War and the media (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Raverdave -> War and the media (3/25/2003 4:26:10 PM)

Having watched a LOT of the coverage of GW2 I am taken by the following question. If there was the same type of media coverage in WW2 as we now see in the Gulf, what impact if any would it have had?

Take for instance the early part of WW2, the "phoney war", and compare that to the current talk of how long the war is taking.
Imagine having reporters in London, or even Dresden for that matter, reporting "live".



chief -> (3/25/2003 11:31:51 PM)

Raverdave:
We didn't have TV during WW2, but we had Edward R. Morrow broadcasting live from London during the Blitz. It was riveting. Yes TV may have been better, but better not the war.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (3/26/2003 12:17:32 AM)

Times change, people change, conditions change.

I sit watching the news, and what bothers me is how every hour on the hour I have to endure stuff that just gets annoying eventually.

Interviewing family members about their loved ones is getting on my nerves lately.
I don't think wives enjoyed their menfolk being gone for several years during WW2, but we also didn't have to watch news reporters trying to make it interesting either.

I know for a fact, that a dead soldier has not somehow become any more or any less tragic over the years.
But hearing of a small handful of casualties, hourly and repeatedly as if it was on par with the common scope of loss during some of WW2s more well known battles is also getting very annoying.

Has society gotten soft lately?

To the best of my knowledge, something like half of our dead so far have been shot up by us.
That isn't tragic, that is appallingly embarrassing.
I heard the ratio is standing at 1 to 1500 currently (if the reports are accurate, and I am not saying I think they are necessarily).
I wonder though, is that calculation based on total war dead all causes?
I wonder what the ratio would be if we could start getting more use out of all the wonderful tech to stop shooting our own people up.

I am positive this war is going to get some serious numbers of casualties in the modern sense. But compare the losses for the whole war against the losses of say Tarawa, Stalingrad, Midway, Cassino and you realise why I am just a bit annoyed.

Today's military is in a lot of cases an educated and well trained military. It is in a lot of cases volunteer. The people are able to join freely and get paid well. There are career opportunities. Lots of great education while serving.

BUT IT'S THE ARMY PEOPLE!!

I was not given a gun while I worked delivering furniture in the late 80s. Therefore, I was not under the impression I might get called upon to put my personal safety at risk.

Each and every person in the gulf whether it be a reporter or a soldier is there knowing full well there are others out there intent on violence.
The business is death and warfare causes it.

I remember when I was in uniform. My sageant made it clear to us, we were there to hold the rifle. The rifle was what was valuable. If I hit the dirt, that rifle better not get damaged.
I was an instrument of government policy. My opinion was not being sought while I was "at work".

I have empathy for the serving schmucks in the gulf. But I can also say "semper fi mac" when it gets nasty.



Zeta16 -> (3/26/2003 1:22:08 AM)

I think that people are making to much of Sunday, yes we lost some soliders, but we are moving at such a great pace it is unbeleivable. 15-20 deaths to war action is not that much, Think to other wars and this is a low total. The media takes a few deaths and turns it into a day we things went so badly wrong. I think that is a wrong message. In war you are going to have set backs, and people will be lost. Remember most of the people lost have been lost to soliders faking surrender and soliders dressed in civilian clothes. Most of the caputured took a wrong turn. I think that the american population needs to see this war in another way, we need to stop worrying about civilian deaths and do what it takes to keep our troops safe. I think that is why we have had some of the deaths to date.



tarendelcymir -> (3/26/2003 6:14:19 AM)

I really have to agree. While, given the choice, I'd rather no war at all, if we're going to have one, then people are going get killed. That's what war is. If you're going to be in a war, you have to go all the way - you can't fight a half-assed war and expect to win it. If 300,000+ soldiers are involved on one side, and a few tens or even hundreds of them die to win it...hell, that sounds like pretty good odds to me. Sure, it sucks when someone dies, and sure, I feel bad for their family, but like Les said, they knew what they were getting into when they joined the military.



Veldor -> (3/28/2003 7:08:38 AM)

The media is to blame.

Put it this way. A "HOT" story for them is "Seven people were gunned down today at the Wal-Mart"..

That didn't happen (Not today anyway) but had it it would be a big story.

Now think about "Seven soldiers were gunned down today outside Baghdad"..

Uhm, not to sound unpatriotic or unappreciative of their efforts or those soldiers personal sacrifices, or disrespectful to their families.. or .. or .. but really..

SO WHAT!?!?!!!

That is war.

If only 7 soldiers died or only 70.... or even 700. then I say "Job well done". Soldiers dying do not mean anyone is doing anything wrong. Civilians dying ALSO does not mean anyone is doing anything wrong.

Everything is going just fine.



Capt. Pixel -> If today's media were covering WWII (3/28/2003 10:28:26 AM)

They'd be stomping all over England looking for Patton's mythical army. And after finding the inflatable tanks and cardboard barracks, would broadcast for the world to see the neat trick we were playing on the Germans. Doh! :mad:

The one person I feel the most for right now is Gen. Tommy Franks. It must really suck to have every move you make being second-guessed by thousands of 'armchair generals' all over the world, all-the-while being observed (in Real Time) by your enemy. :rolleyes:



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (3/28/2003 8:36:16 PM)

Oh well I suppose Saddam doesn't enjoy the fact that the second he goes "live" we pin point his location, and suddenly he is anything but "live".



Raverdave -> Some of you guys missed the point. (3/29/2003 5:33:42 AM)

The question thatn I was trying to raise was this:-

What impack would todays media had on WW2 if we had todays media back then?



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (3/29/2003 11:18:38 PM)

To be fair to us then. We potential respondents need to further clarify with you.

If we transport 21st Century media tech to say 1939 Poland or 1944 Britanny or even 1942 Mid Pacific, will we be using 21st Century civilians or 1930-40s civilians?

This is veeeeeery important.

For instance, 500 protesters in Manhatten would not get the same treatment by the differing types of populace.
Back then you would end up wearing quite a different label.



Raverdave -> (3/30/2003 6:31:51 PM)

Just the [I]technology and the reporters.[/I]



Bucket -> (3/31/2003 12:31:01 AM)

Just to be the first one to answer the question straight... :)

I reckon it would've made things *a lot* shorter and more clean cut. With a high level of coverage and hourly updates on who and who hasn't died, it would be a lot more difficult to keep up a sustained war effort. Especially since so much goes into commenting on what world leaders look like. (Saddam and Osama both get regular medicals whenever they appear onscreen.) Imagine a tired and distressed Hitler trying to keep the German people at war.

Take Iraq for example: I think the guerilla fighting will go on for sometime but I think the media coverage is actually going to reduce the length of the war.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (3/31/2003 10:21:27 AM)

Hmm just the tech and the reporters eh.

If guys like Bill Mauldlin and Ernie Pyle had access to real time, hmmm.

Well let's see, we would have found out about the Germans training in Russia.

We would have found out about the Nazi's abusing the Jews.

We would have found out about the concentration camps.

The Japanese would not have gotten away with so much in China.

The US would have known about the fleet movements from Japan.

The Russians would have known about the troop movements before Barbarossa.

We would have noticed the deployments in The area of the Ardennes.

In short, most of the initial axis options, would have been revealed to the light of day.

At this point we can stop wasting our time debating all the allied events that would never have had to happen.

But today it is popular to assume the US are the evil bullies. I guess people are just to preconditioned to thinking it could even have ever been someone else.

News whether biased or not, is invariably nosy. It's hard to keep secrets any more.



Snigbert -> (4/14/2003 9:17:54 PM)

I think the fundamental problem with the American media is that it makes too many presumptions about the moral beliefs and intelligence of it's audience. In other words, they really dont understand their viewers. One area this can be seen is in television commercials. How many annoying commercials have you watched where you observe the behavior or activity of one of the characters and thought to yourself "I dont know anybody who would act like that." How many times has the news or television commercials insulted your intelligence? How come every commercial for a pharmaceutical product is so surrealistic it seems like it was made by Andy Warhol on LSD? Why does the media feel the need to explain everything you see to you like you're a moron?



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (4/14/2003 9:38:07 PM)

Don't limit yourself to just the news eh.

The US also gave us Cow and Chicken for their idea of a cartoon.

Reality TV (as if I want to see garbage packaged as entertainment).

And movies where special effects assumes we have no idea what an explosion really looks like.

It's more than just the news implying the viewer is stupid.



Fred98 -> (4/15/2003 5:11:59 AM)

At one time I heard a radio journalist on 2GB, covering Gulf War 2 and his words could paint a picture better than the TV could ever do!



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (4/15/2003 8:22:51 AM)

It is interesting that so much of history or history in the making, is coloured by people often possessing flawed reference points or skewed data.

For instance.

I have noticed that even among wargamers you can see noticable gaps in accuracy.

I read a couple of posts today, on a forum inhabited by fans of a wargame featuring high detail 3d armour, and yet no one was able to demonstrate, that the "british tank" viewed while that goofy reporter drove around Tikrit, was a WW2 British Churchill tank (makes me wonder what the heck it was doing there eh).

The tank was easy to identify, but I am also a model maker, and I could likely ID any primary tank ever used during WW2 from even the briefest glance.

But the point is, even a forum saturated in armour nuts missed identifying it correctly.

I have also watched documentaries that had seemingly silly visual errors, or read text books with photo credits that were horrible goof ups.

So I am rarely worried if the news can't keep data correct.



Snigbert -> (4/16/2003 1:59:03 AM)

Thats another good point, the news media has no sense of history or perspective. It's all about 'the story' and nothing else matters.



SLAAKMAN -> (4/22/2003 10:57:37 PM)

"I have noticed that even among wargamers you can see noticable gaps in accuracy."

NAAAW!!! LES YOU CANT MEAN THAT CAN YOU??? WARGAMERS LOSING SIGHT OF THEIR ULTIMATE POWERS OF HISTORICAL ACCURACY??!!! WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO?? NOW TO REMEDY THIS ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS GET OUT THERE AND BRING ME CLEOPATRA IMMEDIATELY.....NAKED!!
SLAAKATTAK



Sniperdoc -> (4/25/2003 10:34:31 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]Times change, people change, conditions change.

I sit watching the news, and what bothers me is how every hour on the hour I have to endure stuff that just gets annoying eventually.

Interviewing family members about their loved ones is getting on my nerves lately.
I don't think wives enjoyed their menfolk being gone for several years during WW2, but we also didn't have to watch news reporters trying to make it interesting either.

I know for a fact, that a dead soldier has not somehow become any more or any less tragic over the years.
But hearing of a small handful of casualties, hourly and repeatedly as if it was on par with the common scope of loss during some of WW2s more well known battles is also getting very annoying.

Has society gotten soft lately?

To the best of my knowledge, something like half of our dead so far have been shot up by us.
That isn't tragic, that is appallingly embarrassing.
I heard the ratio is standing at 1 to 1500 currently (if the reports are accurate, and I am not saying I think they are necessarily).
I wonder though, is that calculation based on total war dead all causes?
I wonder what the ratio would be if we could start getting more use out of all the wonderful tech to stop shooting our own people up.

I am positive this war is going to get some serious numbers of casualties in the modern sense. But compare the losses for the whole war against the losses of say Tarawa, Stalingrad, Midway, Cassino and you realise why I am just a bit annoyed.

Today's military is in a lot of cases an educated and well trained military. It is in a lot of cases volunteer. The people are able to join freely and get paid well. There are career opportunities. Lots of great education while serving.

BUT IT'S THE ARMY PEOPLE!!

I was not given a gun while I worked delivering furniture in the late 80s. Therefore, I was not under the impression I might get called upon to put my personal safety at risk.

Each and every person in the gulf whether it be a reporter or a soldier is there knowing full well there are others out there intent on violence.
The business is death and warfare causes it.

I remember when I was in uniform. My sageant made it clear to us, we were there to hold the rifle. The rifle was what was valuable. If I hit the dirt, that rifle better not get damaged.
I was an instrument of government policy. My opinion was not being sought while I was "at work".

I have empathy for the serving schmucks in the gulf. But I can also say "semper fi mac" when it gets nasty. [/B][/QUOTE]

Man... you have hit it right on the head of the nail there!!!! You and I are on the same wavelength with this... I think newscasting as it is being presented right now is pathetic...



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (4/25/2003 11:57:45 PM)

To add a sort of add on to all this, and in light of the fact that the "war" appears over, and now it appears we are in "clean up" mode (even if some people get killed next week by soome die hard nutcase intent on his promised virgins in heaven).

I have heard about as much as I can stmoache about "heroes".

When did they stop calling people like Sgt York or Audie Murphy heroes, and start using the term for individuals that unfortunately got lost and or captured and eventually rescued?

I mean yes I am glad that Jessica is alright.

But I always thought a hero was someone that conciously and intentionally put their life in extreme risk, to accomplish a goal that was knowingly and most assuredly absolutely considerably life threatening in the very real now sense of the word.

Audie Murphy stood on a burning tank destroyer that was due to blow up. He did it knowing is unit was pulling back. It was quite clear he was being attacked by what any rational thinking person would qualify as most definitely superior forces. Yet he manned the tanks machine gun and systematically gunned down numerous german troops that had accompanying armour support. He so decimated the infantry support of the german armour, that the armour broke off the attack.

That is heroism.

No one could have faulted the man for pulling back with the others. Logic would have said to stay is to willing acknowledge you are going to die.

Sadly I am only able to offer dismay, that our past heroes are having their very real and very extreme heroism somehow sullied by giving the term to those that are merely survivors.

My hat is off to the reporters that followed the units into harms way. They shared the conditions with the troops.

But the one thing I really had a hard time with, was the people in the news media sitting back in a CNN office or whatever other news service, or the people wandering the streets here at home with a microphone trying to make news out of nothing.

Did I want to see interviews of Jessica's friends and families? No for crying out loud. Only a complete moron needs a reporter telling them her family is concerned for her. Duhh!.

I probably missed some parts of the war on the news, because I was hiding from all the most wretchedly miserable excuses for invented importance news items.



JJKettunen -> (4/26/2003 12:12:05 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SLAAKMAN
[B]NOW TO REMEDY THIS ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS GET OUT THERE AND BRING ME CLEOPATRA IMMEDIATELY.....NAKED!![/B][/QUOTE]

You want to see Les naked? :eek:



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (4/26/2003 12:51:43 AM)

inflection is everything isn't it :D



SLAAKMAN -> (4/27/2003 1:34:43 AM)

LES.....NAKID? SORRY BUT I DONT WANNA SEE NO OSCAR MEYER WEENA. I JUST WANNA DRINK A KEG OF FUNKY COLD MEDINA......AND WATCH CLEOPATRA DANCE ON MY......(ahem):o



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.828125