Go to Adventures in Psychosis
- Add a comment
- Go to The saturation of media on the battlefield (Temple, this one's for you) =)
There was an interesting article in the Atlantic Monthly about reporters...
in Iraq, I think it was last months edition. One thing the writer made plain is that they are not giving us the whole story. They are giving as much truth as they can while abiding by the restrictions imposed by military censors. There is no freedom of the press uder the Unified Code of Military Justice. The interests of the mission take precedence over all considerations of freedom of speech, civil rights, and such. This is as it shoould be, if they told everything that they knew or saw they could endanger troops and military secrets.
As a matter of fact, I believe that there was a problem with one reporter broadcasting the coordinates of the troops location that he was with. I want to say it was Geraldo Rivera, but I might be remembering that incorrectly,I also remember this incident taking place in Afganistan, not Iraq - but again, I could be remembering this incorrectly. I am certain that such an incident did take place though. I personally have mixed feelings about embedded reporters. Experienced war correspondents are probably ok, they have been going out with the troops since Vietnam, if not WWII. The sane ones carry weapons for personal protection, and they have seen more action during their careers than all but the most hardened veterans among the troops. I think it is unlikely that such men would endanger the troops that they are attached to. But, this time, there are too many of them.
Anyway, check out that article if you like, it was informative...The Atlantic is a great magazine, and well worth the subscription price and you can get it all online at http://www.theatlantic.com/.
Peace Hacker
posted by
jimmy68
on June 10, 2005 at 11:40 AM
| link to this | reply
Michael
Thank you so much for commenting here Michael. All we can really do is speculate what’s going on over there from here, while you’ve had first hand experience. I hear from a few of my friends every now and then, but usually I’m too caught up in the fact that I’m talking to them to ask any “pressing questions”. Besides, I’m sure the last thing they want to do is explain things to me. It’s good to hear from you =)
posted by
Unidentified_Hacker
on June 8, 2005 at 1:49 PM
| link to this | reply
I think they should just draft the reporters already.
If they want to be there that badly, let them fight. PLUS maybe they'd learn something about the effects of revealing the more important stuff. Boy I am anti-reporter these days, huh?
posted by
FactorFiction
on June 8, 2005 at 11:57 AM
| link to this | reply
IT is blood and spilled guts that entertain the US population ad bring the ratings up. While in Iraq, I never actually saw a report on CNN or Fox about the reconstruction, schools, medical care or when civilians would get killed by insurgents only if they got caught in crossfire by americans. Media does not belong there but is what keeps you entertained
posted by
michael_pilarte
on June 8, 2005 at 10:14 AM
| link to this | reply
UH
There is just a rush to judge with these reporters. First they want to be the one that gets the days biggest story. When they give the report, it is typically slanted. The people see the story and feel sorry for the poor victim (which usually is someone trying to kill them and a bunch of others). IMHO.. I think we should take the reporters out of the theater of operations and have them get a brief every so often. When I look at some of this reporting, it has "hot dog" written all over it. That said, you know there is a soldier who has put his life on the line for the stupid hot dog. The news needs to step back and take a real long look at how they deliver, the impact it has on the people, the facts of what they are saying, rather than this off the cuff reporting. Because they don't, they drive public opinion...except for those who are smarter and figure out the agenda of the typical American liberal news. A good example of that was Dan Rather and his bunch...CBS had already done so much damage, refused to acknowledge they were wrong, and when the pressure was applied what did they do? Blamed it on the other guy. Well, that didn't work, Rather took an "early retirement" to save his lying face. Reporters should just report facts. No gloss, no opinion, just say the truth. Sorry to ramble.. this is an issue I feel strongly about.
Loved the post!
posted by
Offy
on June 8, 2005 at 4:09 AM
| link to this | reply
Nikki
Yes, you must be 21 to drink. You can enter at 18, but only be served soda's..
posted by
Offy
on June 8, 2005 at 3:58 AM
| link to this | reply
Pubs
Do you need to be 21 to enter a pub in your state? Here in Belgium you can enter one at 18.
Nickie
posted by
Nickie-Fleming
on June 8, 2005 at 3:00 AM
| link to this | reply
Alrighty then....
First, the situation with the soldier who was charged with shooting the allegedly unarmed Iraqi men is fucking ridiculous. I hear you. He was at war, they get tricked all the damn time by these men pretending to surrender, and under the "boy who cried wolf" theory, he was scared. They didn't stop when told, even the cops would have shot them. Secondly, I agree, trying to stop all the heinous things that happen during war will never happen. However, I believe that we lose all hope of humanity if we stop trying (I'm speaking of torture and human rights violations now). On to the big point. Most, the majority, of reporters in country are there NOT attached to any military or embedded with any unit. I know there are a lot, but we cannot say yes to some and no to others under the concept of freedom of information, free press, and so on. Can't be done. It smacks of hypocrisy and dishonesty. Most of the journalists there are freelancing or attached to a news organization of some type around the world only, and not embedded. However, I think being embedded is good. It all is good. It all shows the whole picture. Maybe not one story, but many stories. The reason it's been such a big deal for this war is because during the Gulf war the Bush Sr. administration would not let media have access and there was so much shit that blew up because of that. This time they decided to give full access. They do take the risk, and they are told that the unit is there to look after the soldiers/marines not the reporters....they know this. I would always err on the side of too much information, rather than too little. Especially with a power hungry ignoramus like Bush Jr. in the White House. If we didn't know what we did, people would think things were going swimmingly and his popularity would be fine, paving the way for another Republican in the White House....paving the way for laws in Congress...however, people now don't trust him, they see the truth (fucking finally). It's not just about this war, that reporter, whatever. It's about the political machine, the people of the country, and what is happening and going to happen in the future.
posted by
Temple
on June 8, 2005 at 1:18 AM
| link to this | reply