Rules
Terms of Use

Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#164784 - Sun Mar 23 2003 06:44 AM Is all this coverage good?
sue943 Offline
Administrator

Registered: Sun Dec 19 1999
Posts: 36778
Loc: Jersey
Channel Islands    
Apart from the overload of news, ex-news, warped and distorted news, is showing all this violence on prime-time television good for the children? I am sure many people would be very angry if it were fiction. Would it get permission to show it to people of all ages?
_________________________
Many a child has been spoiled because you can't spank a Grandma!

Top
#164785 - Sun Mar 23 2003 09:36 AM Re: Is all this coverage good?
thingmabob Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Mon Dec 23 2002
Posts: 289
Loc: Sussex, UK
I have already aired my views on this subject in another thread, think I was rambling a bit! But I will gladly give my tuppence worth.

Knowing how technical minded the children of today are they can get their hands on almost anything. But letting them see what is going on in Iraq is not right. Okay, they deserve to know what is happening but having it reported all day and night on channels that they have easy access to is just not right. Obviously those of us with sattelite and cable have the ability to control and sensor what our children watch on television.

If they want to air this conflict, these channels should have an extended news programme in the evening for when there are no young eyes to watch. Fictional programmes that contain violence, they air in the evening so please tell me what is the difference with non-fictional violence. It is just as bad, if not worse.

What is wrong with us if we think that airing war at a time when there are children watching is right! Now, don't get me wrong, I like to know what is going on as much as the next person but I wouldn't watch it at a time when my kids can easily view it as well. Okay so my kids are only tiny but children at two or three can form ideas of the world around them from what they see on television. My oldest is quite happy watching Teletubbies and such like. Letting her view these terrible acts of war would be like having violence on childrens programmes. Think of the uproar of the nation if this was true, all these shows would be taken off the air. So why oh why put this news on at time when they can watch it too?
_________________________
Every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain!

Top
#164786 - Sun Mar 23 2003 09:48 AM Re: Is all this coverage good?
snm Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Thu Jan 30 2003
Posts: 901
Loc: Israel
Until what age exactly do you think children should have minimum exposure to these images? I was a child during the first Gulf War and I remember spending HOURS sitting in front of the TV watching the green images on CNN. It helped me feel like I still had some sort of control over what was going on in my life. That may not be an issue for children who aren't in the line of fire, but I've noticed that children don't generally understand much more than they're ready to understand.
_________________________
"Talk is cheap, arms are not"- Victor Davis Hanson

Top
#164787 - Sun Mar 23 2003 10:08 AM Re: Is all this coverage good?
sue943 Offline
Administrator

Registered: Sun Dec 19 1999
Posts: 36778
Loc: Jersey
Channel Islands    
Part of what I meant by my post is that we are actually watching people being killed on live television, and that such deaths are expected - if you are watching a battle in which live ammunition is fired at people that is what will happen, then all that bombing. Violence is becoming acceptable.

Other thoughts of mine as I watch the coverage is that some of the cover could be jeopardising the safety of allied troops. An example of rather strange cover, we see the loading of B52 aircraft in the UK, the warming up of their engines and them taking off for Iraq, the accompanying voiceover tells us that it will take them 'x' number of hours to reach their targets - hey guys, 'Careless talk costs lives'. Does this no longer apply? We have journalists embedded with troops, they are asking questions which could, if answered, give the enemy valuable information. Too much of the coverage is 'live' and not edited for possible security leaks.
_________________________
Many a child has been spoiled because you can't spank a Grandma!

Top
#164788 - Sun Mar 23 2003 12:32 PM Re: Is all this coverage good?
chelseabelle Offline
Star Poster

Registered: Thu Oct 07 1999
Posts: 10282
Loc: New York USA
I agree with everything Sue has said in her last post.

In addition, I find the coverage needlessly excessive. It is broadcast 24 hours a day on several channels at a time. What is the point of the constant wall-to-wall live coverage and the continuous reports from correspondents? Do we need these constant minute by minute accounts, some of which give only a very small picture of what is happening overall. Can't we wait until we have a better sense of the larger picture and more reliable information?
And personally I'm not thrilled by correspondents giving their reports while wearing gas masks or ignoring warning sirens to take cover--some of this seems needlessly theatrical and irresponsible. The report is not more important than the correspondent's safety. I would prefer that the correspondents got out of harm's way and let the troops do their job.

I think the media may compromise security, and they can also create distorted perceptions. After one correspondent described the bombing of Baghdad as looking like the bombing of Dresden, plaques at anti-war demonstrations in the following days immediately made the same comparison--although what happened in Baghdad was not the sort of attack that had taken place in Dresden. The visual coverage of the Baghdad bombing made it appear as though the city was being randomly bombed--which was not what was happening.


And I do think these images desensitize us to violence--we do forget that this is reality--we are watching people actually trying to kill each other. It's not an action movie and it's not an "event". And images of a spectacular aerial display, such as the one over Baghdad, are a really very sanitized image of violence--which further contributes to the desensitization.

This sort of coverage is also agonizing for the family and friends of the troops to watch because it produces very heightened anxiety. The mother of one of the Marines killed this week in a helicopter crash made a very poignant statement to that effect.
And many children watching the TV images have a parent or other relative fighting or stationed in that region. It must be very frightening for them to watch this sort of coverage.
The immediate reports of casualties must completely drive families who are watching into complete panic. And the families, most of all, cannot tear themselves away from watching the coverage because of their concerns.
The media should show some heightened awareness of the fact, that when they report or talk about the action of the war, that they are talking about the loved ones of many people who are watching and listening.

I love the new language that seems to be emerging from this war. I don't recall hearing the phrase "imbedded media" before? Has this term been used before to describe field correspondents.
_________________________
Still Crazy After All These Years

Top
#164789 - Sun Mar 23 2003 12:36 PM Re: Is all this coverage good?
anagram2 Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Fri Aug 30 2002
Posts: 524
Loc: Kent, England
There was some speculation that one of the battles may have been prolonged by the attendance of the television crew, that perhaps the commanders 'toned down' some of the action taken because they were acutely aware of the cameras.

I find the coverage horrifically fascinating...I don't know how else to describe this somewhat surreal televised war. It would have been inconceivable in years gone by for television crews to have been reporting the war from the 'enemy' capital and even from the front line.

Yes it is right that it should be shown.

As to the question of children watching; parents of young children should easily be able to regulate what they watch, older children have a tendancy to watch what they like no matter what time of day or night it is being broadcast. As long as they are aware that this is real life, real men and women are risking their lives and no director is going to shout cut at any minute

I for one shall continue to watch the news coverage, and hope and pray that the conflict is over quickly without too much loss of life.

Although I was against the war initially, now that it is underway I am immensely proud of the skill and bravery of our service men and women and wish them a speedy victory.

_________________________
It's only the sane people who are willing to admit they're crazy-Nora Ephron

Top
#164790 - Sun Mar 23 2003 04:11 PM Re: Is all this coverage good?
A Member Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Fri Nov 23 2001
Posts: 3082
Loc:  
Sue, I've just made the same comment - I don't want to see 4.5.6 hours of a picture showing what might a building being hit by what might be a missile If "They" the TV crews and reporters want to be beleived then they have to have the "this despatch is monitored by" ie censored! removed.
I do understand the need for security but if a "on the spot" report is to be beleived it has to be honest (and able to be backed up!)
_________________________

Top
#164791 - Sun Mar 23 2003 05:20 PM Re: Is all this coverage good?
damnsuicidalroos Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Mon Feb 10 2003
Posts: 2167
Loc: Sydney
NSW Australia
I absolutely enjoy all the coverage.This is so exciting,watching a war thats happening so far away.I think that most reports should be taken with a pinch of salt but it`s all interesting.I don`t have children yet so the following may be unrealistic,if you don`t want your kids to watch turn the television off and hand them a book,a video or spend some time playing with them.I feel that one of the major causes of problems in a community is the fact that people don`t control their children more........Bring on the war news.
_________________________
Responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones.

Top
#164792 - Sun Mar 23 2003 10:10 PM Re: Is all this coverage good?
Bertho Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Fri Oct 04 2002
Posts: 974
Loc: Queensland Australia
I've watched a fair bit of it on Sky and CNN, and most of it has been the same boring old rhetoric from the usual suspects. So called experts. Some industrial chemist explaining how the army bootlaces are made from some fire retardant nylon and how handy that would be if the tank he’s in blows up. They have a camera mounted somewhere in Baghdad city that broadcasts the same picture 24 hours a day, boring it might be, yet I watch it like some morose vegetable for four hours straight, trying to pick out any sign of life. Oh, look a car.... I'm wishing something to happen to justify my time wastage! I really need to do the mowing. Hang on something’s happening... "We'll have to cut you off there Sue Ridgepipe, it appears something has happened outside Basra" (Live cross to Basra) Nup. It was nothing, just some mess sergeant let a pearler rip and the reporter thought they were under siege.

One reporter did provide some footage, which I thought, gave a stark perspective I had never seen before. He was onboard a mechanical cavalry unit racing across the desert to Baghdad. To the left and right was the whole mobile section with a mile of dust behind them. My adrenalin started pumping as the stark reality hit. It's real - this isn't a movie. Oh my god.

If you don’t like it, you can always watch Gilligans Island. Who I feel sorry for are the military trying to do a difficult job, but having 600 reporters around all the time, annoying everyone, trying to sniff out some destruction to sensationalise. I think I’ll see what the Skips little buddy is up to…

Top
#164793 - Mon Mar 24 2003 10:10 AM Re: Is all this coverage good?
Geek Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Mon Feb 14 2000
Posts: 622
Loc: Minnesota U.S.A.
I was five during the first Gulf War and I remember seeing stuff about it on TV. I remember peach colored sand, tanks, and fires with lots of dark black smoke, but somehow I don't remember it scaring me.
The only thing I do remember is this comment by a reporter. I heard it while I was sitting on the living room couch with my parents. They had bought a Nintendo for Christmas and they were playing Mario brothers on a old TV set while I watched stuff about the war on another. While I was sitting there I heard a reporter say: (something like...) "The advent of a 'televised war' has adults glued to the TV the same way that their kids are glued to the Nintendo." I remember looking at my parents playing Mario Bros. and thinking how funny that was, and that's really all I remember.

Nevertheless, I am getting a bit tired of the constant war coverage on now. I stay away from the TV as much as possible..I play Nintendo instead.
_________________________
I have a catapault. Give me all of your money, or I will throw enormus rocks at your head.

Top
#164794 - Tue Mar 25 2003 02:20 PM Re: Is all this coverage good?
A Member Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Fri Nov 23 2001
Posts: 3082
Loc:  
What coverage - to see the same clip of film (tank fires, tank fires, two tanks fire, soldier sitting in back of armoured truck, tank fires, soldier joins comrade for cigarette, two soldiers sit in the sun the tank fires (same one as at the start) is not coverage it's filling in time between new bits of news. It's obvious by now that the Forces are not releasing any news of importance for at least two days (for security reasons) and the Iraqui forces are releasing anything they can get as soon as possible.
_________________________

Top
#164795 - Thu Mar 27 2003 06:34 PM Re: Is all this coverage good?
Coolupway Offline
Prolific

Registered: Mon Aug 26 2002
Posts: 1131
I have no problem with the amount of coverage, or the degree of attention that is being paid to the war. What I do have a problem with is a seeming lack of context and historical perspective on many of the networks.

In World War II, the US suffered over 292,000 combat deaths, with total US war deaths in that conflict approaching 400,000.
Nonetheless the nation was united behind a president that it elected to an unprecedented four terms, and it was generally understood, awful though the thought was and is, that casualties were going to ensue.

While I deplore the violent death of any human being, anywhere, the fact remains that at least at the beginning of this war, US war death totals and indeed civilian casualty counts have thus far been remarkably small. Coalition forces have made incredibly rapid progress toward Baghdad-- in one week's time. Nonetheless I find that certain media outlets seize upon news of every setback, unanticipated skirmish or casualty to go into obligatory "Vietnam redux" defeatist mode. I also find a decided over-focus on footage of "anti-war" protestors, the implication being that hard-thinking citizens of the republic are clogging the streets of every city from Juneau, Alaska to Miami, Florida with their principled resistance to the war. This is of course hardly the case, and, as some commentators have pointed out, the protest demographic (as can be seen from the footage) often tends toward the late adolescent. To suggest that this segment of the populace is somehow representative of the American vox populi is, to say the least, fraudulent.

We see many talking heads, but in the first week I haven't seen a single war historian on ANY network comparing the progress and casualty level of this conflict to others in American -- or world-- history. And I think public understanding suffers as a result.

Top
#164796 - Thu Mar 27 2003 07:01 PM Re: Is all this coverage good?
A Member Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Fri Nov 23 2001
Posts: 3082
Loc:  
Coolupway, The anti-war protestors are getting coverage in the UK news it fills the gaps when they have nothing new on the war coverage. I have nothing against the protestors, they have their opinion and in a democracy can express it freely. I do object to their protests being put down (as witness the events in the USA today) by the police as I don't beleive Governments should inflict their policy on a population without the population being able to say they don't agree! To think that reasonable people can't say what they think is un-democratic (I'm not backing or attacking the "War" but defending any persons right to object -wether they are right or wrong in my own opinion))
_________________________

Top
#164797 - Thu Mar 27 2003 07:30 PM Re: Is all this coverage good?
Coolupway Offline
Prolific

Registered: Mon Aug 26 2002
Posts: 1131
As witness WHAT events in the USA today? A bunch of schmucky kids prostrated themsevles across Fifth Avenue, near Rockefeller Center, and the cops arrested about 200 of them. What Rockefeller Center has to do with the war,indeed what the tonier sections of 5th Avenue have to do with the war, is beyond me. I If they had done it in Central Park, no one would have laid a glove on them. A much larger anti-war march in New York City on Saturday, said to number in the low six figures, produced exactly 91 arrests, this after some of the protesters apparently got a bit out of hand.

Protest is fine, but violating certain provisions of New York State's Penal Law, found at section 240, pertaining to offenses against public order, is not. And again, by what standard of relevance is a protest of 400 people (in a city of 8 million-odd people) conceivably real, hard news?


Top
#164798 - Thu Mar 27 2003 11:07 PM Re: Is all this coverage good?
chelseabelle Offline
Star Poster

Registered: Thu Oct 07 1999
Posts: 10282
Loc: New York USA
Covering the anti-war protests is considered giving a nod to some sort of "fair and balanced" perspective on the war--to show that some people object. The protests certainly aren't major news, and they may be staged just to get news coverage. The advantage of laying down in the street and blocking traffic is that you can bet you will get more news time.

I'm really quite bored with the cable news coverage now. I'm sick of retired military top brass speculating and rehashing ad nauseum. They aren't illuminating anything, and nothing about this war is being put into any context--historical or otherwise. The reports from all the "embedded correspondents" I find just plain dull. This is probably the most over-reported war in the history of the planet.
I think the Bush administration set unrealistic expectations at the outset. They were initially predicting a war that would be over in two weeks and they hyped "Shock and Awe" to be the stunner to end all stunners.
Well, fast and furious this war really isn't, and thousands of Iraqi soldiers aren't surrendering and Iraqi civilians are not yet dancing for joy and embracing the troops. And "Shock And Awe" didn't send the Republican Guards into a swoon and it even left Saddam free to broadcast on TV. So nothing is going according to script. And the networks are left with mostly dull coverage.

The networks seem to be afraid to criticize anything that is going on--except that done by the other side--so that eliminates some potentially interesting lines of discussion. The newspapers have much more indepth analyses of everything, written by much more knowledgeable sources than those popping up on TV for 5 minutes of filler, and they have a much broader view than cable news, which seems much more focused on specific battles and details. And the print media seems much less reluctant to offer critical evaluations.

At this point I'm doing far less viewing and much more reading. As far as I'm concerned, the newspapers are winning this media war hands down.
_________________________
Still Crazy After All These Years

Top
#164799 - Fri Mar 28 2003 05:22 AM Re: Is all this coverage good?
snm Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Thu Jan 30 2003
Posts: 901
Loc: Israel
Quote:

...In the first week I haven't seen a single war historian on ANY network comparing the progress and casualty level of this conflict to others in American -- or world-- history.




Actually you missed a comparison of casualty rates on Fox a few days ago. Unfortunately it was about five minutes long and it was somewhere around the middle of the night in the American time zones.

The war coverage is boring. I'm limiting myself to 45 minutes of coverage a day, in the eight O'clock news, and that's assuming that a. I'm home, and b. there's no figure skating on.
_________________________
"Talk is cheap, arms are not"- Victor Davis Hanson

Top
#164800 - Fri Mar 28 2003 06:08 AM Re: Is all this coverage good?
Islingtonian Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Thu May 16 2002
Posts: 403
Loc: Er, Islington.
London, UK
A lot of our reporters don't actually seem to have anything to report. They're installed with military units all over the place, and know what their own unit's doing, but since there aren't any on the front lines (quite rightly), they don't have any idea what's really happening in the war.

Our TV providers have certainly geared themselves up for 24 hour coverage, but only have about 15 minutes of stuff to cover a day. Our news stations keep going live to "our reporter in the North of Kuwait", "our reporter in the North of Iraq", or "our reporter stuck out in the desert miles from anywhere", asking what's happening, and being told "I don't know."

Another thing I've noticed is that our news anchors are sometimes quite indiscrete, asking questions that the reporter clearly can't answer eg. "Is your platoon moving North towards Basra?" or (of a reporter in Baghdad whose report was being supervised by the Iraqis) "Is it true that the Iraqis plan to launch chemical weapons?". After the last one, the line went dead (fortunately the reporter was able to call back later).

Regrettably I think it's something that's true or a lot of our news coverage these days - it's the story that counts, not the facts.

Top
#164801 - Fri Mar 28 2003 07:10 AM Re: Is all this coverage good?
Coolupway Offline
Prolific

Registered: Mon Aug 26 2002
Posts: 1131
Yes, but you have unfettered access to the Baghdad Basra Cheerleaders, formerly known as the Beeb. It's ever so much fun to bring up Google News, read the headlines and GUESS THE SOURCE!!

CBS: "Coalition forces advance toward Baghdad"
NY Times: "Coalition forces fail to advance as far as expected"
BEEB: "Saddam omniscient, omnipotent... ALLAHU AKBAR!"

Please note: these last two are satirical headlines!!


Edited by Coolupway (Fri Mar 28 2003 06:54 PM)

Top
#164802 - Fri Mar 28 2003 01:43 PM Re: Is all this coverage good?
DieHard Offline
Prolific

Registered: Wed Oct 10 2001
Posts: 1127
Loc: Louisiana USA
chelsea, if I may:

I was in agreement with your post until I tripped over this sentence.
Quote:

I think the Bush administration set unrealistic expectations at the outset. They were initially predicting a war that would be over in two weeks and they hyped "Shock and Awe" to be the stunner to end all stunners.



You may have heard something I missed, but I have never heard the administration or Pentagon suggest that this war would be easy or done within two weeks. I have heard a lot of that from the talking heads on TV but they'll say anything to fill in a minute or two of air time. I would be interested in seeing a quote from the administration in which they made such a statement. I only say this because I feel that the media is giving false indications to the public and when things don't go as the "experts" on TV have predicted, then they claim the war is going badly or that there is unexpected resistance. From what I have seen this war has progressed rapidly with minimal loss of life of coalition soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

Quote:

Well, fast and furious this war really isn't, and thousands of Iraqi soldiers aren't surrendering and Iraqi civilians are not yet dancing for joy and embracing the troops.



The coalition forces marched 200 miles in three days; that's the fastest ground advancement in military history. Iraqi soldiers are surrendering and civilians are embracing troops when they are not under threat of execution.

Quote:

So nothing is going according to script.



Based on what? The NY Times? The script is being altered whenever necessary to preserve the lives of Iraqi innocents and to maintain as much infrastructure as possible. The US and UK forces are going to such painstaking efforts to avoid civilian casualties that they have slowed their advance in some instances and in others are putting themselves at greater risk. We are conducting joint military and humanitarian operations and there will be glitches since this has never been tried before. The war is 9 days old and it is ridiculous to start claiming that it is not going in our favor. Hussein is loving that propaganda. The fact is the Pentagon is conducting this war, under difficult circumstances, with a moral combat code never seen before in battle. I should think all Americans and Brits would be proud that our troops are putting Iraqi civilian lives ahead of their objectives and their own safety. This defeatist rhetoric is really annoying to me and if anything causes this war to go badly it will be unjustified criticism from the media that will turn public opinion against our troops. Saddam certainly won't beat us but I sincerely worry about rhetoric that will embolden other Arab nations to provide more tangible support to Saddam and undermine the public support that is necessary for the Pentagon to properly administer the war.

I have waited patiently for days to read in this forum condemnation of Iraqi war tactics; executions of his own civilians, putting civilians in the line of fire, hiding troops and hardware in the midst of children or the sick and infirm, possible executions of POW's, threatening entire Iraqi families with execution, faking surrender to coalition troops only to open fire on them when they show mercy, using American uniforms to coerce surrender of Iraqi troops and then executing them (and you wonder, chelsea, why there aren't more Iraqi troops surrendering). But the silence has been deafening. Not even a fraction of the criticism still being leveled and Bush and Blair. Instead we hear, not in FT but in the mainstream media, how things are not going as planned, how Bush is being outsmarted, how the American assault is bumbling it's way through Iraq.... this stuff is hogwash. The coalition is going to extremes never before seen in wartime to prevent civilian casualties and this is the spin they get-"They miscalculated, things are going as planned, it's not as easy as they thought, etc..."

_________________________
In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved. - FDR

Top
#164803 - Fri Mar 28 2003 01:46 PM Re: Is all this coverage good?
DieHard Offline
Prolific

Registered: Wed Oct 10 2001
Posts: 1127
Loc: Louisiana USA
To answer the original question, no! The coverage, to the extent it is being given, is not a good thing. The talking heads declare the war over before it begins and then claim the troops are underachieving because they carry out their mission the way it was meant to be carried out.
_________________________
In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved. - FDR

Top
#164804 - Fri Mar 28 2003 02:19 PM Re: Is all this coverage good?
Coolupway Offline
Prolific

Registered: Mon Aug 26 2002
Posts: 1131

Top
#164805 - Fri Mar 28 2003 03:21 PM Re: Is all this coverage good?
chelseabelle Offline
Star Poster

Registered: Thu Oct 07 1999
Posts: 10282
Loc: New York USA
DieHard, I am not criticizing our conduct of the war. I think you may not be reading me accurately, or maybe I am not being clear.
But I do think the war is not going according to script because some government expectations were based on how the Iraqis, and Saddam, responded in the Gulf War. This seems to be a different ball game. And in this war we initially sent in far fewer ground troops than we did in the Gulf War, and that may have created some problems with our opening strategy.
But no war probably does go according to script, and we revise our tactics accordingly.

You may be right that the media created most of the false expectations, but some, I think, did come from the government--particularly Secretary Rumsfeld. The "Shock and Awe" hype came from the government. The government has been trying to shape expectations by using the media--right now they are using the media to try to curb expectations for a fast victory.

This is what Ari Fleisher said today:

"At a White House briefing earlier, Mr. Bush's chief spokesman, Ari Fleischer, insisted that there was no sense of collective surprise and dismay within the administration that American and British forces are meeting tough resistance, and that they are not being universally welcomed as liberators.

Mr. Fleischer cited remarks from the president last October, in which Mr. Bush warned that a war might not be quick and easy, and that Mr. Hussein's forces might resort to "cruel and desperate measures" to stave off defeat.

Mr. Fleischer also noted his own remarks, a few days before the military campaign began, that a war might not be short. And he told reporters that Vice President Dick Cheney, who said he expected a war to last "weeks rather than months," had added the caveat "but we can't count on that." http://nytimes.com

The reason the White House had to deny their surprise and dismay was because they had put forth certain expectations just before the war started.


Make no mistake, DieHard, the New York Times, while editorially no great supporter of Bush, clearly wants us to win this war. They aren't really knocking our efforts in Iraq, and neither am I. But the Times coverage is much more balanced and much broader than anything I can find on TV.

The Iraqis may fight dirty, I agree with that. But they want to win this one too. And while I know we are more decent than the likes of Saddam I also believe we are more restrained by the Geneva Convention and by the fact that the whole world--including the Arab world--is watching this war on TV, so too many Iraqi civilian casualties would not win us any friends and would certainly inflame our enemies.

From a purely detached point of view I can admire the ingenious methods being used by Saddam, repugnant though they are, the same way I can admire the planning and ingenuity of simultaneously hijacking four planes and turning them into missiles of attack against buildings. It is perverse but ingenious.
I really didn't expect the other side to act decently in this war, did you?

The constant dwelling on each American casualty, by the TV media, isn't helping to put this war into any proper perspective. Unfortunately, people die in battle--from friendly fire, from accidents, and at the hands of the enemy. While each death is a tragedy, it does not indicate anything about the progress of the war.

Have you noticed that Bush is now referring to this as "a war of liberation"? I thought we went there to look for weapons of mass destruction. Since we haven't found any yet, I do believe the President's new termination is an attempt to steer public perceptions of this war, as well as the media slant on it. We now have a "noble goal"--to liberate the people of Iraq-- and that will, ostensibly, justify a longer war. But that wasn't our intention, nor our primary objective in going into Iraq. Our legitimacy in going into Iraq, was based only on a threat to our own security--from WMD. So, where did this "war of liberation" come from? Isn't this the President playing to the media?
_________________________
Still Crazy After All These Years

Top
#164806 - Fri Mar 28 2003 04:06 PM Re: Is all this coverage good?
A Member Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Fri Nov 23 2001
Posts: 3082
Loc:  
Coolupway - I don't want to get into a nationality fight - And I certainly want a swift end to the conflict! But your interpretation of the British News prorammes is way off the beam, I won't say it's equal coverage but the Iraq/Arabian output is being shown in the UK (albeit with a slightly biased commentary) - is it being shown (in full) in the USA?
And was your BEEB quote just slightly taken out of context!
_________________________

Top
#164807 - Fri Mar 28 2003 05:27 PM Re: Is all this coverage good?
snm Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Thu Jan 30 2003
Posts: 901
Loc: Israel
Quote:

But no war probably does go according to script, and we revise our tactics accordingly




Exactly. It has been said that "no battle plan ever survives first contact with enemy forces", and nothing could be more true.

The most important feature in any operations plan is elasticity. The best plans are just a starting point, a blueprint that forces can use in training, and they are meant to be changed according to circumstances. Most plans are just "best case scenarios", designed to cover the largest possible number of most likely events. If a battle plan doesn't have adaptability then it's not worth the paper it's written on.
_________________________
"Talk is cheap, arms are not"- Victor Davis Hanson

Top
#164808 - Fri Mar 28 2003 06:30 PM Re: Is all this coverage good?
snm Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Thu Jan 30 2003
Posts: 901
Loc: Israel
Fosse, I have access to British coverage (BBC & Sky), American coverage (CNN & Fox), and Arab coverage (Al-Jazeera & Abu-Dhabi), and I can tell you that Coolupway definitely has a point.
_________________________
"Talk is cheap, arms are not"- Victor Davis Hanson

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

Moderator:  ladymacb29, sue943