Brits Attacking the Taliban with their cameras rolling.
No words...
The War in their Eyes
Video 1
Video 2
No words...
The War in their Eyes
Video 1
Video 2
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Storming towards the enemy...with their bayonets fixed and helmet-cameras rolling
- Thread starter raptor10
- Start date
I don't see an issue with it as long as two things happen:
1. Cameras don't compromise op-sec.
2. Cameras are not hindering mission accomplishment.
I definitely think PFC Timmy with a video camera can shed some valued insight into what goes on in the field over there. I've even seen instances where personal footage, be it pictures or video, has been used for training.
Again, so long as it isn't compromising the mission or the man, I say go for it.
An Ensign's .02 cents.
1. Cameras don't compromise op-sec.
2. Cameras are not hindering mission accomplishment.
I definitely think PFC Timmy with a video camera can shed some valued insight into what goes on in the field over there. I've even seen instances where personal footage, be it pictures or video, has been used for training.
Again, so long as it isn't compromising the mission or the man, I say go for it.
An Ensign's .02 cents.
Things would be wide in the open anyways.
Almost every servicemember owns a camera or something that can register some action. Better to have some control (intell-wise), than no control at all.
So I concur, as long as reporters don't interfere with the mission and their message is being screened by intell, no objection to get the message out what is really going on in the real.
Almost every servicemember owns a camera or something that can register some action. Better to have some control (intell-wise), than no control at all.
So I concur, as long as reporters don't interfere with the mission and their message is being screened by intell, no objection to get the message out what is really going on in the real.
Unless it's for official purposes, I think it's a bad idea. The above is obviously a potential problem, and the camera never shows the whole picture which usually leads to assumptions that are inaccurate at best. If the only potential benefit is showing the tape post-mission for entertainment purposes, it should not be allowed.
Brett
So do embedded reporters, after action reports and stories told by those who were there.
Anyone can (and some will) Monday Morning Quarterback if given a recount of an event... whether it be written, spoken or watched, be it footage from CNN or PFC Timmy.
I am a firm believer in the fact that there is no such thing as bad information. The more information the better...period. Now, certainly there are concerns with interpreting the information such as those Brett and PUGrad pointed out...but the fact of the matter is...the more we know, the more we know.
Now trying to determine the strategic success of the war in Afghanistan based on these videos....that would be stupid...
Now trying to determine the strategic success of the war in Afghanistan based on these videos....that would be stupid...
I am a firm believer in the fact that there is no such thing as bad information. The more information the better...period. Now, certainly there are concerns with interpreting the information such as those Brett and PUGrad pointed out...but the fact of the matter is...the more we know, the more we know.
Now trying to determine the strategic success of the war in Afghanistan based on these videos....that would be stupid...
I know I'm taking this to the extreme, but by that standard, we should disclose all the OPSEC and classified information to everyone just so they can "know." There are varying kinds and quality of information - some good, some not so good. Sometimes it's difficult or impossible to predict how a piece of information will be interpreted. If it serves no tactical purpose, what is the advantage?
The military has tried all kinds of ways in which to integrate the press - most fall short of portraying an accurate picture of events. My feeling is, to the extent that bad press hurts the mission, and that bad press is more likely than not, we should limit what we allow the press to see. The press has no more right to know where we may be coming ashore (so they can have cameras rolling like in GW I), then they have a right to look at other sensitive information.
Brett
Im thinking for a completely internal information source having camera's and the like would be a great idea for the Military to use. Think of the learning that could be done in the debrief. There is also the great benefit of knowing who shot who, especially in a situation like we are currently in with the whole policing the streets of Iraq.
On the other hand as some people have mentioned using these images to educate/entertain/inform Joe Q Public would be pretty negative overall. Think Worlds Wildest Police Videos and just go from there. What that show does for Police it would do for the military and that really isnt needed.
On the other hand as some people have mentioned using these images to educate/entertain/inform Joe Q Public would be pretty negative overall. Think Worlds Wildest Police Videos and just go from there. What that show does for Police it would do for the military and that really isnt needed.
Scoober, your idea of "more information, the better" wouldn't necessarily hold true considering that, as Brett stated, "videos won't show the whole picture" which will lead to ridiculous amounts of "Monday morning QB'ing." Remember about a year ago when the soldiers (or Marines...?) stormed in to a room, yelled at the guy not to move, and then shot him when he did move? That video sparked enormous outrage from pacifists and both republican and liberal politicians had a field day with it. Can you imagine the fallout from videos like that being posted on the web every day? Such an intense level of scrutiny would lead to decreased effectiveness in our tactics and methods (IMHO).
Zilch
This...is...Caketown!
From left field: I think it's important to document them for historical reasons, also. Obviously these are important times, and any kind of media we can provide for the future will be valuable to them. What would you give for some video of something like the Civil War, no matter what was on it?
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
This is when stuff like this is important and valuable, and I agree it's a good thing. The problem is that info flows so much faster than it used to. A pre-movie news flick of WWII was months old by the time people saw it but nowadays, a video can be worldwide in a matter of a day.
I'm sure there's a happy medium between scoober's utopian idea (which is certainly worthy in a non-monday morning quarterback society) and Brett's argued position.
This whole thing reminds me of a picture I have (post-Abu Graib) of my LPO on my last deployment. He's obviously beatdown tired. He's wearing his underwear outside his coveralls. His clothes are covered in sea-dye marker and he's got his face down in a wet flight deck w/ water in the tie-downs. I think a small turtle is involved. It's obvious people are yelling at him. Is this hazing? Should people be punished for this kind of treatment? What in the world is going on?
It's of course just a shellback ceremony and he wanted to be there. But I'm sure certain people in the public wouldn't look at it that way.
Did you read my post? What part of the above doesn't deal with interpretation? One more time.... Now, certainly there are concerns with interpreting the information such as those Brett and PUGrad pointed out...but the fact of the matter is...the more we know, the more we know.
Make appropriate analysis based on the ALWAYS incomplete information presented. It's not my fault pacifists, journalist and most of the general public react like morons to incomplete information.
What's wrong with a little transparency...last I checked, the public in a democracy is supposed to be an informed electorate...Don't be afraid of real, informed public discourse and debate...it is the whole point after all. (You know...that pesky Bill of Rights and all...)
Brett...what would I do without your daily reductio ad absurdum...
Of course you are correct...immediate disclosure is different that complete disclosure however and I would argue that releasing sailing dates, deployment scheds. etc...are of course subject to common sense requirements of opsec. etc.. I think my point still stands.
<edit> My posts are starting to look like A4's...I must be...getting... Damn...I weep for the future...
Brett...what would I do without your daily reductio ad absurdum...
I just love it when you whisper latin into my ear.
As for transparency, I'm afraid I've become a bit too cynical. People were much better off not knowing how sausage is made. Is the public really any better informed with what trickles out through the media today? For all the trouble it has caused, I'd just as soon see them watching Comedy Central while the rest of us do the nation's dirty work.Brett