our networks. It's probably tough to sell a Mc Donalds burger on the commercials after pictures of human intestines splattered on the street, no? A sanitized war that glues people to the ad delivery machine is just the ticket to economic recovery, I should think. Create that old appetite to buy buy buy.

The accusation was that the imbedded reporters were hindering the war effort. My point was that they are not.

Meanwhile, if you're going to whine about dead Iraqi civilians, whine for the hundreds of thousands, if not millions Saddam has already murdered, and would have murdered in the future were he left in power.

Not one network in the US has failed to report on civilian deaths, Moonie. The body counts are updated daily. The only difference is we try not to show mutilated bodies. We also don't claim civilans are targetted, when it's quite obvious we are doing anything and everything we can to avoid civilian deaths.

 

[Hoober]

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.

I would love to be an imbedded journalist.

 

[Moonbeam]

Amused: The accusation was that the imbedded reporters were hindering the war effort. My point was that they are not.
-----------------------------------
I agree
--------------------

Amused: Meanwhile, if you're going to whine about dead Iraqi civilians, whine for the hundreds of thousands, if not millions Saddam has already murdered, and would have murdered in the future were he left in power.
------------------------------
I didn't whine, I pointed out that what you call propaganda is an aspect of truth left out of our news. The millions you refer to are widely reported on by our side. Why complain I didn't mention that. You didn't mention them either. I was pointing out that the claim of countering propaganda that you made is apparently an attempt to supplant one form of propaganda with another. You didn't mention that the Taliban brought order to Afghanistan. 😀
-------------------

Amused: Not one network in the US has failed to report on civilian deaths, Moonie. The body counts are updated daily. The only difference is we try not to show mutilated bodies. We also don't claim civilans are targetted, when it's quite obvious we are doing anything and everything we can to avoid civilian deaths.
-----------------------
The coverage does not emphasize civilian casualties. There is a great difference in reporting numbers and showing dead children. Saddam kills thousands of his citizens and now we are killing them too. You didn't mention the civilians who are being killed in North Korea and all over the world where where the doctrine of a new American century has not found focus. We save people with oil and strategery, no? Try not to confuse a critique of motive and objective with a condemnation of result. Saddam should have been taken out in 91 and we should never have been on his side at any time like we used to be. We act not out of real ethical principle, but self interest. Try to understand the difference between critique and condemnation. Civilians die regardless of the care taken to protect them. It's a fact and I think we should see the results, not numbers. Are we afraid of truth. Is war wrong in some ultimate way that might just get through to people if they could take in a total picture? We have sandwiches to sell. Better not get too serious, sorry.

 

[johnjohn320]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Point taken, troop movements specifically was a bad example, but I still feel that journalists are saying too much, giving too much away. I respect your opinion if it differs from mine however. But don't lecture me about being in high school until you learn the difference between "you're" and "your". 😉

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

I stand corrected, I guess you do have little concern for your loved ones compared to the rest of us.

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?

I'm an idiot about some things, but certainly not this. Yes, the technology has improved vastly...what exactly does this have to do with ANYTHING I just said?😕 The first gulf war was only 12 years ago, man. Not that much has changed. And if you care to find out how many times the media fvcked up and gave stuff away they weren't supposed to, do some research. I just recently had to for a project on the media's invovlement in both Gulf Wars up to this point. It's a disturbingly long list.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

Who am I? I'm a member of the public with some of my best friends over there getting shot at right now. That's who I am.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
at least they're not out-right lying about whats happening like they did in vietnam.

Are you refering to journalists or the White House/politicans running the war? The journalistic images coming out of Vietnam were the most intense, raw, and honest war images sceen by Americans by that pont in time. The radical civil movements of the 60s and 70s was the orign of the rift that currently exhists between media and government. Because of the lies of thoses administrations regarding Vietnam and later Watergate the American people and the media become disenfranchised w/government. If you look back to the 50's and before there was almost a gentlemen's agreement between government and the media. Certian things were just off limits and there were unwritten rules. You didn't take a picture of FDR in a wheel chair or w/his braces visible. Ike's mistress didn't make headlines and JFK's affiars were never got louder than whispers and back room rumors (a fair cry from the media circus of today). Well I'm starting to rant, but back on point. It was the White House vs the meida during Vietnam. One wanted to report an image while the other wanted to report the truth.


Lethal