Media coverage of the war.

[Agathon]

This subject hasn't come up yet and deserves its own thread.

It is well known that heavy censorship prevented the public from really seeing what was going on in the first Gulf War. Pictures of the reality of the conflict and accounts of atrocities only really made it out months after the war was over.

e.g. http://dirckhalstead.org/issue0212/pt_intro.html

This time journalists are to be allowed to accompany the troops; but I think that this will probably turn out to be window dressing.

My question is, will reporters in Baghdad be able to get out the truth using new information technology, or does the US have some nefarious weapons that would disrupt all communications equipment?

[SlowwHand]

That is utter crapola. Atrocities?
The war was right there on television.
The networks showed missles going through bunker doors.

Other than that, no it was it hidden; but what makes you think war should be covered live prime-time?
You'd probably like to drive yor car out near the battlefield with a picnic basket, wouldn't you?

[Agathon]

Yeah, OK - I never saw anything like the stuff I linked to on my television.

[SlowwHand]

It'd be nice to just "count coup" like some American Indian tribes did, but that isn't going to happen.

[Sandman]

It would be nice if they would call civilian casualties by name, instead of 'collateral damage' or 'human shields'.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
what makes you think war should be covered live prime-time?

Because the USA is supposed to be a democracy. You can't have the government waging wars and keeping it secret from you.

[Jon Miller]

does any of the neccesities of caring out a war (ie secrecy) mean nothing to you?

you can't be broadcasting your troopmovements to your enemies, that is a surefire way to lose

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

the war won't be a secret, most of the troop movements will hopefully be

Jon Miller

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Osweld
Because the USA is supposed to be a democracy. You can't have the government waging wars and keeping it secret from you.

It's not as though they've gone and invaded Iraq without telling anybody... What's this about keeping the war a secret?

[raghar]

http://www.islam-online.net/english/News/2003-02/26/article09.shtml

This could make things little clearer.

New information things would rather make censor's job more easier, at least until University educated journalists will be abble to found some ways around it.
(easy for me cryptographer, difficult for new or old "computer uneducated" journalists)

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by loinburger


It's not as though they've gone and invaded Iraq without telling anybody... What's this about keeping the war a secret?

Deciding what reporters are able to report, and what is and is not released about the war is keeping it secret. What they give you is nothing but propaganda or information that has no relevance to the war, or is very broad and uninformative. No one watching the news will get an idea of what's actually going on, only what the military wants them to think is going on.

Keeping the population ignorant should not be an acceptable military tactic in a democracy.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Osweld
Keeping the population ignorant should not be an acceptable military tactic in a democracy.

So, e.g., things like troop positions ought to be reported to the general public?

[KrazyHorse]

In Gulf War I the censorship was far more complete than not allowing the reporting of relevant information that would be of direct military use to Iraq.

The media was spoon-fed the predicgested news from the front by military sources, and reported that.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by loinburger


So, e.g., things like troop positions ought to be reported to the general public?

There should be no limits on reporters and journalists. I don't care what they report, just that they're able to.

[Jon Miller]

never again will a democracy win a war if Osweld has his way

Jon Miller