Is anyone watching the Fallujah Coverage?
 

I have been watching the coverage on Fox all afternoon and I am getting the same creepy chills that I got the night Shock and Awe began... Same scary green screen.... This is another serious attack... :(

no, i'm still at work.

What's going on? who's attacking whom? Are we laying waste to those bastards?

Kitso
KS 361

AC-130s, and yes, the locals opened up a nice can of whoopass.

Still at work, but saw some pics on TV while I was at lunch. AC-130's are scary.

I think we used to call them "Puff the Magic Dragon" if I'm remembering the right gunship. Of course they've been heavily updated since them, I suspect.

They need to just level every Fallujah and Najaf and then ask if people are willing to talk and negotiate.

-Rudey

word.

Kitso
KS 361 times the palesinians are next, they just don't know it yet

Don't listen to what the news says.

They make stuff up and basically have no basis on which to broadcast any of the info you may hear. When operations like this happens, the army does not let reports know until well after the fact and all the true figures are calculated. Of course, by the time the real information is out, the news agencies don't want it anymore b/c they are onto 'bigger and newer' things.

But wait. That's what I've been saying all along. The government is expert at managing the news.

How does that stack up with Freedom of the Press and the First Amendment?

Ya know, you just can't have it both ways. If you want it reported fairly, you've got to be honest and open. If you're feeding everyone propaganda, you can't complain when a story doesn't come out your way.

Frankly, I'd rather be exposed to actual accounts and make up my own mind, than be spoon fed what the government wants me to hear.

The government learned it's lesson well in Vietnam where reporters weren't restricted to where they went and what the covered. They expected reporters to dutifully report what they put out in the daily press briefing, aptly named "The Five O'Clock Follies" An "imbedded" crew can only go where it's unit allows it to, and only report what it's allowed to see.

Is there a slant to some reporting? Yes. In both ways. But the government only slants in one direction.

That worries me.

Live coverage is a threat to our troops. The enemies over there can watch the news just as well as you and I can, and if the reporters have free run of the area who knows what dumb-ass things they will give away.

The press is going to go for what gets them the most ratings, even if the info they give away costs a hundred lives. They don't care and pass the blame on.

We don't want the enemy to see our technology, positions, thoughts, moral, or anything. We want them to be blind.

Ever heard the quote "The people who never read the newpaper are better informed than those who do, b/c ignorance is closer to the truth than the falsehoods spread by newspapers"? That's how all Americans should view the media.

It goes back to the Pentagon Papers. The media cannot be trusted with information, so it is better to give them no information. At least until we know exactly what happened and can give them an accurate account.

"Puff" was the AC-47 gunship. "Spooky" was the AC-119. The current gunship is the AC-130 "Spectre", latest version being the"U" model with 20mm Gatling guns, 40mm Bofors cannon and the piece de resistance - a 105mm Howitzer cannon!

Guaranteed to lay waste to anything under its sights. Useless to run away from it - you'll only die tired!

I've never heard of that quote until today. That's one of the most unintelligent quotes I've ever heard of in my life.

Yeah, Thomas Jefferson is commonly referred to as unintelligent...:rolleyes:

And today's media is a whole lot like it was in Jefferson's time. Bad comparison. Most newspapers, magazines and broadcasters leave their horses at home these days.

As for "LIVE" broadcasts which would endanger troops. Most of the newscrews don't have a personal death-wish, so they're not likely to go live from anywhere with any information which will endanger themselves -- or our troopsl. And, in the Vietnam situation, we didn't have live capabilities then.

ETA:

"It goes back to the Pentagon Papers. The media cannot be trusted with information, so it is better to give them no information. At least until we know exactly what happened and can give them an accurate account."

Maybe you should think about that one a little. A controlled press is one of the necessities for a dictatorship to survive.

That attitude is one of the reasons that we have a Bill Of Rights -- to protect the Free Press and Freedom of Speech. That covers the media as well, you know.

By the way, freedom of the press and information is one of the things we're trying to give the Iraqis. They sure didn't have it under Sadaam.

Newspapers and media sources are still very much the same today as they were in Jefferson's time. Many of them blantantly support one party or the other, or are outright owned by prominant figures in said parties.

The newspaper stole sensitive data and printed it. Today, if a reporter could somehow get a hold of a battle plan for our troops in Iraq and show it on tv-they would do it. It's that type of attitude that requires the military to not let anything leak to the press. The press fucked themselves.

It worries me that you really believe that stuff.