War and the News Media

[Loburt]

Can a modern democratic nation win a long and difficult war in this day and age when that nation has a free and independent news media?

Particularly when it has a broadcast news media (television) on the scene with relatively unfettered access?

If we read about the Second World War, and even the Korean War, the allied and American news media were clearly and naturally supportive of their homelands. The people of the US and other allied nations never heard about atrocities committed by allied or U.S. troops (until decades later). Never saw images of innocent people, including children, on the other side dead or with their bodies torn open by a shell or bomb that missed its target, or that hit a target the army was mistaken about. They could never hear the anguished cries of pain of their own wounded soldiers and watch them bleed.

Morale remained high at home and the people saw the war through to victory and, they thought, a better world. They never truly understood war. They never saw the worst of its horrors from newspaper reports, newsreels or television.

Things have changed. Today, cameras are everywhere. As they said during Viet Nam, the war has been brought into our living rooms.

War is a dirty business. It is chaos, confusion and cruelty both deliberate and as the result of human error. When our soldiers go psycho and massacre civilians, we know. When a shell or missile hits a shelter filled with women and children, we see the carnage in living color. Laser guided missiles, believe it or not, sometimes do miss. Targets are selected on the basis of information which is sometimes wrong.

And so, even if the people of a nation support the reasons for going to war, their support for the war is steadily eroded by what they see. Meanwhile, the media of the opposing side broadcasts only the sufferings of their people, which elicits outrage (both at home and abroad) and unifies their people. Showing the victims on the other side is not permitted.

The side which allows more media freedom would seem to be at a disadvantage.

On the one hand, because of this media freedom, we now have a better understanding of the terrible nature of what war is. That knowledge should ultimately make us wiser and more compassionate as a people.

On the other hand, it is my opinion that with the state of the world as it really is today, the sad truth is that situations do arise where nations have little choice but to go to war.

But can a nation which allows broad freedom and access to the news media win a war, even if the public initially supports the reasons for waging that war?

Even when that war is quote-unquote just?

[macca_tirana]

There was a very interesting program on a few weeks ago about the history of media coverage through the wars.

It basically started from the WWII and showed the progress over the decades and through the wars / conflicts.

The development was due to advancement in technology, of course, as well as the allowance by armies to for media to work along side the troops.

The USA in Vietnam was heavily criticised for often giving media duff information so as the media would be absent from the real story

The Brits were heavily criticised in the Falklands for basically imposing very controlled media coverage. When you?re on a small island in the middle of no where it is easy to control.

The 1st gulf war was interesting for me as it was the 1st time i saw what my family and friends had seen, due to the fact i was there and it was clear they had a far greater understanding of what was going on than i did.

Today there is a big difference between the story told by CNN and that by BBC. For example, when the Lebanese people stormed the UN building it was live for an hour or so on BBC but i never saw it on CNN. I don?t really understand the situation, so don?t know why.

So to finally answer your question.....a nation going to war will now realise the whole world will be able to see a clearer picture and make their own opinions.

Should be a deterrent, but sadly it seems not to be the case

[vbroker]

In America, this places the government at a severe disadvantage for gathering support since the majority of the networks are quite liberal in nature.

Huh? What are you talkng about? What liberal media? The BBC? CNN? MSNBC? CNBC? ABC? CBS? NBC? NPR? The New York Times? Oh.....THAT liberal media.

You all can and will say whatever you want about FOX. They just slaughtered every other cable news outlet's ratings combined. Yet again. It's not even close. With few notable exceptions, they are the only organization consistently presenting both sides and yes, making the left look ridiculous in its arguments. That's only because the right finally got its sh*t together after 40+ years of liberal domination in the House, Senate and institutional media. Beginning with Walter Cronkite and the Vietnam conflict. Ending with 1994's Republican Congressional takeover. Could that somewhat explain FOX's sustained ratings tsunami? Hmmm, I wonder. Not.

BTW, The NYT three weeks or so ago announced execution of major employee layoffs. That's because readership is skyrocketing and advertisers are clamoring for what limited, hyper-expensive space the paper can offer. You are travelling through another dimension...........

[chrispilok]

There was a time when reporters did just that, REPORT, these days each story is delivered with carefully chosen words that fit the political views of the reporter or the station. In effect they are COMMENTING rather than reporting on the war.

This is a pet peeve of mine. Seems like all the cable news stations have forgotten that reporting is supposed to be objective. Just present the facts and don't give us your opinions. I get CNN World. What a piece of garbage that station is. Their anchors wear their emotions on their sleeves. The other night some Australian lady anchoring the news was getting visibly angry while interviewing an Israeli official. How can she do a good job in that frame of mind? Fox news is even worse. They are all embarassingly amateurish.

I miss the News Hour with Jim Lehrer.

[eagle]

If the people are bullshitted into supporting the war it doesn't mean you'll win but ya can keep the war going for years.