We make fun of Saudi TV, Chinese TV, Islamic Republic of Iran TV, etc, because they are owned and run by dictatorship governments.
And yet, our Corporate run media is OK on FOX, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS and Talk Radio shows.
Are we swimming in our own bath water?
When the coporate media heads think like the heads that run the country and reporters suck up to the administration to maintain access, you effectively have state run TV.
Did you see George W. Bush’s last pre-war press conference? The one with the softball, pre-approved questions?
You bet we’re swimming in our own bath water.
The press isn’t free, it costs money.
Hi, Wake up call, and welcome to the boards.
Which of the above-mentioned US-based networks is owned and run (in actuality, not metaphorically) by the US government?
How effective do you think government control of US media is, if it in fact exists? That is, approximately what percentage of stories on the war in Iraq run by the nets mentioned above do you believe have been placed by the government?
Why are you only considering TV news (and talk radio), generally considered to be the shallowest and least informative of media, in your OP? Why not print media?
Which news sources in the US (name as many as you please) do you consider to be more trustworthy than the above-mentioned nets, and why?
What alternative would you propose to the current system?
It seems to me that not having embedded reporters would come closer to your implication of a state run media.
Certainly I have seen many reports that have not painted the current administration in a very favorable light included those that are overseeing and planning the war.
:rolleyes:
U.S. defends war plan amid criticism.
L.A. Times reporter doctors photo.
White House dealing with information that does not fit with its official message.
NYT Op-Ed criticizing U.S. humanitarian efforts in Iraq
While an argument could be made that many U.S. news sources seek to put a positive spin on war reports, there is no question that they are reporting news that is not complimentary to the U.S. government and presenting opinions and criticisms of both the U.S. government and its war efforts. That’s a pretty far cry from wading in the bath water.
Absolutely not.
State run TV does not allow reporting on embarassing subject matter like accidently killing civilians.
State run TV does not permit asking officials uncomfortable or embarassing questions.
State run TV does not allow TV to question the success of a military operation.
State run TV does not allow criticism of the government.
Obviously you fail to understand the concept that “Corporations” do not all think like the government or even like each other. Each has very diferent motives driving them.
Just flip through the channels and you will see very diferent reporting styles across the board.
As all media has some bias, yYour best bet is to view as many sources of information as possible and then make your own decision.
I particularly enjoy the ballanced reporting style of MSNBC’s Chris Mathews as well as the provocative in-your-face style of FOX News.
Somewhat off-topic.
Everything I have seen so far coming from the Embeds has been complete rubish in terms of journalistic value.
The value of embed reporting is like attaching a camera to a soccerball and report on the progress of the game that way. Another example, reporting on a car race solely via an onboard camera. Even if you put an onboard camera in every car, as a viewer you still do not get what is happening in the race.
That type of reporting not only completely misses the bigger picture it also distorts reality for the viewer because the point of view is very miniscule.
To address the OP: I don’t care whether Embeds fall under ‘state sponsored’ reporting or not. It is completely worthless but makes for great ‘visual soundbites’ e.g. soldier handing candy to kid, shot of women with half her head blown off, missiles launching of a boat, etc.
If that is considered jorunalism then I’d rather be reading the newspaper.
In Gulf War I, the media critics complained that the military wouldn’t let reporters near the battlefield. This time around, the complaint is that they do.
You can’t win.
Bingo!
The embeded media are only there as long as the military permits them to be there. If a journo starts filing reports that look very bad for the military/government, I’m sure that that journo would find their ‘embedded’ status quickly removed. It’s therefore in the journo’s interest to make things look good. Or at least not too bad.
So what do you want? For the reporters to be there or to not be there?
If all you’re worried about is the score of the game, then yes that would be kind of pointless. However embedded journalists are conveying a sense of reality about war and what occurs that wasn’t there for the viewers at home before.
IOW, if all you’re concerned about is the politics and current troop movements, then yes, embedded journalists are pointless. However, if you’re concerned about the human aspect, what effect does this war have on the people involved, and what makes this war so much different than any other war, embedded journalists are invaluable.
Of course this is an idealized version of embedded journalism, and the reporting hasn’t been perfect in that respect. Still I like to think that it’s a step in the right direction to showing people that war is more than the sanitized version they show on cable, or the quick photo ops given to newspapers in the past.
Easy: I want the reporters to have free access to everthing and everwhere. Report back to us once every week or better every two weeks without any shackles attached by soldiers standing over their shoulders with the censor pen at the ready.
Oh, please. Reporters should just kind of wander around in the desert looking for stories? As it is they probably are something of a hinderance to the soldiers, since they need protection and are consuming food & water that could otherwise be used by someone with a gun. Give me a break.
Hinten, do you want them to give away troop movements, the government’s battle plan? What? Sounds to me like you’re an idealist and are upset that the world’s not perfect.
The bottom line is that the military will, and should, limit what the reporters can report. This doesn’t mean that they can’t and don’t still have a great deal of latitude in dealing with the information and stories they uncover.
Admittedly, aside from the realistic restrictions on press reporting there will be pressure on reporters to be careful not to present the military in a negative light, and simultaneously the reporters are likely to bond with those soldiers they are in the closest proximity to and not even want to make disparaging marks about their behavior. However the press has more freedom in reporting this war than arguably any other one in history, and I don’t see what there is to criticize about that.
Yes, MLS. There are absolutely no reporters in Iraq right now that are not dependend on the US soldier food supplies. Thank you for your insight.
At what point have I said anything that would indicate the words you just put in my mouth? Strawman.
All I have seen so far coming directly from the US Embeds are, as you call them, ‘human interest stories’. Nice, if you like to get your war news from People magazine.
However the press has more freedom in reporting this war than arguably any other one in history, …
I think that is exactly what we should be talking about. Does the US press actually have more freedom in this war. For my part, I have not seen any such evidence.
No, it wasn’t a strawman, it was an honest question. You said “I want the reporters to have free access to everthing and everwhere. Report back to us once every week or better every two weeks without any shackles attached by soldiers standing over their shoulders with the censor pen at the ready.” which seems like an overly broad thing for the military to allow. I took that statement to its logical conclusion to point out why that’s a bad idea. **
**You’re ridiculing my point instead of addressing it. For starters, these types of stories can be of interest to sociologists, psychologists and others in the social sciences (although I’ll admit that what we’re seeing on CNN has limited value in that respect, but it is something).
Also you seem to deride the positive benefits of having “human interest” stories from the frontlines being given to the people at home. How would people who’ve never experienced combat not benefit from seeing and reading about what exactly goes on in war instead of getting a handful of images in the newspaper and a clip on CNN of an explosion?
**
I disagree. Simply having the embeds increases the freedom because for the first time we can get the information straight from the frontline with less spin than we get when it comes from the government or the military. I admit to this information still suffering from biases and not telling us everything, but it does seem to be an improvement.
FWIW, as I’ve mentioned in a couple of other threads, one of my dearest cousins is currently embedded with the 3rd Infantry for a major U.S. network, so perhaps you will consider this a source of bias on my part.
Frankly, the whole war is rather too upsetting for me to watch most of the TV coverage, from embedded journalists or otherwise; I’ve mostly stuck to reading the print coverage. I did watch some of my cousin’s clips, though, and frankly, I don’t see how they’re construed as propaganda of any sort; they’re pretty much just factual declarations of what he sees going on around him. And knowing him personally, as I do,
a) I know him to be a person of the highest moral integrity, and can’t believe that he would self-censor just to make the government happy (although frankly I do wish he’d do something that would piss off his boss or the military enough that they’d ship him home! I’m very, very worried about him); and
b) Let’s face it, he’s a guy, and he likes big, loud, technically impressive stuff. When I’ve heard his voice, I can hear the sheer geeky excitement at seeing all the neato machinery do what it was designed to do.