With the discussions we've had about reporters being shot at and now that <a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/world/1334550">Israel is suing CNN</a> over its coverage, I'm wondering how people here feel about media coverage of events like wars. Setting aside Hanoi Jane for a moment, we know that much of the protest over Vietnam came as the result of media footage of the war. Most would agree that Vietnam was a disaster and the media, to some degree, put that on display while, at other times, sensationalized things. On the other hand, the coverage of things like the race protests of the 60's and early 70's ("the whole world is watching") brought tremendous benefit to the movement because it put a face on racism in the south that hadn't been seen to that point in other parts of the country. We saw how smart bombs and the technological advances were able to galvonize support for the Gulf War while the images of atrocity and violence in Bosnia and Ruwanda galvonized support in the opposite direction. For me, I'm an information junkie. I like knowing what's going on with things that hold my interest. I want to hear all the stories, not just what is safe or watered down. I also have a tendency to feel very suspicous of any person or group who avoids media contact in times of conflict or difficulty. Thoughts?
Maybe when people get sick and tired of seeing war on thier tv's, we might actually decide on peace. Isn't that a crazy concept?
Jeff, First, I would like to disagree with the idea that Vietnam was a disaster. Our warfighting ability was unquestionably greater than that of the Vietnamese communists. Check the casualty ratios if you don't believe me. That war was lost politically. Why? Because it did not have popular support. Why? At least in part due to media coverage. Two other problems where the draft and our halting of the bombing of North Vietnam and Cambodia. Sending a lot of people to fight that really don't want to be in the military just might not have been a good idea. Their only motivation would be survival. Allowing the enemy to stockpile weapons and bring them into danger only moments before shooting them at you is not a fantastic idea. When a country engages in a war, it is very important that the soldiers are given the ability to prosecute the war by the politicians. Politicians back wars when the polls tell them to. If the horrors of war are shown on television, people will instictively be against the war. So, we need to do two things. 1) Limit the coverage of war to a very low level of detail. Showing some of the strategic goals we have obtained and some video of enemy hardware blowing up a la DS makes people feel that the war is going well, and that our troops are doing a good and honorable job. Showing a kid get mowed down becasue they were trying to sneak a grenade into a firebase looks to the public like the soldiers are baby killers. 2) Hammer into the minds of the American public all of the reasons that we are involved in the war to begin with. The more humanitarian the better. There should also be significant emphasis placed on how the enemy could hurt us if we aren't over their hurting them. IMO, from what I have seen and read (I'm only 22 after all and was born after the conflict in Vietnam ended), the coverage of the conflict in Vietnam was the worst it could be as far as drumming up popular support of the war is concerned. HTH, Yep, lets let the terrorists and dictators run roughshod all over the world while we sit around the campfire and sing kumbaya. Basic physics, the only way to overcome inertia is to apply a force. When an opposing force is applied to you, you had better push back as hard or harder is you don't like where that force is taking you.
Hydra said: 1) Limit the coverage of war to a very low level of detail. Showing some of the strategic goals we have obtained and some video of enemy hardware blowing up a la DS makes people feel that the war is going well, and that our troops are doing a good and honorable job. Yep, don't let them know what is going on. Pretend all the bombs are smart. Just lie to the poeple. You'll be glad to know that Bush applies the same "keep the people dumb and happy" techniques regarding energy policy, the environment, Enron and other issues. I'm sure you would approve to. Why don't you just advocate press censorship? I'm sure you approved of the Ministry of Proaganda or whatever it was the Bushies wanted to call it.
Hydra: The job of the media is not to bolster popular opinion. It is simply to report facts and show images. If people don't like what they see, that is up to who is watching or reading to decide. What you are talking about is propaganda. That is completely different.
What is the job of war? A) To keep people informed B) To kill people for some reason, (hopefully there is a reason) I think the media should be restricted to some degree for reasons of national security. I don't want American soldiers to die because CBS wants to raise its ratings 3 points. I've always believed the US miltaries number one job is protecting Americans including themselves. This would supercede the right of Americans to know information that places this priority in jeopardy. Yes, censorship is a form of dishonesty. Sometimes its important.
