Why do the networks broadcast naval movements..

[RossGr]

I have heard the number of carriers, destroyer etc. being dispatched, I have heard where the president is and where he is expected to go. I do not need to know this and IF there were a real attack going on that is vital information. Have the networks no sense of responsibility, or sense period!

 

[shiner]

After the Gulf War I can remember seeing a special with Bernard Shaw(CNN), Peter Jennings(ABC), Dan Rather(CBS), and Tom Brokaw(NBC) and they were all asked if they would broadcast movement of troops, if they had the information, during a war knowing it could cause American troops harm. Except for Peter Jennings every one of them said yes, that the public had a right to know regardless of if it compromised the mission or put the troops in harm's way.

 

[vi edit]

<< Except for Peter Jennings every one of them said yes, that the public had a right to know regardless of if it compromised the mission or put the troops in harm's way. >>



That just is not right. Hell, feed me a complete line of BS about them moving on the other side of the country to tide me over. My "right to know" is no where as important as keeping our boys out of harms way.

 

[BeHeMOTH]

Some things just need to be kept hush hush.

 

[CQuinn]

Let me get this straight.

You would rather have them report that the military is doing nothing, and currently the President is missing?

BS.

You have to keep in mind that these guys can only report on
(A) what they directly witness, which any "enemy" could also do, or
(B) what the government/military tells them.

The only reason they know where the President is or where the Navy is going is becuase that is the information they
were given from the Feds to report. It forces you to pay attention to the information available, and distracts you
from thinking about the things they are not telling you about our troop movements, intelligence investigations, and
government decisions all going on in the background right now.

 

[RossGr]

My hope is that the Navy is feed bad info... The public has no need to know the destination of Naval ships or how many are moveing I certinally do not need to know where the Pres. is in times like this.

If the "enemy" wants to know about such things let them figure it out on their own, It is to easy if all they have to do is watch TV.

 

[yoda291]

<< Let me get this straight.

You would rather have them report that the military is doing nothing, and currently the President is missing?

BS.

You have to keep in mind that these guys can only report on
(A) what they directly witness, which any "enemy" could also do, or
(B) what the government/military tells them.

The only reason they know where the President is or where the Navy is going is becuase that is the information they
were given from the Feds to report. It forces you to pay attention to the information available, and distracts you
from thinking about the things they are not telling you about our troop movements, intelligence investigations, and
government decisions all going on in the background right now. >>



they could leave it at : "The President has been secured and we military forces have been mobilized". Short, simple, to the point. But you also make valid points.

 

[jehh]

<<

<< Except for Peter Jennings every one of them said yes, that the public had a right to know regardless of if it compromised the mission or put the troops in harm's way. >>



That just is not right. Hell, feed me a complete line of BS about them moving on the other side of the country to tide me over. My "right to know" is no where as important as keeping our boys out of harms way. >>



Yes, in a time of war, I don't need to know until later...

Our troops lives are MOST important... Use them if needed, but don't risk them needlessly...

Jason

 

[yakko]

<< Why do the networks broadcast naval movements.. >>

It is kind of hard to hide ships that big anyway.

 

[BD2003]

Exactly. When an aircraft carrier floats down the hudson river, everyone is going to know.

And remember kids, what they tell us is not what always is...

 

[vegetation]

It doesn't matter in this case, really. An entire hijacked commercial airline fleet would be no match against a carrier task force.

 

[Tominator]

Deterrance

That word somes up the purpose of a carrier group. We want the enemy to know!

The US Armed Forces learned their lesson in Vietnam. The Media is fed info on a measured basis. CNN was used in the fake landing in the Desert Storm and no reporters were allowed anywhere near anything important that was going on.

 

[TRUMPHENT]

The good news is the at the carrier groups were moved out! Why! Psychological support mainly, and it disperses lucrative targets. Once a carrier group gets out to sea it can take care of itself. Even if you knew where they were operating, you couldn't get near it.

 

[astroview]

It's psychologically reassuring to normal citizens to know where the president is and that he is working on an issue.

 

[crabbyapple1]

Just as long as they report something. It doesn't have to be true or anything (at least on part of the POTUS). If they were to give misinformation on the whereabouts of the POTUS, then that's to their advantage is it not?

 

[RossGr]

What has my, or your, psyological well being matter in cases like this, I would be satisfied with a video tape from Air Force 1. I do not need to know what time he will be leaving which airport or when he will be arriving.

I do not need to know that 2 aircraft carriers, 5 destroyers, and 2 frigits are being dispatched to the coast of NY. Let the bad guys find out for themselves. Of course if the military is giving them bad info that is even better.