War Sanitized?

[sway2sway]

Is that what the public wants? Only coverage as filler when entertainment news is lagging. Nothing too graphic, nothing too shocking, nothing to really hit home how much violent death occurs, nothing to incite the conscience of the masses.
I don't know what the people want, but it's pretty damn obvious what the government is trying to do- keep it easy to digest, keep it off the radar, keep it 'none of your damn business.'
Would public perception and public activism change if more honest war reports were in the media?


If the conflict in Vietnam was notable for open access given to journalists — too much, many critics said, as the war played out nightly in bloody newscasts — the Iraq war may mark an opposite extreme: after five years and more than 4,000 American combat deaths, searches and interviews turned up fewer than a half-dozen graphic photographs of dead American soldiers.

It is a complex issue, with competing claims often difficult to weigh in an age of instant communication around the globe via the Internet, in which such images can add to the immediate grief of families and the anger of comrades still in the field.

While the Bush administration faced criticism for overt political manipulation in not permitting photos of flag-draped coffins, the issue is more emotional on the battlefield: local military commanders worry about security in publishing images of the American dead as well as an affront to the dignity of fallen comrades. Most newspapers refuse to publish such pictures as a matter of policy.

But opponents of the war, civil liberties advocates and journalists argue that the public portrayal of the war is being sanitized and that Americans who choose to do so have the right to see — in whatever medium — the human cost of a war that polls consistently show is unpopular with Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/middleeast/26censor.html?ex=1374811200&en=9903da4b22e064a4&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

There is a fine line between the opposing arguments, but it seems to me the control over the media coverage of this war, leaves us nowhere near this fine line. And that's not even getting into the diversionary 'news & events' fed to the media to distract us from shit they're doing, which they don't want us to pay attention to. Are we being lulled to complacency?

Whaddya think?
Perhaps your perception is different?

[Miss Shark]

I agree wholeheartedly. They'll continue to do whatever they please until they are stopped. I'm sure they're tightening the reins now in an attempt to keep their hands on them come November.

[sway2sway]

From my understanding of the article, it wasn't about only 'as of late', it was about the past 5 years and about control of what is reported and seen. I don't think they were talking about news coverage minutes as a function of how much action an unlucky country is getting.

Still, afghanistan isn't getting all the coverage-

Coverage of the war in Afghanistan has increased slightly this year, with 46 minutes of total coverage year-to-date compared with 83 minutes for all of 2007. NBC has spent 25 minutes covering Afghanistan, partly because the anchor Brian Williams visited the country earlier in the month. Through Wednesday, when an ABC correspondent was in the middle of a prolonged visit to the country, ABC had spent 13 minutes covering Afghanistan. CBS has spent eight minutes covering Afghanistan so far this year.

Both Ms. Logan and Mr. McCarthy noted that more coalition soldiers were killed in Afghanistan in May than in Iraq. No American television network has a full-time correspondent in Afghanistan, although CNN recently said it would open a bureau in Kabul.
...
According to data compiled by Andrew Tyndall, a television consultant who monitors the three network evening newscasts, coverage of the war in Iraq has been "massively scaled back this year." Almost halfway into 2008, the three newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq war coverage, compared with 1,157 minutes for all of 2007. The “CBS Evening News” has devoted the fewest minutes to the war, 51, versus 55 minutes on ABC’s “World News” and 74 minutes on “NBC Nightly News.” (The average evening newscast is 22 minutes long.)

CBS News no longer stations a single full-time correspondent in Iraq, where some 150,000 United States troops are deployed.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/business/media/23logan.html?ex=1372824000&en=25d2f10bbfeb8936&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink


Limited coverage and censorship.

From what I see and read of Iraq, it's a bloody mess, worse than before all this started-
and now it is common knowledge that it has always been about oil and strategy to secure more oil from other middle eastern countries. that's not what you see?

[sway2sway]

My wish is for it to end.
Perhaps you don't agree, but I think we'll have more power if we know what is really going on, if it isn't just hush hushed.
It is a beautiful day, I did enjoy it- is it so wrong to wish the same for others?

[Miss Shark]

Sweet sweet Mr. C. if you are going to attempt to understand what I mean do your home work and read the article.

Journalists say it is now harder, or harder than in the earlier years, to accompany troops in Iraq on combat missions. Even memorial services for killed soldiers, once routinely open, are increasingly off limits. Detainees were widely photographed in the early years of the war, but the Department of Defense, citing prisoners’ rights, has recently stopped that practice as well.

And while publishing photos of American dead is not barred under the “embed” rules in which journalists travel with military units, the Miller case underscores what is apparently one reality of the Iraq war: that doing so, even under the rules, can result in expulsion from covering the war with the military.

“It is absolutely censorship,” Mr. Miller said. “I took pictures of something they didn’t like, and they removed me. Deciding what I can and cannot document, I don’t see a clearer definition of censorship.”

The Marine Corps denied it was trying to place limits on the news media and said Mr. Miller broke embed regulations. Security is the issue, officials said.

Do you really think he they I was referring to was the media? That somehow I was thinking the media would lose their control over what they choose to air if a democrat was elected? I think I may feel mildly insulted....

[Miss Shark]

Maybe it's because the War in Iraq, and 'The Surge', has been kind of successful as of late, there has been quite a bit of stability established, General Patraeus is being looked at as an absolute hero and a modern day Ulysses S. Grant, and there is a lot more action going on in Afghanistan vs. The Taliban etc..

Or are you not aware of these things, Sway?

Or maybe not......

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,390963,00.html

Not Reporting the Good News?

A sharp decline in the intensity of news coverage of the Iraq war immediately followed General David Petraeus' testimony before Congress last September.

Cybercast News reports that data from the Multi-National Force-Iraq shows there were 219 embedded reporters in Iraq when Petraeus told Congress that the surge was working. That was also the month that the surge reached full force.

The number of embedded reporters has since dropped by 74 percent in nine months to just 58 in June.

The largest single-month drop in embeds came in October of 2007 right after the general's testimony.

[angischy]

“It is absolutely censorship,” Mr. Miller said. “I took pictures of something they didn’t like, and they removed me. Deciding what I can and cannot document, I don’t see a clearer definition of censorship.”
. . .
The Marine Corps denied it was trying to place limits on the news media and said Mr. Miller broke embed regulations. Security is the issue, officials said.

I have a different perspective to offer...though I'm no stranger to many of the concerns mentioned by Shark & Sway.
(Can anyone ever fully trust their government? :confused:)

I am well on my way to learning, first-hand, quite a bit about such security issues...and the lives at stake on both sides as a result.

While the Marine Corps' response may sound like a catch-all excuse and an attempt at censorship...I want to believe that it's not all about what is being shown back home.
Knowing how 24/7 accessible media is to everyone globally...one must be very careful providing such access.
Information itself is both a tool and target for modern warfare.
The integrity of many journalists is, unfortunately, lacking. They aren't held to any of the military codes of conduct (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/codeofconduct1.htm), embedded or not, so what happens to everything they know when they're captured, tortured, and questioned?

Knowledge is power not just for us at home, but remember...there's a real live war going on out there, and even if the reason behind that all seems lost now, there are civilians and troops living it, risking their lives daily by their mere existence in that place.

[ragmop]

I find this argument particularly laughable for two reasons, which I will explain below:

" . . . the issue is more emotional on the battlefield: local military commanders worry about security in publishing images of the American dead as well as an affront to the dignity of fallen comrades. . . "

Oh yeah, my two reasons?

1. Pat
2. Tillman

Somebody want to tell me why the exploitation of the former NFL star's death was exempt from "security" concerns or the concern over "the dignity of fallen comrades?"

And in the Tillman case, we weren't even dealing with photos. Rather, the Pentagon was revealing specific "details" (as opposed to the actual "facts"--but I'm not even digging there) about his death and assignment. Security issues? You would think so, wouldn't you? Affront to the dignity of fallen comrades? I suppose not once you manufacture a comic-book-hero-type story about the guy.

As far as I am concerned, anybody who can reconcile this censorship policy in light of the Pat Tillman exploitation will win a gold star. Frankly, I do not think the two CAN be reconciled.

The article is dead on. Sway, you're right.

And I reject the argument that this policy has to be in effect because a journalist's knowledge of events becomes a liability in the event they're captured, tortured, and questioned. First, a journalist's photo is a retrospective event--it tells us what happened. The enemy was certainly there and did his damage before the journalist was. For that reason IMO the "security" argument fails to hold any water for me.

It holds even less water when I think of how willingly the military gave journalists all kinds of tactical information when they implemented the "embedded journalist" program. An embedded journalist knows more about troop movements, procedures, etc in the event they're captured, tortured, and questioned, and is therefore a FAR more dangerous security risk than a free-lance photographer trying to get images out in the field. But you see, an embedded journalist's actions, images, and movements can all be controlled. A free-lance journalist's cannot.

One last point: IF "local military commanders worry about security in publishing images of the American dead as well as an affront to the dignity of fallen comrades," then couldn't and shouldn't all images of the planes hitting the WTC and the resulting aftermath be kept from us as well?

[Miss Shark]

I didn't attempt to understand it, I was off to see the Crowes, that's why I asked the question. And you explained yourself, thanks.

See, that's how it works. I ask a question; 'Is ..... what you mean?', and then you respond. Pretty cool, huh?

Yes, how utterly silly of me to think that by posing a question you were attempting to gain some understanding.

[sway2sway]

One last point: IF "local military commanders worry about security in publishing images of the American dead as well as an affront to the dignity of fallen comrades," then couldn't and shouldn't all images of the planes hitting the WTC and the resulting aftermath be kept from us as well?


As I peel back the zip top on a can of oil soaked worms- these are entirely different scenarios to the powers that be, though they may have you believe otherwise. So I think, anyway. 9/11 was designed to induce terror and fear, so the iraq war could be supported by the people, as well to take away rights and freedoms in the name of security. It's bigger than one oil soaked can of worms and it's bigger than one country's agenda. New world shit.

[ragmop]

Amen, Sway. Amen.

[angischy]

Somebody want to tell me why the exploitation of the former NFL star's death was exempt from "security" concerns or the concern over "the dignity of fallen comrades?"

I'm betting that was rhetorical Rags, but I have an answer anyways....
1) Because public figures (celebrities/politicians/pro athletes/etc) aren't given the same amount of privacy as other human beings, period.
And 2) because Tillman's death was such a crafted s t o r y.
It's like someone who calls in fake-sick to work but then gives too many details about their "illness" in an attempt to make the story sound more believable.

[angischy]

DISCLAIMER:Dammit, I'm back-pedaling to keep abreast of what's going/gone on in the world, and I hate it! It's one thing to not watch the news religiously but to be blocked from everything for over two months really has me struggling here.
I can only imagine what you think my training has done to my brain, but I'm here guys, as critical of a thinker as ever...:eek: (Maybe I've just always sounded dumb when it comes to politics? yeah, probably) ---

And I reject the argument that this policy has to be in effect because a journalist's knowledge of events becomes a liability in the event they're captured, tortured, and questioned. First, a journalist's photo is a retrospective event--it tells us what happened. The enemy was certainly there and did his damage before the journalist was.

I'm not talking about the info the journalist knows as a result of a specific photo or two. I'm talking about the collective info they know as a result of becoming more or less part of the crew during their embed period. It doesn't take long to learn a lot, especially for a sponge-like journalist there to record every detail in preparation for telling the story. Journalists/spies...same types of people, just living differently-intended lives, I think.
Think of all the stuff you know about people you work with just from being around them. The who's who, their routines, future plans, more...What could be used against you?

I of course won't deny the spinning propaganda inherent in this and all other wars.

how willingly the military gave journalists all kinds of tactical information when they implemented the "embedded journalist" program.

All debates of "security issues" aside, I have to opine that the whole embedded journalist issue is probably another one of those "Mistakes were made" situations...oh, just one of oh-so-many countless others in this war.

The military's so used to giving orders (and holding those who don't obey accountable "under penalty of death in time of war"), but whoever dreamed this up must have brain-sharted and forgotten that journalists aren't subject to the UCMJ.
And good journalists, at least in theory, have standards and ethics and personal drive that call them to tell the story despite inner conflict or outside attempts to censor.

I can't imagine there are many freelance photojournalists over there anymore. Would you want to be over there unembedded? (not to mention, at all)

I suppose I'm looking at this a bit personally though, and not at the bigger picture of the sanitizing of war, the real point of this thread.

Sanitized or not, I don't think anyone's really in denial of the hell that's going on over there, are they? They've just chosen to focus on the celebrity trainwreck of the week instead. Maybe someone's (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1304.html) decided that we can't handle the real horror stories out there, and corporate-owned media seems plenty happy to not feed that anyways...
It matters not NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, they all still show the celebrity/sports/shark attack/insert other played-out, non-essential news story here day in and out...because the people eat it up.
If you really want to see more gruesome truth war coverage on TV, you're gonna have to ask for it and then you're gonna have to clean your plate, eat it all up, the lima beans of the news...it might be good for you to see/eat, but that doesn't mean you enjoy it.

[Miss Shark]

[COLOR="Purple"]DISCLAIMER:Dammit,

All debates of "security issues" aside, I have to opine that the whole embedded journalist issue is probably another one of those "Mistakes were made" situations...oh, just one of oh-so-many countless others in this war.

The military's so used to giving orders (and holding those who don't obey accountable "under penalty of death in time of war"), but whoever dreamed this up must have brain-sharted and forgotten that journalists aren't subject to the UCMJ.
And good journalists, at least in theory, have standards and ethics and personal drive that call them to tell the story despite inner conflict or outside attempts to censor.

I can't imagine there are many freelance photojournalists over there anymore. Would you want to be over there unembedded? (not to mention, [I]at all)

[

I have a real problem with this idea Ang-A-Lee considering all of the contractors over there interrogating prisoners and doing other sensitive jobs answering only to their corporate bosses.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sJmpfB4oUbQ

[ragmop]

I'm betting that was rhetorical Rags, but I have an answer anyways....
1) Because public figures (celebrities/politicians/pro athletes/etc) aren't given the same amount of privacy as other human beings, period.
And 2) because Tillman's death was such a crafted s t o r y.
It's like someone who calls in fake-sick to work but then gives too many details about their "illness" in an attempt to make the story sound more believable.

My comment WAS rhetorical and a device to demonstrate that the "security" and "dignity" defenses are nothing short of hypocrisy. If allowing a free lance photographer to photograph ONE flag draped coffin or ONE fallen soldier is somehow a "security risk", then ALL photos of ALL soldiers are "security risks"--NFL star or not. Conversely, if it isn't so for NFL stars, then it isn't so for John Doe.

Come on, people. Is the hypocrisy really that lost on everybody but me here?

One last thing: It all boils down to what kind of world you wake up to in the morning. If you believe that publishing images of actual fallen soldiers in a foreign theater is "dangerous" (why do I see the scene with Jack Nicholson on the stand in a "A Few Good Men" right now?) you're going to see nothing wrong with the military's censorship of these war images. If you believe that understanding and comprehension can come from publishing actual images of actual fallen soldiers in a foreign theater, then you will see this as censorship. Our perception is our reality, people. And I ain't coming over to the Jack Nicholson side of the fence here. The truth, however gruesome, is what we all deserve. It might make you uncomfortable or make you honestly assess your situation, but do you really want the alternative? (which is the absence of truth).

[Miss Shark]

Did I fail to say good point rags? Hey rags, good point, or was it two points? Pat & Tillman.

[ragmop]

Did I fail to say good point rags? Hey rags, good point, or was it two points? Pat & Tillman.

Ha. Ha. Very funny. Bless you, 'becca. But I really wasn't looking for props with that last post, i just wanted to make sure that i wasn't this lone satellite out. And I am still up for a reconciliation of the security issue other than "athletes are special".

As I see it, the issue isn't whether or not having embedded journalists is a wise military decision. I think we all agree that it isn't--albeit for different reasons. The issues are: 1) whether we want the military controlling the images we see of the casualties of war and a sub-issue of 2) whether a journalist, after publishing accurate photos of war casualties, should be denied further access (IMO as punishment) to the military soldiers, commanders and areas of conflict.

[stricken]

Censorship causes stupidity.

[sauce.baby]

One last thing: It all boils down to what kind of world you wake up to in the morning. If you believe that publishing images of actual fallen soldiers in a foreign theater is "dangerous" (why do I see the scene with Jack Nicholson on the stand in a "A Few Good Men" right now?) you're going to see nothing wrong with the military's censorship of these war images. If you believe that understanding and comprehension can come from publishing actual images of actual fallen soldiers in a foreign theater, then you will see this as censorship. Our perception is our reality, people. And I ain't coming over to the Jack Nicholson side of the fence here. The truth, however gruesome, is what we all deserve. It might make you uncomfortable or make you honestly assess your situation, but do you really want the alternative? (which is the absence of truth).
I think our nation could do with a good, heaping dose of Wake-The-Fuck-Up-People. The ones in control have realized that it's far too easy to get away with this censorship because what's happening is on the complete other side of the world from us. Nothing is happening in or anywhere near our nation, so tying a Twinkie to a stick and dangling it in front of people's faces as a distractions is child's play. For the most part they're trying to keep the US off in La-La Land while the rest of the world is looking life in the eye and dealing with it.