-
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
Too much for ABC, NBC, CBS
- Thread starter Sabre170
- Start date
- Status
HueyCobra8151 said:
Pol Pot led the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia; wrong continent and wrong country. It is no secret that the media is quick to produce news of any wrongdoings by a service member. We our held to higher standards, thus we will be the first ones in the spotlight if we do something questionable. Choose your rate, choose your fate.
The mass killings by Saddam's regime is old news. Why go to the presses with old news? Sure the bodies were uncovered, but that was already expected before the start of the war.
HueyCobra8151 said:
OPSEC! Learn it. Our Commanders do an excellent job of making that a priority. Sharing with the media is still censored. If I remember right, a certain reporter was removed from Iraq because of his stupidity. What was his name....Geraldo Rivera?
Broadsword2004
Registered User
If the media had been allowed into World War II, we'd probably all be speaking German right now.
Personally, I don't think the military has any "obligation" to provide information to the media. The media half the time doesn't even know what they are talking about, and they are usually always ready to down the military. The military's job is to defend the United States and keep it safe.
Personally I never watch the news or read any of the papers, I get info off of forums like this one moreso.
I am reading a book called "The March Up: Taking Baghdad With the 1st Marine Division" by F.J. "Bing" West and Maj. General Ray L. smith, USMC (Retired), which is about the Marines in the recent Iraq War in their march to Baghdad. I figure since the authors are former Marines they know more of what they are talking about; they tagged along with the Marines as civilians, so they saw a lot of stuff up-close. Anyhow, they even mention about how the media had the war misportrayed a good deal on television.
Personally, I don't think the military has any "obligation" to provide information to the media. The media half the time doesn't even know what they are talking about, and they are usually always ready to down the military. The military's job is to defend the United States and keep it safe.
Personally I never watch the news or read any of the papers, I get info off of forums like this one moreso.
I am reading a book called "The March Up: Taking Baghdad With the 1st Marine Division" by F.J. "Bing" West and Maj. General Ray L. smith, USMC (Retired), which is about the Marines in the recent Iraq War in their march to Baghdad. I figure since the authors are former Marines they know more of what they are talking about; they tagged along with the Marines as civilians, so they saw a lot of stuff up-close. Anyhow, they even mention about how the media had the war misportrayed a good deal on television.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. You said what I said and gave a news article proving my point.
You said bodies were found. the uncoverings of 300,000 dead people in Saddam's mass graves barely makes a ripple. They have found bodies but not 300-400k. You may hav intended it as figurative but I took it literally. Unfortunately, we will probably never know the full extent of Hussein's brutality.
Quote me as saying it was just CNN that showed up. I didn't
Took your quote and another's and unfortunately combined them, sorry. The point was that how the reporters knew where to show up, it was courtesy our employer.
The media is so biased and partisan that it is not going to matter what we tell them anyway, they will spew whatever rhetoric will provide the best ratings.
If that is what you think, then it is pointless for me to debate any further.
I'd still sincerely like someone to tell me what important good news has come out of Iraq in the past two weeks that network media hasn't covered
Good point.......Bueller
You said bodies were found. the uncoverings of 300,000 dead people in Saddam's mass graves barely makes a ripple. They have found bodies but not 300-400k. You may hav intended it as figurative but I took it literally. Unfortunately, we will probably never know the full extent of Hussein's brutality.
Quote me as saying it was just CNN that showed up. I didn't
Took your quote and another's and unfortunately combined them, sorry. The point was that how the reporters knew where to show up, it was courtesy our employer.
The media is so biased and partisan that it is not going to matter what we tell them anyway, they will spew whatever rhetoric will provide the best ratings.
If that is what you think, then it is pointless for me to debate any further.
I'd still sincerely like someone to tell me what important good news has come out of Iraq in the past two weeks that network media hasn't covered
Good point.......Bueller
flynsail said:
Oh man...erf...did I write that? Does the 0530 at the time + a pot of coffee in me excuse hold weight for that one?
I combined the two (Pol Pot and the Genocide in Rwanda)Agreed. But the fact that they blew that WELL out of proportion still speaks for my case concerning the obvious and discernable media bias. Look at how quickly the video of the Marine shooting the insurgent in the mosque got out...there was no pause to review the footage, or "lets hold off until after the battle is over." An hour after the fact it was prime time news.
They were comparing the month after Abu Ghraib with two years worth of press coverage on the mass graves...
OPSEC is exactly what I am talking about. Which is why I have no problems with the military leaking bad information to the press. It will all be corrected in a day or two, the news will still get the "correct" story to blast to the world...but the military gets their use from it too.
Flash said:
Straight from the link I posted earlier from the USAid Website:
"We've already discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves,"
HueyCobra8151 said:
Like I said, can't always depend on the government:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html
Hmm...I wonder why USAid didn't post a retraction on their website.
Good catch.
Good catch.
HueyCobra8151 said:
Because I imagine webmaster at USAID is not high on the list of desired IT jobs. :icon_mi_1
Seriously, this is one of the things that annoys me about the internet and blogs. A government agency or figure says something or a fact gets skewed and spread around like gospel. As much as some here do not like the media, at least they are held accoutnable for getting stuff wrong. No, they are not always caught and not appropraitely punished in many cases, but at least they are held accountable to some degree by the public and government. The Dan Rather case is the latest of many example of this. Blogs and what is put over the internet has little real accountability.
BTW, good job on backing up what you said, it is not your fault the site was wrong. I would usually trust a government website but in this case I knew that it was wrong.
A last point. We have freedom of speech and of the press. As much as we like to argue about how we don't like the media, we have to live with them. So why not play nice with them once in a while?
I posted an article in another thread, I started, to prevent the clashing of the two articles.
http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9066
http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9066
Flash: The irony is that you gave an example of the internet holding the news media accountable.
Blogs were the primary reason those falsified memos were discovered.
I think this argument is pretty well done, but I will say that I do hope the bill that is being pushed in Congress to further limit media involvement in a combat zone will pass. IMO, nothing good comes from having reporters running around a combat zone. Freedom of Speech is important, and it is what we fight for, but remember that National Security has always superceded it.
Blogs were the primary reason those falsified memos were discovered.
I think this argument is pretty well done, but I will say that I do hope the bill that is being pushed in Congress to further limit media involvement in a combat zone will pass. IMO, nothing good comes from having reporters running around a combat zone. Freedom of Speech is important, and it is what we fight for, but remember that National Security has always superceded it.
Greaper007
You're entering a world of pain
Isn't it the media's job to uncover the dirt? If it weren't for the media many of the worlds atrocities never would have been uncovered. I think a big reason the media reports its stories is not because it has a particular bias, but rather because they tend to be ratings whores. Unfortunatly we live in a sound bite world with what, five cable news channels. They're constantly trying to top eachother. So things like abu ghra (pardon my spelling) tend to be graphic, new, easily exploitable.
I feel that traditional sources are still pretty reliable, especially the NY Times and The Post. Sure, they sometimes report on stories that we're uneasy with. Yes, they both have had scandals as of late. However, they both have a long standing history and an in depth style.
The line between censorship and endangering soldiers is sometimes a very thin one. However, just as we wouldn't want executions to be carried out in private, neither should wars be. I think one of the main points here is that everyone on this thread with the exception of me (I'm just classing up for ocs now) has a personal involvement in this issue. So of course you see the media as having a liberal bias. If you or a close friend of family member was involved in a well reviewed court case I'm sure you would also see glaring biases on the basis of the media. However, when taking yourself out of this equation I'm guessing you would see the media as simply reporting the facts. At any rate, I don't think the traditional media is all that bad.
I feel that traditional sources are still pretty reliable, especially the NY Times and The Post. Sure, they sometimes report on stories that we're uneasy with. Yes, they both have had scandals as of late. However, they both have a long standing history and an in depth style.
The line between censorship and endangering soldiers is sometimes a very thin one. However, just as we wouldn't want executions to be carried out in private, neither should wars be. I think one of the main points here is that everyone on this thread with the exception of me (I'm just classing up for ocs now) has a personal involvement in this issue. So of course you see the media as having a liberal bias. If you or a close friend of family member was involved in a well reviewed court case I'm sure you would also see glaring biases on the basis of the media. However, when taking yourself out of this equation I'm guessing you would see the media as simply reporting the facts. At any rate, I don't think the traditional media is all that bad.
Greaper007 said:
If they have their facts straight, that's good. What I don't like is reading facts that are skewed to the point of opinion. I know that's an ideal situation, but it's what they should work for.
Don't even get me started on media in the courtroom. Do you honestly think that in these high profile cases, if they had to be retried, they would get a fair trial ANYWHERE in this country? It's a god damn atrocity that court cases receive such high press. That's all I'm going to say on that.
- Status