Why do media types report on military matters when they have no military knowledge?

[AndrewR]

Take this report on the MOAB for instance.

I'm still reading it, but he talks about the destructive power of the Massive Ordnance Air Burst and compares it, purely by weight, to both the rating of nuclear weapons and to heavier bombs used or developed during WWII. Here's the problem with his "analysis": the rating of nuclear weapons is predicated on kilo- (or mega-) tons of TNT, not more modern explosives. The same thing goes for larger weapons in WWII. The weight may be more, but the explosive power is not necessarily so. What rational person would think that explosives technology has not improved in almost 60 years?

I see this kind of stuff every day, and it really annoys me because it spreads misinformation and misconceptions about military capabilities, efficacy, intent, and wisdom. This is a fairly minor example, but it's far from the only example.

Just felt like venting.

 

[Zim Hosein]

Because people actually believe everything the media reports

 

[rudeguy]

for the same reason we comment on stuff we dont know about...except in the media you are going for ratings points instead of posts

 

[JellyBaby]

Presentation and style are more important than getting your facts perfect.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, the question I have for is do you believe that this could have the explosive power of 2,000,000 lbs of TNT?

 

[TheBDB]

MOAB contains 18,000 lbs of tritinol. Tritinol is made of TNT and aluminum flakes.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Perception is everything. The truth be damned.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Perception is everything. The truth be damned.

Or as my father used to say tongue in cheek "A lie is as good as the truth, if you can get someone to believe it"

 

[TallBill]

yeah, weight obviously isnt the same as blast power.. jeez

 

[da loser]

so what is the blast power of a moab or daisy cutter? it's kinda funny how he berates other reporters, when he's the one that is wrong, lol.

 

[UltraQuiet]

I see this kind of stuff every day, and it really annoys me because it spreads misinformation and misconceptions about military capabilities, efficacy, intent, and wisdom.

Personally the more of that I see the happier I am. It is when I see the technically accurate, often times classified info. published in a public forum that I really get annoyed.

 

[tcsenter]

The same thing goes for larger weapons in WWII. The weight may be more, but the explosive power is not necessarily so. What rational person would think that explosives technology has not improved in almost 60 years?

It hasn't really. Fuzing and detonators have improved. Manufacturing, extruding, casting, and loading processes have definitely improved and we've learned a lot about how different substances can be combine to produce different properties for different applications, but the staples of current military and commercial high explosives use have been around for a long, long, time; HMX, RDX, PETN, TNT, ANFO, etc.

A lot of these compounds were nearly perfected by the late 1800's or early 1900's. A 22,000fps VOD today is the same as it was in 1930.

But your point is not entirely missed. The media keeps referring to the Daisy Cutter and MOAB as 'fuel air explosives' when both are 'air burst' explosives, not FAE.

 

[Martin]

when is the media correct on any technical matter? How many of us have cringed when some dumb fsck starts reporting about computers?

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: da loser
so what is the blast power of a moab or daisy cutter? it's kinda funny how he berates other reporters, when he's the one that is wrong, lol.

While I do not know the blast power of either the MOAB or the BLU-82 (FYI, the "daisy cutter" is actually the fuse and NOT the bomb itself -- who's the ignorant one?), I could probably find out since knowing things such as that is part of my job description, depending on the positions that I could occupy. I am not currently in a targeting job, but I could be down the road. In any event, while I could find out the information, it would be classified and not for public consumption. Further, I'm not writing articles on MSNBC that purport to be fact.

Well, the question I have for is do you believe that this could have the explosive power of 2,000,000 lbs of TNT?

Don't be silly.

MOAB contains 18,000 lbs of tritinol. Tritinol is made of TNT and aluminum flakes.

Source?

Personally the more of that I see the happier I am. It is when I see the technically accurate, often times classified info. published in a public forum that I really get annoyed.

While inapplicable in this case, what annoys me is when they take their misstatements and use them to critisize the military. "Why are we sending this here when we could just do this instead and avoid these problems?" While I certainly agree that keeping certain capabilities close-in is more than desirable, using blatant lies as a jumping off point for blasting the military is ludricous.

Fuzing and detonators have improved. Manufacturing, extruding, casting, and loading processes have definitely improved and we've learned a lot about how different substances can be combine to produce different properties for different applications...

What you reference is hardly minor, however.

 

[tcsenter]

when is the media correct on any technical matter? How many of us have cringed when some dumb fsck starts reporting about computers?

There was a journalist, he is a recognizable one but I can't remember his name for the life of me, has been in the business for years and years. Anyway, he once wrote "The dirty little secret among journalists is that we know very little about the majority of issues we're made to report about."

Unless you're a veteran reporter or journalist with lots of clout, you can't just refuse to cover or write about a story you're told to cover or write about. Saying "but I don't know anything about that" will usually be met with hysterical laughter.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

when is the media correct on any technical matter? How many of us have cringed when some dumb fsck starts reporting about computers?

There was a journalist, he is a recognizable one but I can't remember his name for the life of me, has been in the business for years and years. Anyway, he once wrote "The dirty little secret among journalists is that we know very little about the majority of issues we're made to report about."

Unless you're a veteran reporter or journalist with lots of clout, you can't just refuse to cover or write about a story you're told to cover or write about. Saying "but I don't know anything about that" will usually be met with hysterical laughter.

I'd say that's not really surprising when I think about it, but the appropriate action to take is to seek out those that do have knowledge to make an informed report. Of course, that would require effort and professionalism, which seems to be in short supply in so many places these days. Instead of going to the American military haters at FAS or Global Security, they could talk to the military itself or some place like SAIC, DynCorp, or various other contractors that are chock full of people who've actually been in the military.