The Media is Doing a Great Job

Great Debates
21

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.

22

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.

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?

**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?

**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?

**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.

23

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.

24

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…

25

A great page that I have been reading with interest is the BBC reporter’s War Diaries - 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.

26

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.

27

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.

28

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.

29

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.

30

It doesn’t take much courage to be on the “front line” when the enemy isn’t fighting back.

31

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.

32

Istara:

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

33

[ul][li]In one case, three reporters are missing and another is wounded. (somewhere close to Bosra).[/li][li]In another case, two reporters have radioed for help.[/li][li]It doesn’t seem a very safe idea.[/li][li]They are being allowed to do it.[/ul][/li]
:confused: [sup]Is the word allowed spelled differently in Canada?[/sup]

34

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.

35

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.

36

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.

37

No question. One death is too many.

38

hear! hear! :slight_smile:

39

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:

40

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?