or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › War and the media
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

War and the media

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
I was just wondering what you all thought of having imbedded new reporters with the different division of this war...

At first I thought it was a good idea, then I began to realize that with sooo much media coverage ti could make things much harder for our troops. I also tend to think that with right up to the minute coverage, it not only gives us a window into what is going on, albeit a small window, but it also seems to raise the anxiety level of people watching those reports..

watcha think??
post #2 of 36
Ken, with the exception of one idiot, Geraldo Rivera, I think the media has done an excellent job of covering the war. Walter Cronkite brought up a point on Larry King Live the other night: He said that the term "embedded reporter" makes it sound like they are "in bed with the troops" and he worried about how biased the reports are.

I'm not so much concerned with how much information they are giving out. I was at the beginning of the war, before they even hit Iraq, but as it's gone along I've heard more times than I can count "I can't give details for operational security." I heard one reporter tell the anchor "Everything I'm saying has been cleared by the Commander of this Unit."

They also had a piece this evening on CNN about War Propoganda and how much of it we are really exposed to. It's easy to see it coming from the other side, but how much of it do you think we see as "hard news"? How biased are the embedded reporters?
post #3 of 36
After the inflated "body counts" and BS, from Vietnam, I'm in favor of on-scene coverage.

So far, with that ONE notable exception, the reports have not compromised security. Hey, its the reporter's butt, too! Is a normal person going to say, "Here I am, frag me!"?

Another point: considering the overwhelming liberal tendencies, of media people, I believe that this is causing reporters to develop some well-deserved respect, for our military. They are the first, to whine "First Amendment". Now, they are meeting, firsthand, the people who defend that amendment.
post #4 of 36
In Point CounterPoint, someone brought up the fact that the reporters sometimes know to much, simply because of their observation powers. It was discussed how effective these reporters could hold on to their information if captured by the enemy and put under duress and torture.
post #5 of 36
I am glad the reporters are over there ,but its strange to be watching the war. I allways keep an eye out for american propaganda. I wonder
'Is this news or is this spin" Who cant hate a guy called Chemical Ali. And stuff like we see pictures of happy Iraqis that they are free and they see pictures of injured civilians. American tv is not as bias as middle east tv but I think i have seen some things that is meant to sway my opinion about the war. All i know about the war is what i see on tv.
post #6 of 36
I think there have been a few things here and there I wish the media hadn't said.

This is my short detail story.
Anyone notice how that at home reporter on CNN revealed the "secret" location of on of the on site reporters, and shortly after the American reporters were captured and kicked out? ha!

Geraldo is an idiot, to take his chance at fame for having the first story and endangering our troops, thank you moron, I applaud you!

It is nice to have them over there, but you never really know how and which stores are twisted from which sides. So even their reports and photos could be falsified.

Some other guy got fired because he altered a photo, by joining 2 of them together to make one picture, big no no buddy.
post #7 of 36
I thought it very sad that the reporter Dave Bloom passed away. It was not battle related, but he was only 39. I feel sorry for his family. I also believe a reporter from the Washington Post has passed away. They are also in the line of fire and just because they have the word "media" on their flack jackets doesn't make them any less of a target.
post #8 of 36
I have to wonder, how much of a burden are they on the troops? When the troops are in the middle hostile situation, do they have to worry about the reporter who isn't trained and doesn't know procedure? Someones gotta be in charge of making sure the reporter doesn't get hurt. Are we just giving the soldiers one more thing to worry about? A distraction that could lead to more casualties?

I'm all for coverage, but I'm not sure how I feel about them being as close to the action as they are. If my SO got sent over, I think it would make me feel worse, not better to get such a birds eye view of what's going on. Because they give you just enough of a picture to worry, but not enough to set your mind at ease about your loved one. Does that make sense? Watching would upset me more, wondering if he was okay, and not seeing enough to know that he was indeed. It's just enough info to get my imagination going overtime.

My opinion of this subject changes daily. This is just how I feel today
post #9 of 36
It is a good thing that we can see what happens there. Later, nobody will be able to say "We did not know!!"
What really gets on my nerves is that only the "enbedded" journalists(=those who travel together with the troops--> Americans & English men)
are "allowed" to report things. The other independant journalists are pestered away and have lots of difficulties to broadcast!! I think that is NOT fair at all!
post #10 of 36
I am sick and tired of the war being covered second by second. I don't watch much tv in the first place and now when I open it, nothing but war is on. I know it's important to show what's going on, but please, give people a break
post #11 of 36
At least in my area, at midnight, the regular CNN goes off the air for an hour and International CNN takes over. I find this portion of reporting fascinating, and I see things on this program that I do not see on the regualar coverage. I think some of the US reporters are dolts and are just chasing their *biggest scoop* and forget about the danger. I don't find that with the International coverage at all. For example last night they were talking about how when the contract bids went out worldwide to find a company to handle the oil field fires, the bid was *awarded* to a company that Dick Cheney used to be vice president of. Makes you sort of think about things, if what is being reported is true.
post #12 of 36
Actually, there IS an Al-Jazeera reporter, embedded with the troops. We don't see his reports because most of us don't watch Al-Jazeera. There are, also some Austalian and Polish reporters, there.

As for protecting them, the reporters were told that military commanders will not risk soldiers' lives, to protect the reporters. Reporters had to go through a "boot camp" before being cleared, for these assignments. Each one is responsible, for taking cover, maintaining his equipment and getting into his chem/bio suit, if necessary. They all knew the risks and they are all volonteers.
post #13 of 36
I am getting a little sick of all the coverage, like there is nothing else going on in the world. I think full time coverage of the war is a good opportunity for other stuff to slip by unnoticed.
I am glad to see a lot of the coverage on FOX news is being done by former members of our military that have had the training, if not the battle experience, to know what to do. I am glad to see the likes of Oliver North out there with the troops. He is not going to slow anybody down. I am sure can hold his own if necessary, even to picking up a weapon and defending himself.
I have kept to FOX news ever since the terribly biased coverage of 9-11 on some of the other news channels, and I feel as if their no spin policy is working. While it is tempting to keep it on 24-7, just to keep up, when it gets to be too much, I turn it off.
post #14 of 36
Fox news is the only channel I watch when it comes to War Coverage. AS far as the reporters being a hazard, I don't think that is the case. They all had to go thru extensive training, and many are military trained to begin with. Col. Oliver North can definitly hold his own! The man is a marvel! And Mark Leventhal was in the marines for 5 years as well. I think that they can all hold their own, and needless to say they all volunteered!
post #15 of 36
I don't know, I don't trust those reporters. My feeling (from all the stories I have heard) is that they would do anything to get a story.
I respect and admire them for their courage, but I think most of them aren't there for the right reasons.

I have heard too many stories about reporters budging in when they shouldn't interfer with the troops. And I also think some of them don't quite comprehend that fact that this is a real war, not just an LA riot to cover... Look how many reporters got killed in this war! is it worth it? I'm not sure.

I admit, I find it interesting to watch it all on TV, but I agree that it really brings up the level of anxiety for me. I don't know if the pictures of the Americans POWs were ever aired in USA, but I saw it, and it kept me awake at night. But the good point - is that this is a "bargain-card", so the whole world knows these soldiers are alive, and the Iraqis can't lie about it!! (like they lie about eveything else)
post #16 of 36
According to today's paper, some news organizations are pulling their people out, because of the danger. There have been about 7 reporters killed. Some of them say that there's no story, now that Baghdad has fallen.
post #17 of 36
Bill is having withdrawal symptoms - he misses "Baghdad Bob", the Minister of Misinformation. We haven't seen hide nor hair of him, since Monday or Tuesday. Wonder where he could be?
post #18 of 36
Originally posted by katl8e
According to today's paper, some news organizations are pulling their people out, because of the danger. There have been about 7 reporters killed. Some of them say that there's no story, now that Baghdad has fallen.
1. I was beginning to wonder when the media would tire of covering this 24/7.

2. It's about time the media discovers that war is a dangerous and serious business and not just a ratings game. At least some agencies are seeing that their reporters' lives are worth more than a plug nickel.
post #19 of 36
My husband finds it rather perverse to be sitting in front of the TV, eating peanuts and watching the war, and I have to agree with him. We get CNN International over here, and CNBC, in addition to the German channels. I've found that it's best to watch a number of channels, because some are very biased. Fox News has come under fire in the press because of its being controlled by Rupert Murdoch. I can't comment on that because I haven't seen its coverage. CNN International has been relatively even-handed, in my opinion.
post #20 of 36
My money is on Baghdad Bob hiding out in the many tunnels that intersect the city. After all he vanished quite quickly and quietly for being so well-known. CNN International is the best coverage to watch IMO- to bad it doesn't show up till midnight here.
post #21 of 36
someone has set up a webpage to 'capture' the wisdom and wit of the Info minister, at:We love the Iraqi Info Minister.com
post #22 of 36
I saw something really bizarre on FoxNews last night.
The Iraqi ambassador to the UN was leaving their mission in NYC to skedaddle to Paris, and spoke briefly to the reporters who were there. The CNN reporter who has been on the UN beat was there - his first name is Richard, I don't know the last name. The ambassador thanked him by name, and a few seconds later, he opened the car door and started to climb in. He suddenly stopped, walked over to the CNN reporter, and while thanking him again and shaking his hand, gave him an 'air kiss' on each cheek.

Now, I kinda hope the reporter was schtuping him, because that would be a heck of a lot better than him thanking him in that way for his coverage.
post #23 of 36
Originally posted by Lucia
someone has set up a webpage to 'capture' the wisdom and wit of the Info minister, at:We love the Iraqi Info Minister.com
That site is priceless! I love the quotes, from historic battles. Ed Asner would be a good choice to play Baghdad Bob, in the movie, since Curly is dead.
post #24 of 36
Lucia, that site is great! You have to admit - el-Sahaf has an incredible imagination. Has anybody had a look at the NY Times site today? There's an article about what people were saying in an Egyptian cafe - one guy thinks the U.S. is hiding Saddam.
post #25 of 36
Looks like that site was so popular it crashed 8 websites that shared the same server! They say it will be up and running again on a dedicated server within 24 hrs.
post #26 of 36
Well, every conflict needs its comic relief. Do you think that any of our guys believed Tokyo Rose, Lord Haw-haw or Seoul City Sue?
post #27 of 36
I dount it, but at least "Baghdad Bob" gave us something to laugh about.
post #28 of 36
A British reporter mentioned that Baghdad Bob wasn't in the "55 most wanted" deck of cards and that meant that it was missing the Joker.
post #29 of 36
Now THAT is a good one! lol.
post #30 of 36
An unconfirmed report, out of Iran this morning, says that Baghdad Bob committed suicide, after the fall of Baghdad. Considering the source, I'd take that with a grain of salt.

Personally, I think that he's negotiating with Bud Friedman for a spot at the Improv.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › War and the media