Quote:
Originally posted by Munchkin03
You know, considering DeltAlum has a lifetime of experience in the field, I think I'm going to go with what he said.
|
You know, sometimes it seems like more than a lifetime.
Here's another way of thinking about this.
The American media can be very strong and have enormous influence -- but it is not all powerful. It is also not totally cynical, but that's another story and another debate.
One of the results of the "MTV Generation" is that the TV audiences viewing attention span really has gotten shorter. I can't cite them, but there have been "studies" on this. If there are not lots of quickly edited pictures of an event, it quickly looses it "visual interest." That's my term -- not from a book. Because of that, news organizations have a huge appitite for ANY kind of on location incident footage.
So, how do they get it? Two ways. Either they have a crew onsite -- or hope someone else (Like the Army?) shoots the event and is willing to share the footage.
The Army/Administration has a story to tell. And it has it's own viewpoint.
That being the case, who is the real "gatekeeper" -- something the media is often accused of being -- on that story. Why, it's the guy who has the videotape in hand, and can parcel it out however he/she/it wants to.
That is a huge propaganda tool!
Satellite technology has given television remarkable flexibility and speed. However, if there are no pictures of the event, that flexibility is worthless. During this war, the military -- reacting to stinging criticism of it's "management" of coverage of the first Mid-East War -- had the "imbedded reporter" system. On the face of it, a good way for the media to get close to the action. The problem is that an "imbedded" crew can only go where the unit to which it is imbedded goes. Another reasonably easy way to "control" the flow of news. Only show them what you want them to see.
Is it cynical for the military to control that news flow? If you believe in an absolute free press (remember this, all of you who like to claim the rights of the First Amendment), yes it is terribly cynical. Is it wrong? Sometimes. Is it necessary? Sometimes. Are there reporters who would abuse the powers, even to the point of endangering an operation. Yes. Is that true of the vast majority of reporters. No. Most are highly disciplined professionals.
What has likely happened here, as I've said before, is that the Army, in concert with other government agencies and the administration, has "rationed" out it's footage (the only game in town in this case) to achieve it's own best objective/propaganda/agenda.
Is that wrong in this case? You can decide that for yourself. I have my own opinion, but it really isn't relavent here, and is, after all, only another opinion. Maybe a little more informed due to my background, but still just an opinion.
Beyond the ethics of all of that, my biggest personal problem in this case was having to look into that idiot's mouth 30-40 times in the first hour of coverage.
See, I was around before MTV.