Reply
Thu 20 Mar, 2003 12:00 pm
Last night, as war started, I juggled between TV stations, trying to get the best information-analysis.
I have limited cable service. So besides the Mexican networks, I only get CNN, Univision, American Network (a mix of the 3 historical networks), and TVE (Spain, public) as news sources.
I found, to my surprise, that the most complete coverage was from one of the Mexican networks (Televisa), and, to my dismay, that both CNN and American Network gave what obviously seems, to a trained person, filtered information, with Spanish government's network in-between.
As for analysis, while the Mexican networks invited interesting experts, from all over the world (in one round table, they had a Greek, a Dutch, an American and a Mexican), on CNN I found mostly that those interviewed were mostly retired US generals.
I understand that, when a country is at war, focus must be put on the own side. But I have the feeling many Americans will be missing important news. And I don't know about the other parts of the world.
Do you agree? Do you think you are getting a fair news deal?
I just turned it off . Enough is enough. The news media particularly TV have almost turned it into a football game. Having all the elements. the action as it happens, with announcers and analysts. Example, there is a flash, look at the tracers, I hear a blast in the distance that is the play by play announcer. This Is General Cockamamie, he is going to explain to you what we will do and what the enemy will do etc,etc,etc. He may even tell you who will win the super bowl and why.
Great allegory, au. Thanks.
I don't watch the news. I scan the internet and listen to NPR.
I'm with you au1929. If I wanted to watch bombs falling all day I would go and live in Iraq.
I am refusing to watch any more of it than my usual evening news hour - our coverage has the feel of a three ring circus, as though it is all being staged just for our entertainment.
Reporters marching to Bagdad in the trail of the troops. They are limited what to say and are obliged to make it a good news show. All the big news networks are a joke!
I read magazines, newspapers or the internet. TV has done it for me! They are an extension of the propaganda! Or do you really belief the Iraqi shoot and miss and the US forces shoot and kill?
Oh - I had been foolish enough to hope that, after the shame of the news coverage of Gulf war I, the networks might not make it into a giant video game - it seems I am wrong.
I generally trust the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's material - especially Radio National - and this is where I get most of my news. I expect that the coverage and analysis will be as fair as possible. I also use net sources to add to this.
some 60 journalists have already been thrown out of the program for co-opting the troops by revealing too much information. There is also news that up north, embeds are dropping out of the program like flies, unable to hack the tough life the Marines are currently living in the desert.
What, frolic you mean our lean mean press corps cannot sustain life as Marines!!!!
There is something wrong with the news we get from Iraq.
Reports say there has been some stiff resistance and fighting in various areas in the south. And we dont get any info on casualties. Fierce fighting=> only two marines shot dead? Can someone explain that to me. It is sad that people have to die but we have the right to know how many already died for a another man's cause.
frolic
What is your problem? Aren't two American deaths enough for you?
Every dead soldier(US, UK, Iraq,...) is sad news.
But like i said. How do you match "heavy fighting" with "Two marines died in combat". My point is that we dont get the entire truth about the war in Iraq.
Iraqi TV has broadcast pictures of at least four dead American soldiers and several prisoners. CNN is saying they dont want to broadcast those pictures because this a violation of the Geneva Convention. US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also said the Iraqi television footage was a violation of the Geneva Convention
My question, and what about the pictures of Iraqi POW? CNN broadcasted these, why make a diference between American and Iraqi POW? And how was this a violation of the Geneva Convention?
A Florida congressman questioned the benefits of placing reporters with troops in the Middle East in a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Friday.
Following a report by ABC News anchor Peter Jennings which interviewed American Troops in Kuwait which aired Monday night, U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Ocala, drafted a letter to the secretary concerned that reports will focus too much on the fears and anxieties of troops.
"The questions focused on hypothetical situations that could arise from combat, such as casualties and the enemy response," Stearns said. "He asked a general about fear among his troops. They were asked to dwell on their worst fears and concerns on national TV."
ABC defended the Jennings report and defended the judgement of the long-time broadcaster.
"The military invited the press to Embed because they know the press provides a vital function, which is to report back to the American People what's going on," said Jeff Schneider, vice president of ABC News,
The congressman suggested the Department of Defense review the Embed program (stationing reporters with military units) and examine whether more review and censorship of media reports needs to be incorporated.
Calls to the Department of Defense were not immediately returned Friday afternoon.
Eleven other Republican congressmen joined Stearns in signing the letter, including House Armed Services Committee chairman U.S. Rep Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. But media pundits are greeting the message with concern.
"I would hope the Embed program for journalists will not be short-circuited because of such concerns related to this one report, or beliefs of a small group of politicians," Bob Steele, director of media ethics at the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg.
The Embed program, implemented in anticipation of a possible war with Iraq, gives journalists far more access to the front lines than enjoyed during the last military conflict in the Persian Gulf in 1991. After undergoing a short form of basic training, journalists are assigned to specific battalions of troops and are given access to both enlisted soldiers and officers for each troop. Reports are reviewed for sensitive information at the field by officers.
Stearns asked in the letter whether that level of review is enough.
"Though the unit commander has authority to provide for ?'security at the source,' as with any conflict, oversights at the ?'source' can occur. Please explain why media products will not be subject to security review or censorship?" the letter reads.
If stricter guidelines on content were enforced, Stearns said, less material might be released which could heighten the level of fear among troops and their loved ones.
He had specific grips with parts of the Jennings report which discussed the potential for friendly fire.
"It has been said many times, the U.S. prefers to fight at night, in the very deep darkness here, made light for them by night vision equipment," Jennings commented during the report. "They know that in the dark, the opening act, the first day or so may be confusing. They worry about hurting their own. ?'Friendly fire,' we call it. They call it fratricide, as in killing a brother."
This seemed ominous commentary about the worst case scenarios of war, Stearns said.
But Steele said this was a valid side of the story that cannot be compromised or expunged by the media in an attempt to sterilize war coverage.
"While as journalists, we must respect the security of our troops and the impact of stories back home, it is essential to report on the possible downsides of war," he said. "Jennings' exploration of the dangers of war, physical, psychological and emotional, is a realistic probe into what the realities are on the battlefield."
Steele also noted that as journalists cover the actions of troops as the prepare or engage in war, not every story will have the same tone.
The stories could as easily be about heroism as horror
A brief review of Mexican pictures in the front page, 3/24:
Newspaper 1. A British soldier firing a missile; the 5 faces of American POWs.
Newspaper 2. An old Iraqi man carrying a wounded Iraqi boy in the city of Basra.
Newspaper 3. An image from Al-Jazeera TV, the body of an American soldier in a landscape of palm trees.
Newspaper 4. American soldiers in their trenches near Umm Qasr. Three pictures of dead American soldiers, shown in a room by Al-Jazeera.
Newspaper 5. Coalition soldiers landing in Iraq; destroyed buildings in Baghdad; a massive peace march in Rome
Newspaper 6. An old Iraqi man carrying a dead girl (about 8) in Basra.
Newspaper 7. British soldier firing missile. (Same image as Newspaper 1)
Newspaper 8. A dead American soldier: image of Al-Jazeera; the faces of the 5 POWs.
What were the main pictures in your country's newspapers?
What do you think of the U.S. Secretary of Defense reccomending networks not to show the interrogation of P.O.Ws?
Three minutes after the Mexican TV's correspondent in Baghdad described with astonishment what he was watching on TV, I changed to CNN and read, in the "newsbar" that the Centcom denied any capture of American soldiers.
A few minutes later, we were able to see those heartbraking scenes, without any supervised editing.
Interesting, fbaezer.
I have to say, I really appreciate getting an international perspective. I trust the NYT, and get what I can online (BBC and occasionally Al-Jazeera), but am happy to get the kind of info provided by the post above.
You know there is another thread on this topic? It's at
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5530
Sozobe, Al-Jazeera online? I surfed to al-jazeera.com but its in arabic, do they have a site with english, french or german language info too?
fbaezer wrote:A brief review of Mexican pictures in the front page, [..] What were the main pictures in your country's newspapers?
Interesting. Here's what the five Dutch papers have on their homepages:
Telegraaf: Paper: "Sensitive losses US". Pictures of surrendering Iraqi soldiers and faces of each American POW.
Online: "Troops 100 km from Bagdad". Map of advance US troops and picture of face American POW.
Volkskrant: "US start battle for Bagdad". Picture of British tank destroying mural of Saddam.
NRC: "Bagdad again under fire. UN and Red Cross warn for disaster in Basra." Same picture of British tank.
AD: "Bagdad in sight". Picture of wounded soldier on a stretcher in the sand.
Trouw: "Heavy reistance around Iraqi cities". Picture of American soldier with machine gun.
Parool: "Bagdad in sight, resistance tougher" (no pic)
And here's what's on the homepage of five of the main German papers now:
Bild: "Have a heart! Help the children of the war" (picture of baby with breathing machine)
Sueddeutsche: "Alliance awaits battle with Saddam's elite troops" (picture of marching US soldiers)
Welt: "Americans and Brits count with longer war" (picture of anti-aircraft fire in Bagdad)
Frankfurter Rundschau: "Allied troops go around embattled cities" (picture of celebrating Iraqis in front of helicopter they shot down)
Frankfurter Allgemeine: "Troops powering on to Bagdad" (picture of British tank again).
Tagesspiegel: "New air attacks on Bagdad" (undefinable picture of something in nightsky; US POW further down)
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace