Originally posted by steerpikeThis is not just limited to wartime reporting.
During World War Two. the press in democratic countries censored themselves as well as submitting to military censorship. Bad news such as desertions, mutinies and setbacks were suppressed, and military successes were exaggerated. The press was seen as a part of the military effort, and truth was subverted in the interests of maintaining morale and fightin ...[text shortened]... ch show the action of troops in a poor light be suppressed? And are they are already doing this?
60 years ago (or whatever) British newspapers voluntarily supressed the story about King Edwards affair and likely abdication until it was due to be officially announced.
Regularly they did this kind of thing in order to protect; the monarchy, the state, the PM, or whatever.
I'm sure that if papers published had published 40+ years ago what they publish today they would have been prosecuted for treason.
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayMaking progress - a few Iraqi Baath party members are involved so it is not just the foreigners after all. Do your papers explain how a few dead enders manage to destroy tanks in the heart of Baghdad and create no-go zones in entire cities?
I'm not making it up and the connections between several of the
groups responsible for making sure the Iraqi infrastructures are kept
in disarray are foreign. It isn't a secret a brief review of many articles
covering many of the atta ...[text shortened]... people vote into power whoever they
want as leaders.
Kelly
Originally posted by steerpikeI think you'll find that the BBC had a policy during WWII of reporting everything, the defeats, setbacks and failures at least. I'm sure there was desertion (mutiny would surprise me somewhat...and there are valid military reasons for not releasing that news), but in all the documentaries I've ever seen not much has been made of that. So I doubt it was big enough news (it would have to be mass desertion to be news in those days, today it might be whole 'nother story).
During World War Two. the press in democratic countries censored themselves as well as submitting to military censorship. Bad news such as desertions, mutinies and setbacks were suppressed, and military successes were exaggerated. The press was seen as a part of the military effort, and truth was subverted in the interests of maintaining morale and fightin ...[text shortened]... ch show the action of troops in a poor light be suppressed? And are they are already doing this?
The press as such might be another matter, though I doubt they would shirk to report on what the BBC had already released. The US was probably somewhat different, no equivalent of the BBC for a start.
I think you have to keep in mind that just as the end will be different for today's conflict, so too was the manner in which it took place. WWII was to the death, there was no way of backing out of it. With that in mind I would say that bad news could be just as usefull as good in boosting the determination of the troops and the nation.
The kind of conflicts that have taken place since then have usually been with one nation living in complete security (by that I mean no invasion threat to the homeland). They could withdraw...that makes "bad news" take on a whole new meaning to those in charge.
At the very least I would have to say that makes any comparison between WWII and present day warfare somewhat shaky.
As for self-cesorship, I dont understand your point. Self-censorship existed then, exists today and will always exist. That censorship has various causes, one obvious one being the charge of treason, another being any one journalist's (or editor's) version of patriotism. The entire journalistic world, then as now, would contain all sorts of varieties. The difference now is simply the growth in size and thus the variety.
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by KellyJay"You are forgetting that many times wars are fought because of
You are viewing war from the armchair yourself here. You honestly
think if people knew about the horror of war there would be less of
it? You are forgetting that many times wars are fought because of
the horrors people are doing in peace. Diplomacy against an
invader has proven a good deterrent how many times in the course
of human history? I'm not su ...[text shortened]... them restore their own stability, so they can
stand on their own two feet without us.
Kelly
the horrors people are doing in peace"
I suppose the fact that those horrors were never reported in peacetime, makes it only fair not to report the horrors of war now? 🙄
Seriously though, do you think if saddam's atrocities had been more graphically and widely reported at the time when they took place, the rest of the world would have gone to war? If they would have then it has to be said that horrors motivate people to do "something". If they wouldn't then clearly they are more self-motivated and the most damaging reporting is the state of the economy due to the expenditure on the war effort (barring those who suffer personal loss of course).
If, as I think you'll agree it it's the first, then it depends entirely on who is being made to suffer that will generally decide the direction of public sentiment...
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by MayharmMy point was the horrors of war are not any less than they can be
[b]"You are forgetting that many times wars are fought because of
the horrors people are doing in peace"
I suppose the fact that those horrors were never reported in peacetime, makes it only fair not to report the horrors of war now? 🙄
Seriously though, do you think if saddam's atrocities had been more graphically and widely reported a ...[text shortened]... being made to suffer that will generally decide the direction of public sentiment...
MÅ¥HÅRM[/b]
during peace, simply the frequency of them and the reasons behind
them differ. I have already said that I disagreed with the war in Iraq
it isn't a point I'm going to defend. I am saying that simply talking is
not going to avoid reasons for war or war. People don't always act out
in very rational manners, they do not do it individually, they do not do
it in-groups. Sometime force is required, which is why our police use
force in various degrees, and why the need for military is a necessity.
Kelly
Originally posted by steerpikeI do not believe I have ever said it was 'ALL' foreigners. I did
Making progress - a few Iraqi Baath party members are involved so it is not just the foreigners after all. Do your papers explain how a few dead enders manage to destroy tanks in the heart of Baghdad and create no-go zones in entire cities?
acknowledge why some Iraqi inside the country, and forces
outside of the country do not want the country to be built up
without them being in power. You believe that my saying that
again is a point in your favor in some way?
The ends and outs of the fighting has what to do with this discussion?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayHmm, I think you misunderstood. I was speaking specificaly to the topic in hand, press portrayel of (the) war. You seemed to hold a view about people's reaction to "horrors" that I found somewhat questionable. I do realise that the rest (most) of your post was directed at what you are saying here.
My point was the horrors of war are not any less than they can be
during peace, simply the frequency of them and the reasons behind
them differ. I have already said that I disagreed with the war in Iraq
it isn't a point I'm going to defend. I am saying that simply talking is
not going to avoid reasons for war or war. People don't always act out
in v ...[text shortened]... our police use
force in various degrees, and why the need for military is a necessity.
Kelly
MÅ¥HÅRM
2 edits
Originally posted by MayharmI believe I see your point. Our discussion has touched several areas
Hmm, I think you misunderstood. I was speaking specificaly to the topic in hand, press portrayel of (the) war. You seemed to hold a view about people's reaction to "horrors" that I found somewhat questionable. I do realise that the rest ...[text shortened]... of your post was directed at what you are saying here.
MÅ¥HÅRM
so far. I do not care that the reporting is actuate on the war. Meaing
keep it truthful! I do care that if it is done with an agenda to
undermine support for our forces. This places reporting to prove or
make a point instead of reporting the facts that are going on. When I
got into this discussion it seemed that was what caused me to come
in, where our news reporting was to sicken the will of the people for
war; which is report the war with an agenda to end the war. Which in
my opinion undermines our forces in the field who are there because
of the policies of our government. For me the policies not the forces
need to come under scrutiny as long as the forces are behaving
properly under the condition of war.
I would also submit it will be fruitless to debate if going to that war was
the right thing to do, we are there. Unless you’re trying to find a way to
vote for or against someone, we are there, we need to deal with that
fact. We need to work the problem we have now, looking at the issues
we have now. What is taking place on the ground in Iraq with the who,
what, why, and how they are being caused. In my opinion the issues
for our energies will be better spent trying to find a way to end this so
that there is a stable Iraq with minimal loss of life.
Kelly
Originally posted by shavixmirI have to agree.
I think we should be shown the intricate details of war.
With no reporters on the ground, then the force with power can do as they please with no reprisals.
Vietnam is an excellent example of this. Would the world have ever heard about the My Lai massacre of 300 women and children if it had been solely up to the disgression of the u.s. government?
It also seems to me, that the american public need to be shown more of the results of the bombing campaigns rather than the explosions as seen from the airplane dropping the bombs. When you see coverage of a bomb dropping from a plane, zoning in on a target, and blowing seven shades of hell out of the target, then you can completely objectify, and tell yourself that it was a cool explosion. By objectifying, the human suffering element of that bomb dropping on what could be a school/hospital is completely removed, and you just see american technology causing a very nice explosion. You don't think about the hundreds of children inside completely ripped apart, limbs strewn everywhere.
If the american public were shown this type of coverage with the frequency at which it is occuring, then I doubt that the people could support it as much as they do. Well, I hope so anyway.
It seems to me that the american military has nearly perfected the art of wartime propoganda. When you are heavily bombing areas, then my guess is that there aren't too many reporters on the ground to witness the carnage. Then, the newsmen, those that don't setup a Baghdad set in LA, are spoonfed the info that the military want released. This way, they can sell the war any which way they want. An example of this was also in Vietnam, where the american military figures of death ratios included dead South Vietnamese soldiers as VC, to give a more favourable impression on how the war was going.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakWhat you are suggesting is like if the American public is shown how
I have to agree.
With no reporters on the ground, then the force with power can do as they please with no reprisals.
Vietnam is an excellent example of this. Would the world have ever heard about the My Lai massacre of 300 women and children if it had been solely up to the disgression of the u.s. government?
It also seems to me, that the american ...[text shortened]... etnamese soldiers as VC, to give a more favourable impression on how the war was going.
D
hot dogs were made they wouldn't eat hot dogs, or sausage, or cattle
slaughterhouses they could lose the taste for steaks, I disagree. If
you have ever worked in a hospital you'd see your tolerance towards
things that could make you sick would change as you are exposed to
them. The thing about Americans or anyone else for that matter is
righteousness and wickedness. If seeing violence was enough to stop
the Middle East would be a peaceful paradise right now verses the war
zone it is today.
I’m not at all suggesting that there be no news coverage, only that it is
responsible without agenda, you don’t give away friendly positions or
plans, you don’t activity attempt to push a political agenda to
undermine the troops in the field. By all means please report what is
really going on on the ground. The trouble is news pieces sometimes
only cover that which conveys the point someone wants to make,
instead of many of the good things that also take place. If there are
war atrocities, report them, if there are crimes against the inhabitants
report them, just as you would seeing all the good things too.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYour orignal quote was "To look at Iraq if we discovered that one or more of the countries at Iraq's borders are funding and training all the murders and
I do not believe I have ever said it was 'ALL' foreigners. I did
acknowledge why some Iraqi inside the country, and forces
outside of the country do not want the country to be built up
without them being in power. You believe that my saying that
again is a point in your favor in some way?
The ends and outs of the fighting has what to do with this discussion?
Kelly
kidnappings in that country". A fine line - you are putting forward a hypothetical case ALL murders and ALL kidnappings are funded and trained by foreigners rather than stating this is the case. And you allow Iraqis to carry them out - but only as dupes of foreigners. Certainly there are foreigners waging war in Iraq - but the overwhelming majority of these foreigners are American.
Eighteen months ago, the press was filled with weapons of mass destruction and the invaders being welcomed as liberators. Now the security situation is being portrayed as something coming from outside rather than with Iraqi nationalism and frustation with a heavy handed and inept occupation. Just who is creating these myths?
1 edit
Originally posted by steerpikeYou are quite right I should not have used "ALL", my point was
Your orignal quote was "To look at Iraq if we discovered that one or more of the countries at Iraq's borders are funding and training all the murders and
kidnappings in that country". A fine line - you are putting forward a hypothetic ...[text shortened]... avy handed and inept occupation. Just who is creating these myths?
simply that if they were funding much or many of those acts. My bad,
I'm sorry I was so all inclusive. I would also point out I was asking
a question. The amounts large or small is important but the fact that
other countries near them are playing that type of part should say
something.
Kelly
Originally posted by MayharmHad a quick look and found a story on the BBS own news site. During the London blitz, the BBC and press told cheerful stories of people partying at the Ritz and stiff upper lip. Reality was more frightened people in dark tunnels amongst pools of urine. Set backs were certainly reported - you can't cover up a loss like Singapore. Not sure if they reported a numerically superior and well equipped garrison gave up that city virtually without a fight though.
I think you'll find that the BBC had a policy during WWII of reporting everything, the defeats, setbacks and failures at least. I'm sure there was desertion (mutiny would surprise me somewhat...and there are valid military reasons for not releasing that news), but in all the documentaries I've ever seen not much has been made of that. So I doubt it was bi ...[text shortened]... desertion to be news in those days, today it might be whole 'nother story).
MÅ¥HÅRM
The BBC was certainly part of the war effort - after all, they broadcast code messages to resistance group. And they were right to do so.
Are we in a similar situation?
1 edit
Originally posted by steerpikeErm..."pools of urine" would have never been released on the BBC in those days (too vulgar) and stiff upper lip was very much the way of life. The home situation barely needed to be reported in the way you might think, everyone was well aware london was being bombed, like you said, a little hard to cover that up.
Had a quick look and found a story on the BBS own news site. During the London blitz, the BBC and press told cheerful stories of people partying at the Ritz and stiff upper lip. Reality was more frightened people in dark tunnels amongst p ...[text shortened]... p. And they were right to do so.
Are we in a similar situation?
If singapore surrendering was reported, with the opinion that the british held of themselves in those days, that in itself was probably a really big blow.
I guess there is another aspect though, today the media can report in much greater detail, a single incident being magnified in importance by it's transmission. Whereas one case of friendly fire would just take up too much bandwidth for little or no response in WWII...
On the other hand, spoke to a ghost about this, he pointed out that in both WWII and today much is left out. Sometimes it's slackness, sometimes it's censorship, but also sometimes it's because it gets treated as normal by the people on the scene...
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by Mayharm"...but also sometimes it's because it gets treated as normal by the people on the scene...
Erm..."pools of urine" would have never been released on the BBC in those days (too vulgar) and stiff upper lip was very much the way of life. The home situation barely needed to be reported in the way you might think, everyone was well aware london was being bombed, like you said, a little hard to cover that up.
If singapore surrendering was reported, ...[text shortened]... also sometimes it's because it gets treated as normal by the people on the scene...
MÅ¥HÅRM
This is the dangerous part about a war on terrorism. I don't think
the terrorist realize or maybe they do that once those they are
attempting to terrorize get to a point, responses will stop being
limited in nature, but the responses will become more and more
fierce. I believe this is what has happened with the US, we have
been attacked several times by terrorist and our responses have
gotten greater now countries have fallen. It isn't that the whole
country is behind it, but more and more are. I pity the nation
that gets caught up with the next big attack in the US, I doubt
they will like the response. I believe it will be worse for the next
one than what was done in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Kelly