Ron Ackerman said this in post #15 : I think it's a good thing to document both the good, the bad and the ugly. (you should like that phrase whidden).
Oh yeah, my favorite movie as well as my favorite avatar selections.
I think that as long as we are fighting these "side" wars, for lack of a better term, embedded reporting is with us.
You know what I mean, wars like Vietnam, Iraq, Korea, etc, where it's a real war, but the future of our country is not at stake.
We get in a World War situation, where if we lose, the country is invaded or destroyed, our miliatary will take control of the press and let them report what the military wants them too.
I saw an discussion with Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw back in october, and they discussed many aspects of jouranalism, including the war.
They more or less admitted that they (and I'm pharaphrasing here) are so scared of becoming a propaganda machine for the government, that they go overboard to report the war in a nuetral way. They feel if they say something good about how things are going, it's propaganda.
In my view, their nuetral reporting is so slanted and negative somtimes, it's like propaganda against our side.
However, I realise I'm a right wing repub, and everything to the left of me, be it central or neutral is going to seem left winger in my eyes.
For those of us that support the war, it's hard to see some of the bad stuff that happens in conflict, used in arguments against our position. That's why a lot of us right wingers are against embedded journalists. We think they are going to use our sides mistakes to help the enemy.
I break from my right winger friends and think it's ok, as long as they go by the rules posted in the posts up above. I just hope the press and public are responsible enough to not turn wars into reality television like fear factor or the bachelor.
What I really think is it's the difference in opinion of WAR between the right and the left. War no matter how you look at it is violent and mostly one sided. Where ever the war is faught innocent people will die. It's the hard cold facts. If the war was in the United States, a lot of American Civilians would die. Also during war, warriors do what it takes to win. Sometimes it's not very pretty and not very ethical. I think those of us on the Right understand war and the horrors that go along with it and that you can't have a NICE war. Also you can't send children, (and when you get our age those who are going to war are children) to war and expect them always make the right decision.
The Far Left is for Peace at all cost, they see that no war is good. And take every opportunity to show us how bad it is to try and sway our position on war. But as I have said in the past. There have always been wars, and there will always be wars. If you are not in a war, just wait a bit and you will be.
The problem with always being a pacifist is that not everything is solved by Peace. At some point in time you will lose because some will want to fight for their cause will want to win at all cost.
I TiVo'd Fox's Breaking Point about Greg Palkots embed with India Company. India Company was the first Marines into Fahlujha. These Marines were 19 and 20 year olds except for the Officers and they were still for them most part in their mid 20's. If you get a chance to see that episode, please watch it. It will show you what they are dealing with. Like the Lieutenant who was killed by a 1 in a million shot by an insurgent. He left this world with a new wife and baby born just hours prior.
You know, this whole issue strikes me as a moot point-since our news is so filtered. Why risk the lives of reporters/journalists if the American public is only going to see what the propaganda machine wants them to? I think investigative journalism (and I think, at its heart, thats what this is) is one of the most important aspects of the media...but in today's political world of silence and secrecy, I wonder if its really nessesary. In fact, let's just cut out the media all together, and simply rely on the government and big buisiness to tell us what's happening in the world. And screw those stupid, freedom hating foriegn news sources! ok, that was my frustrated venting for the day. sorry.
Wolf_eyes said this in post #20 : You know, this whole issue strikes me as a moot point-since our news is so filtered. Why risk the lives of reporters/journalists if the American public is only going to see what the propaganda machine wants them to? I think investigative journalism (and I think, at its heart, thats what this is) is one of the most important aspects of the media...but in today's political world of silence and secrecy, I wonder if its really nessesary. In fact, let's just cut out the media all together, and simply rely on the government and big buisiness to tell us what's happening in the world. And screw those stupid, freedom hating foriegn news sources! ok, that was my frustrated venting for the day. sorry.
That's one of the problems with democracy, if people understand and actually know what's happening they tend to get upset and demand something's done about it. Luckily for politicians and the business world and the movers and shakers, the majority of people are not that interested in the big picture because it's complicated.
The media too often say what's happening but very rarely explain why. Why is the complicated bit and takes far more journalistic skill to get across, and in a world of soundbites and a public with the the attention span of a gnat, it's no wonder difficult world affairs are not explained, especially not on media outlets run for commercial purposes.
Lets face it, Iraq doesn't matter to Murdoch. What matters to Murdoch is keeping politicians happy so they'll let him expand his empire. If that means pushing the patriotic line, they'll push it, and everyone's happy. Ignorance is bliss.
Saying that, the only people who have lost their jobs because of the errors regarding Iraq have been journalists.
12-11-2004 12:35 AM
