Bobmi357
Knit one, Perl two...
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Posts
- 2,529
Let me start out by stating that I was not in favor of this war, I had felt that Bush had not made a sufficient case tying terrorism to Saddam.
Now that the tanks are rolling and the bombs are dropping I have somewhat changed my opinion (largely based on information I've read elsewhere, ie, sources not tied to the current administration).
I am starting to wonder if this embedding of the media is really a good thing. For example we see a 20 second clip from some place in southern Iraq where people are dancing in the street after being "liberated". Had our media not been embedded, US televisions would have seen "man on the street" interviews with Iraqis, we would have seen more footage that could have perhaps been useful to show the world that the Iraqis themselves are grateful to being taken out from under Saddam.
Embedding seems to have put too many controls and limits on the media, and as a result, they are not able to report objectively or fairly in my opinion. Additionally I think the media is being victimized by the US Central Command. The lack of specific information, the level of control they are excerising over the media is incredible. I am surprised they have agreed to this amount of control.
In Desert Storm you had flocks of reporters following behind the troops, other than some controls about troops, troop movements and locations, they reported on anything and everything they could get their hands on. Today the media seems so starved for facts they are picking up every unconfirmed rumor and running with it like its total fact.
Last night I watched from roughly 6pm to nearly 1am while elements of the Marines cleaned out a pocket of resistance in Umm Qasr. The media said it was a four hour fire fight to neutralize as many as 120 Iraqis. Funny, by my watch that fire fight was over six hours. And to be honest, I thought it was an embarassment to the US Military. Why they didn't flatten that building with a couple tanks, then call in some napalm to be sure of the job was beyond me. Perhaps we're not running a smooth fighting machine, but a timid one.
Another point... Last night an MSNBC reporter embedded in Northern Iraq reported capturing an Iraqi soldier who was carrying printed instructions on how to deliver anthrax. HELLO???? Why none of the MSNBC anchors jumped on that report was amazing.
And again... A staged show by the Iraqis attempting to find a mythical downed pilot in the river. It was kinda funny actually, but the number of civilians that seemed willing to take part in that show, and their apparent eagerness doesn't bode well for any pilot that does get shot down. Nor does it bode well that we'll be recieved with dancing in the streets upon reaching Baghdad. But again it flew by the anchors on CNN, FOX, BBCA and MSNBC.
I am beginning to feel like the media is (a) hiring morons for anchors that are unwilling to question anything that goes against the tide of public and administration opinions and (b) are being too managed, which is resulting in the information we're seeing being suspect.
Any thoughts?
Now that the tanks are rolling and the bombs are dropping I have somewhat changed my opinion (largely based on information I've read elsewhere, ie, sources not tied to the current administration).
I am starting to wonder if this embedding of the media is really a good thing. For example we see a 20 second clip from some place in southern Iraq where people are dancing in the street after being "liberated". Had our media not been embedded, US televisions would have seen "man on the street" interviews with Iraqis, we would have seen more footage that could have perhaps been useful to show the world that the Iraqis themselves are grateful to being taken out from under Saddam.
Embedding seems to have put too many controls and limits on the media, and as a result, they are not able to report objectively or fairly in my opinion. Additionally I think the media is being victimized by the US Central Command. The lack of specific information, the level of control they are excerising over the media is incredible. I am surprised they have agreed to this amount of control.
In Desert Storm you had flocks of reporters following behind the troops, other than some controls about troops, troop movements and locations, they reported on anything and everything they could get their hands on. Today the media seems so starved for facts they are picking up every unconfirmed rumor and running with it like its total fact.
Last night I watched from roughly 6pm to nearly 1am while elements of the Marines cleaned out a pocket of resistance in Umm Qasr. The media said it was a four hour fire fight to neutralize as many as 120 Iraqis. Funny, by my watch that fire fight was over six hours. And to be honest, I thought it was an embarassment to the US Military. Why they didn't flatten that building with a couple tanks, then call in some napalm to be sure of the job was beyond me. Perhaps we're not running a smooth fighting machine, but a timid one.
Another point... Last night an MSNBC reporter embedded in Northern Iraq reported capturing an Iraqi soldier who was carrying printed instructions on how to deliver anthrax. HELLO???? Why none of the MSNBC anchors jumped on that report was amazing.
And again... A staged show by the Iraqis attempting to find a mythical downed pilot in the river. It was kinda funny actually, but the number of civilians that seemed willing to take part in that show, and their apparent eagerness doesn't bode well for any pilot that does get shot down. Nor does it bode well that we'll be recieved with dancing in the streets upon reaching Baghdad. But again it flew by the anchors on CNN, FOX, BBCA and MSNBC.
I am beginning to feel like the media is (a) hiring morons for anchors that are unwilling to question anything that goes against the tide of public and administration opinions and (b) are being too managed, which is resulting in the information we're seeing being suspect.
Any thoughts?
