The Media is Doing a Great Job

[Sam Stone]

No one has mentioned this yet, so I think it's worth pointing out that the media is doing a fantastic job covering this war.

The 'embedded' reporters are right in the thick of things. They're not in the rear columns in relative safety - they're right out in the forward positions. Richard Bloom is reporting from the 'tip of the spear', the armored column racing for Baghdad that would be the first to engage the enemy.

The reporters in Baghdad (Peter Arnett, again, Nic Robertson from CNN) are at great risk - not so much from the bombing, but from a dying regime that could take them hostage or kill them. Yet they're reporting in a very calm, cool fashion.

Every network I've tuned to has been very accurate in describing military tactics and equipment. CNN has some fantastic visuals, and Miles O'Brien and Gen. Wesley Clark have been great.

There's been no 'rah rah go boys' stuff, nor has their been any handwringing about whether they should be there. Just straight ahead factual reporting.

Anyone else disagree or agree? Is this one of the media's finer moments?

[Beagle]

It has been truly amazing so far. Watching the live digital camera shots of the command vehicle in the sandstorm was unprecedented coverage. I never thought I would see live coverage of units manuvering in 'secrecy'. Wrap your mind around that.

[Sam Stone]

I should have said David Bloom, not Richard Bloom. Gutsy guy. Soldiers train for this stuff - they are surrounded by their compatriots, and know exactly what they are doing and what to expect. Reporters are just along for the ride, and must feel pretty helpless. It takes a lot of courage to ride the lead element into battle in those conditions.

[Duck Duck Goose]

The journalists did all go to boot camp last summer, remember. ;)

Me, I can live without CNN.com's Second-Coming headlines, "STRIKES ROCK IRAQ", like we don't know already? and their complete abandonment of their usual bottom of page teasers for Entertainment, Technology, etc.

[channeling Scarlett O'Hara]
War, war, war! I'm SICK of war! I wanna hear about the friggin' OSCARS!!

:D

[EasyPhil]

Originally posted by Beagle
It has been truly amazing so far. Watching the live digital camera shots of the command vehicle in the sandstorm was unprecedented coverage. I never thought I would see live coverage of units manuvering in 'secrecy'. Wrap your mind around that.

This is a joke right?

The coverage pales in comparison to the coverage of the Viet Namm war.

[Sam Stone]

That's because these reporters haven't been in actual combat yet, and also because we're seeing the low-res 'live' feeds. I imagine that when they get back they'll have lots of still photos and videotape that will be of amazing quality.

If there is heavy fighting somewhere, it'll be Vietnam-style coverage, only real time. Because reporters are travelling with almost all of these units.

That's not to say the Vietnam coverage wasn't great. It was. And a lot of reporters were killed.

[Duck Duck Goose]

Um, when did the Vietnam War have live coverage from command vehicles? I must've been asleep from 1963 to 1975...

[CyberPundit]

I haven't seen much of the TV coverage. There appears to be the usual problem of not having enough material for day-long broadcasts and having to fill in with a fair amount of fluffy commentary and endless repetition.

Also I am wondering how much the US networks are reporting less positive stories. For instance see this BBC story about higher-than-expected resistance at Umm Qasr:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2873311.stm

Has any US network reported this story in as much detail? I can't find anything on CNN or MSNBC but I haven't looked very closely.

[BigNumber12]

I hafto say, I do envy the reporters riding in with the armored convoys. You know that's a life-changing experience, one that a person would remember for the rest of their life.

[kniz]

Originally posted by EasyPhil
This is a joke right?

The coverage pales in comparison to the coverage of the Viet Namm war.
:D You ain't going to whoosh anyone with that one, EasyPhil

I watched a piece with Brian Jennings and Ted Coppal. Coppal was standing in the desert while a column of armored vehicles went by and crossed the line into Iraq. It was two veterans at their best and later Jennings remarked that he didn't realize that it had lasted 20 minutes. I am not a Coppal fan or maybe I should say I wasn't a Coppal fan.

[Beagle]

Originally posted by EasyPhil
This is a joke right?

The coverage pales in comparison to the coverage of the Viet Namm war. Not sure what you mean. The coverage is unprecedented even if there is less combat to film.

Personally, I would like to roll into Iraq as far as possible without combat. I would like all of the Iraqis who want to surrender to be given a fair chance to surrender. Then, the holdouts, I want to see pulverized as quickly as possible.

I would prefer not to get lots of coverage of soldiers writhing in pain in the jungle next to the poor naked girl with napalm burns.

BigNumber12 knows where I'm coming from.

[asterion]

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
The journalists did all go to boot camp last summer, remember. ;)

Me, I can live without CNN.com's Second-Coming headlines, "STRIKES ROCK IRAQ", like we don't know already? and their complete abandonment of their usual bottom of page teasers for Entertainment, Technology, etc.

[channeling Scarlett O'Hara]
War, war, war! I'm SICK of war! I wanna hear about the friggin' OSCARS!!

:D

I was watching Fox when the "Shock and Awe" phase offically began, and they actually stopped coverage, switched into a "special report" transition, and switched all their graphics to "SHOCK AND AWE!!!" I'm not quite sure why.

Actually, I found it pretty funny, like the way that most of this reporting has a tendency to go over the top. However, I would kill to actually see Bush to Saddam: <ha 1 0wn3d j00 n00b...irack suXors!!!1!>.

[CyberPundit]

Yes the endless repetition of the "shock and awe" phrase is becoming rather irritating. Less is sometimes more , folks.

[chula]

I agree that some of the footage is impressive. Al-Jazeera, it should be noted, is getting a lot of footage the American networks can't. But it bothers me that they're just repeating whatever the U.S. government tells them. A few examples: "The U.S. will be commanding Turkish troops." Lie.
"40 countries are in the 'coalition of the willing.'" Let's see... U.K., Australia... I'm done counting. How many countries consider themselves in that category?
"It may be one of Saddam's body doubles in the video." Are you kidding me? No amount of plastice surgery could produce a face that identical.
All this business about the Iraqis welcoming the U.S... The BBC was reporting that the war has united Iraqis with differing opinions on Saddam in their disapproval of the Americans' attack. Large numbers have being returning to Iraq from Jordan so that they can fight against the Americans.
Also, I hadn't realized that most newscasters' command of the English language is only slightly better than GWB's. I was sick in bed all day yesterday listening to it and was tempted to make a list of the made-up words and atrocious grammar I heard.

[rmbnxs]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
The 'embedded' reporters are right in the thick of things. They're not in the rear columns in relative safety - they're right out in the forward positions. Richard Bloom is reporting from the 'tip of the spear', the armored column racing for Baghdad that would be the first to engage the enemy.

The reporters in Baghdad (Peter Arnett, again, Nic Robertson from CNN) are at great risk - not so much from the bombing, but from a dying regime that could take them hostage or kill them. Yet they're reporting in a very calm, cool fashion.

Every network I've tuned to has been very accurate in describing military tactics and equipment. CNN has some fantastic visuals, and Miles O'Brien and Gen. Wesley Clark have been great.

There's been no 'rah rah go boys' stuff, nor has their been any handwringing about whether they should be there. Just straight ahead factual reporting.

Anyone else disagree or agree? Is this one of the media's finer moments? I think you're tripping. It's beyond siss boom bah. It's an electronic circle-jerk to the gods of military technology, a Dionysian orgy in celebration of all things sleek, shiny, and lethal. It's warnography.

Clever little monkeys.

[EasyPhil]

Granted the reporters are potentially risking their lives riding in a tank or armored personal carrier, but the seem to function more as the movie crews that went around with the Nazis.

Duck Duck Goose, live? Okay, it's live, whoop-tee-doo, I can go to the beach and watch sand. :D

I myself I'm not really looking for blood, gore and exploded bodies, but damn, is it really news to see armored vehicles rolling around in the sand?

[EasyPhil]

Originally posted by Beagle
Not sure what you mean. The coverage is unprecedented even if there is less combat to film.

Personally, I would like to roll into Iraq as far as possible without combat. I would like all of the Iraqis who want to surrender to be given a fair chance to surrender. Then, the holdouts, I want to see pulverized as quickly as possible.

I would prefer not to get lots of coverage of soldiers writhing in pain in the jungle next to the poor naked girl with napalm burns.

BigNumber12 knows where I'm coming from.

I hear you Beagle, but you know what? [size=4]War is Hell![/b] It's not a clean affair, people die, they writh in pain, their limbs are blown off, their guts hang out. It's about killing and being killed, that's the whole point of it.

The coverage is unprecented, in what sense? Because it's live? Filmed from a tank? Or is it because, it puts you there in a safe and clean way? To me it will become unprecedented when it goes beyond what I've already seen of real war footage.

[EasyPhil]

Damn coding!

War is hell!

[SpartanDC]

I envy those reporters SO much. I'm stuck here watching piddling politicians discuss a budget. Meanwhile, other journalists are riding with troops in an invasion.

I mean... that's COOL. Not to glorify an invasion, but I would be giddy as hell to get to cover something like that. As was said earlier, it would truly be a life-changing experience.

At the same time, they are putting their lives on the line. And the reason the coverage is of pretty good quality is that these are some of the most hardened, serious reporters out there. There is no glitz or glamour in reporting a war. They do this because they LOVE being reporters and LOVE being where the action is. That love makes them do their jobs the way they should be done.

Though, yeah, CNN.com is really testing the limits of how big a font you can display on the Web. :D

[Frostillicus]

The media is doing a great job... of parroting the administration's spin on this war. By constanting referring to the ridiculous name given to this farce (Operation Iraqi Freedom -- why not just call it Operation Bush is Great)) to constantly referring to the US and British forces as "coalition" forces to make it seem like the whole world is on our side, to showing video of every single pathetic Iraqi who surrenders to make it seem like Saddam's whole army is collapsing, yes they are doing a wonderful job of shedding the last shreds of objectivity they might have once possessed.

[kingpengvin]

I'm sorry but the amount of disinformation and propaganda coming out of this war from both sides is just as great as it was in lets say the 1940s.

Sure we are getting nifty pictures and all but remember the reporters in the "front lines" are aloud to give so much information and most of that would probably be fed by the officers of the forces involved. How many times have you heard (and I suggest you listen to them even now) "We have been informed" or "I have been told that" and not I saw... When the do it is along the lines of "I can now hear gun fire or explosions or "I see explosions."

All these weird reports taht Republican guards are surrendering en masse may be true but then again remember Baghdad is also watching CNN and if communications to the field are cut that is their only source of info so of course these types of information will be leaked.

I'm also surprised by reports of towns being taken and how there is little to no resistence yet it has to be reported that these areas are not quite "secure" yet. Obviously if that is teh case there is some resistance.

The one that gets me most is the reports of Republican guard officers conversing with the CIA, once again it could be happening but then again why broadcast plans like that unless you are really just stirring up paranoia in the other side.

Think about it. Saddam or one of his cabinet or generals hear that members of their elite officers are talking with the enemy about either surrendering or helping to topple the regieme guess what heads will start to roll and the command structure will break down further.

The fog of war is one thing but it sure gets thick without a free press being aloud to move where they want and report everything impartially.

[Duck Duck Goose]

Erm...

1. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" describes accurately, and specifically, for all the world to see, what the war's goal is--Iraqi Freedom. If they called it something vague like "Operation Desert Storm", the anti-U.S. spinmeisters around the world would say, "Ah ha! They're not telling us what they're really after! They're cloaking their mission in vague titles! 'Desert Storm', what's that supposed to mean?" Sometimes there's just no pleasing some people.

2. They're referring to the U.S. and British forces as the "coalition" to underscore for the rest of the world that there are in fact about 30 nations who are with the program on this, even if they aren't actually sending any troops to get shot at.

3. They're showing videos of pathetic Iraqis surrendering because that's all there is to see so far--pathetic Iraqis surrendering. When some Iraqis turn up and actually start shooting back at the Marines, then CNN will start showing videos of Iraqis shooting back.

Or do you think there's video footage somewhere of Iraqis shooting back that CNN is suppressing because they're intent on furthering Bush's supposed agenda of portraying the Iraqis as pathetic losers?

I think the media coverage so far has been blessedly free of pro-American "we're the greatest!" drum-beating.
once again it could be happening but then again why broadcast plans like that unless you are really just stirring up paranoia in the other side. Saddam or one of his cabinet or generals hear that members of their elite officers are talking with the enemy about either surrendering or helping to topple the regieme guess what heads will start to roll and the command structure will break down further.Um, riiiiight, this is kind of the idea. It's the way it's supposed to work. It's the same idea that was behind dropping all those "Surrender Dorothy!" leaflets on Iraq for the last few weeks. It's called "demoralizing your opponent" and it's a perfectly legitimate war tactic. Tokyo Rose?"We have been informed" or "I have been told that" and not I saw... The reporters are being allowed exactly as much information as the grunts in the front line. What do you want--for them to be allowed to sit in on planning meetings at HQ? You want them to be allowed to drive their Land Rovers wherever they want along the front lines? Does it sound like a good idea to you, from a military standpoint, to allow a lot of civilians to roam around at will in a war zone? How would you tell the journalists from the saboteurs? How would you keep from accidentally blowing up Nic Robertson, if you didn't know exactly where he was at all times?
When the do it is along the lines of "I can now hear gun fire or explosions or "I see explosions."Right, they're reporting on exactly what they're seeing and hearing. First you complain that they're not telling us their first-hand experiences, then you complain that they are telling us their first-hand experiences.

All they can see and hear is explosions because that's all there is to see and hear. Nothing's happening. Except for the thousands of Iraqi soldiers surrendering. And the villagers waving American flags and begging for food from the GIs. Which the press is dutifully reporting.

Do you think there are Iraqis fighting back in villages and the press isn't reporting it because the Army isn't allowing them to, or isn't telling them, so they aren't telling us? What kind of information do you suspect the Army of withholding from the American people? What do you think is going on that they aren't telling us?

And anyway, there are now journalists loose in Baghdad. May Ying Walsh is walking around talking to people.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/21/sprj.irq.aday/index.html

Do you think the Army censored her report?Obviously if that is teh case there is some resistance.Um, no, obviously it means they haven't had time to do a house-to-house to make sure the place is empty. The phrase "the area's not secure" just means in military terms that the Marines aren't 100% sure that there's nobody with an AK-47 hiding in a closet, gonna leap out and shoot 'em in the back.

[Boo Boo Foo]

Originally posted by kingpengvin
Think about it. Saddam or one of his cabinet or generals hear that members of their elite officers are talking with the enemy about either surrendering or helping to topple the regieme guess what heads will start to roll and the command structure will break down further.


I would suggest that Saddam and his remaining cohorts are effectively now consigned to a destiny similar to that of a submarine which dares not ever surface - lest it risk the wrath of all that is arrayed against it.

They're underground now - like cowering rats - and possibly, just possibly - they might still be able to communicate via fibre optic cable with the world outside the intricate tunnel systems linking his wonderful world of bunkers. But whatever, they're consigned to a dreadful fate now... every single road... every single tunnel entrance.... every single known residence and government building... every single military barracks and installation... every single one of 'em now are being watched like a hawk - by satellite, by spies, and by drones...

The moment any, or all of 'em, come up for air - that'll be the last time they ever do so.

So as a result, it doesn't MATTER now whether Saddam is still alive - and here's why... he no longer represents an omnipresence in Iraqi culture. Iraqi state TV is still on air, and this is no accident. The coalition could have destroyed the Ministry of Information buildings, and all of the state TV trasnmission equipment in an instant if they'd wanted to - but they are choosing not to because State TV can be a two edged sword you see. It can either work FOR or AGAINST the Saddam regime - and right now... it is totally working AGAINST Saddam.

Apparently, the Iraqi population is acutely aware of how Saddam likes to parade himself. He appears at least one hour a night, sometimes two - every night on State TV and he's incredibly vain - he loves his public profile.

Already, the public are openly chuckling about the fact that Saddam hasn't been seen since the "glasses wearing statement". It's openly accepted that the footage which has been shown later of him in cabinet meetings etc is old footage.

And what does this mean? It means the Saddam regime is ALREADY a non functioning entity. His abscence, and the abscence of any and all electro-magnetic command data emanating from Baghdad means that, at the very least, the regime is amazingly hamstrung now in performing rational military and political tasks.

Sure... there's speculation that an intricate system of foot runners might be at work, or couriers, or perhaps limited fibre optic comms might be at play - but I would contend that only the most unrealistic person would argue that such diminished comms are going to cut it against this coalition.

Most importantly - the coalition doesn't NEED to go into Baghdad - it's a total moot point. The reason is as follows... it's impossible, utterly, totally impossible to represent even the slightest military influence unless you move your assets into the open. The moment, the very MINUTE that Saddam's Special Republican Guards move their equipment on the go - sianora chaps... they're gone.

Nope... this war's already over - at a military point of view. All it takes now is patience for Iraqi State TV to finally admit it too, and then it's over politically.

An amazing strategy. Kudos, General Tommy Franks.

[Boo Boo Foo]

Just to prove my point - have a close listen to the contents of the bizarre, utterly TOTALLY fucking bizarre rebuttal coming out of the mouth of the Iraqi Information Minister in his morning press conference as I write this post.

His position, his claims, his denials - I haven't read or heard anything that desperate since the claims of "imminent victory" coming out of the mouth of Joseph Goebbels in the last days of WW2.

All it confirms, is that the ONLY power remaining in Saddam's regime is the power of PERCEPTION via Iraqi State TV.

If there wasn't so much innate tragedy attached of course to the sheer violence of military action, it would be almost laughable how desperate this guy is...

[istara]

A great page that I have been reading with interest is the BBC reporter's War Diaries (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/2873651.stm) - it's a bit like a blog from several correspondents in various locations: N Iraq, Baghdad, Kuwait, and elsewhere in the region. (Like a community blog, for LJ users).

Entries are quite short and concise, and posted quite regularly and immediately.

[errata]

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
3. They're showing videos of pathetic Iraqis surrendering because that's all there is to see so far--pathetic Iraqis surrendering. When some Iraqis turn up and actually start shooting back at the Marines, then CNN will start showing videos of Iraqis shooting back. There's also pictures of bleeding and dead Iraqi women and children. I guess that's one way of "liberating" them. There are also plenty of dead Iraqi soldiers and even some dead American and British troops.

But we keep on seeing over and over sanitary images of troops being deployed and bombs exploding in the distance. After Vietnam, the government has realized that the people like war until they realize exactly what it is. So we won't see many more images of our boys bleeding and shot and crying our even that many images of Iraqi dead will be allowed.

To be fair, the only reason I know about those images of women and children is because I saw a VERY brief mention of it on a BBC portion that ABC happened to broadcast. I have a feeling the rest of america watching all of the other major stations missed out on it. And if they weren't tuned in for those 30 seconds on ABC I have a feeling they didn't see it either. The vast majority of the coverage is just as I described: troop deployments and bombs exploding.

[RandySpears]

I don't know how the debate on this looks in the US and UK. In the rest of europe there's a high awareness that Reuters, BBC, and CNN (as well as NBC, ABC, Fox etc) are all British/American companies.

It is also an undisputed fact, that the US and UK administrations and militarys try as much as they can to control the news coverage in subtle and not so subtle ways. It is their job to do so.
Claiming that this coverage is not biased in a number of ways is ridiculous.

[London_Calling]

I'm quite happy without the imagery. The radio also tends to find more time for European and Arabic perspectives, which is, to say the least, refreshing. And you get genuine discussion with real people ..

Just don't want to be caught up like a rabbit in the headlights, watching the big tax dollar bangs on the screen, and the sanitized consequences. Too Hollywood for me.

[wolfstu]

I don't have a television, and I'm glad I don't have to watch the American networks. But I do wish I could see that big nifty map that Peter Mansbridge is said to walk around on.

I'm getting my news mostly from CBC Radio. Canada's Public Broadcaster is doing a great job. They, for one, aren't just 'parroting the govenrment's position'- neither the American or the Canadian government. They've reported the PM's stance, and the dissent of some of his ministers. And they's reported the opposition's stance, (which is in very stong opposition to the PM) as well as the disagreement with that position of some of their MPs.

I've heard coverage from all over the world- from near American troops (CBC declined to embed journalists with American units), from the streets of Cairo, from Amman, from London, from Washington. They seem to be getting many sides of the story- Iraqis who live in Jordan. American soldiers. The governments of nations. The people on the street in Ottawa, Cairo, Paris, Washington, and Baghdad. Maybe they're lying to me, maybe they're not impartial- doubting the media is wise. But they seem to be doing a pretty good job, from what I can tell.

An interesting report, just a few minutes ago:
Anthony Germain is co-hosting the coverage with Anna-Maria Tremonti. Germain is connected to a CBC producer on a cell phone in southern Iraq. The reporter himself can't come to the phone. They talk for a minute, and then noises are heard. But the call is cut short, as the producer has been told to shut the phone off. Verbatim:
"When Americans with guns tell you to turn your cell phone off, that's what you do in this business."

Considering they have chosen not to embed journalists, and that the Americans aren't being universally co-operative (which can be understood), I think they're doing a good job. I'm fond of the interviews Michael Enright has been doing with US government types. Some of those administrators have been downright evasive, some of them have responded to factual questions by simply reaffirming their faith in the President, and giving no answer.

Way to go, CBC.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It doesn't take much courage to be on the "front line" when the enemy isn't fighting back.

[istara]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
The 'embedded' reporters are right in the thick of things. They're not in the rear columns in relative safety - they're right out in the forward positions.
Sadly, nothing truer said.

Today, an as yet unnamed Australian journalist was killed by a car bomb in Kurdish controlled northern Iraq, along with three Kurdish peshmerga troops.

Also, ITN correspondent Terry Lloyd and colleagues Fred Nerac and Hussein Othman are missing after coming under fire in Iraq on their way to the southern city of Basra.

I guess our prayers are with them all.

[RandySpears]

Istara:

As our prayers for sure are with all those whose life is in danger. Americans, Iraqis, soldiers, reporters and civilians alike!

[kniz]

Originally posted by kingpengvin
The fog of war is one thing but it sure gets thick without a free press being aloud to move where they want and report everything impartially.
In one case, three reporters are missing and another is wounded. (somewhere close to Bosra).
In another case, two reporters have radioed for help.
It doesn't seem a very safe idea.
They are being allowed to do it.

:confused: Is the word allowed spelled differently in Canada?

[kingpengvin]

Of course not. It was supposed to be "allowed", I wasn't really spell checking the other night, (I also know it it the and not teh so please forgive my numerous typos)

The price of a free press is of course going to be the danger of being in the middle of a war. It is a dangerous place for anyone in the country and these people knew the risk. However we do need the third party view not being towed around by either the Iraqi Ministry of Information or the US Army.

I'm not using this thread as an anti war rant but rather a little reality check. Sure we have up to the minute video but many of the stories are still under military control. What I have said about the reporters stands, they are being fed information on the most part and reporting it. It is Information control and as this is a war the Army should do this. The US Army has learned a lot since 1991. Remember the complaints about lack of access to information the press made after the war. Well now they have met them part way.

I mean doesn't anyone find it odd that we've had several days of combat and it seems odd that except for the images in uncontrolled Northern Iraq we have not seen a single Iraqi casualty on TV? The only Iraqi soldiers shown are those healthy members who have surrendered.

Reports say some have resisted and ther have been several artillery and helicopter attacks on their possitions... am I supposed to assume that these attacks were just warning shots to scare the enemy into quitting or that some how those under the attack have vanished in the attacks.

I'm sorry but there must be dead and wounded out there but we will not be shown this if it can be helped because it would just feul the anti war folks anger (much like the shots of the children in the hospitals in Northern Iraq)

Please forgive my cynicism on this but I see this as another "clean" version of the war except instead of seeing images of smart bombs we are watching tanks moving across the desert and images of the enemy giving up en mass.


Sorry but war is messy and violent... people get hurt and die somehow the images we are seeing try to cover that fact and so I say there is a certain dishonesty and complicity with showing the war the way each of the governements want us to.

[Sam Stone]

There are operational limits placed on the 'embedded' reporters, and the reporters agree with it for the safety of the military (and their safety as well). So they aren't about to tell people exactly where they are, or what they are doing, unless the military specifically authorizes the release of their information.

But as far as I know, they aren't being limited in what they can show from a content perspective. The broadcasts I'm seeing are real time - there is no censorship.

And also, reporters are still free to do whatever they want and say whatever they want if they don't want the privilege of being embedded with the actual soldiers. Peter Arnett is not there as a guest of the American Military, and he will report exactly what he sees, good and bad.

When this war is over, we won't have a sanitized view of it only approved by the U.S. military. We will have an excellent record of it from all the embedded reporters who will write books and record what happened. That will give us a viewpoint from outside the military establishment. From an historical standpoint, this is a very important record for humanity.

And these guys are risking their lives to record it. They deserve our thanks.

[AZCowboy]

The embedded reporters are great. But they don't present the big picture. In fact, they send pictures, but not of action, just anecdotes.

Until Frank's press breifing today, it has been difficult to get the (official US version of the) big picture. In GW1, this was a much more frequent occurance. Ask the pool reporters at CentCom.

While I think the media has done a fine job, it seems the administration's approach has actually limited the amount of useful information presented to the public.

[istara]

Originally posted by RandySpears
Istara:

As our prayers for sure are with all those whose life is in danger. Americans, Iraqis, soldiers, reporters and civilians alike!
No question. One death is too many.

[RandySpears]

hear! hear! :)

[Epimetheus]

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
Erm...

1. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" describes accurately, and specifically, for all the world to see, what the war's goal is--Iraqi Freedom. If they called it something vague like "Operation Desert Storm", the anti-U.S. spinmeisters around the world would say, "Ah ha! They're not telling us what they're really after! They're cloaking their mission in vague titles! 'Desert Storm', what's that supposed to mean?" Sometimes there's just no pleasing some people.



Yeah, because this was the goal from the get go. From day one, our goal was humanitarian in nature. Bush from the begining was only thinking of the poor Iraqi civilians and how much they suffer and he wanted to go in and save them. :rolleyes:

[elucidator]

Sometimes it seems like the joke about starting a rock band: first settle on a cool name, and then decide who learns which instrument. When we bitch-slapped sorry little Grenada, that had the towering significator of "Urgent Fury", as though massive armies stuggled in the darkness, when it was more like a schoolyard bully extorting lunch money from the nerd. And, of course, one could hardly find a better paragon of post-modernist irony as a marketing tool than the Patriot Act and its subsequent loathesome git, PA II (The Revenge of J. Edgar Hoover).

If only our leaders' command of vision and foresight were the equal to thier tactical mastery of applying the exact shade of lipstick to a pig, how much better might it all be, no?

[RandySpears]

How about "Operation Valiant Wedgie"? :)

[kingpengvin]

I'm surprised that the US and BBC coverage has not yet shown the from al Jazera of the captured US soldiers. I've seen it and it is unsettling. This young kid who looks scared out of its wits is being asked questions on who he is why he's there etc.

Now mind you I'm sure the news agencies may be waiting for the families to be informed (I hope because God nows I wouldn't want to see any of my family members in that situation)

Rumsfeld saying showing pictures of prisoners of war is against the Geneva convention... except I think the US paraded their prisoners first.

As for the press on the field I was in no way knocking them, they are all taking grave risks. I'm just not convinced they are giving an open and unbiased report that isn't influenced for propaganda purposes. And it is both sides doing this.

[RandySpears]

Geneva-convention? Ha! Double-ha!