War Coverage question for state sides

moe.ron · #1 03-23-2003, 03:42 PM

Are you guys getting coverage about the AMerican POWs in the states? They're showing it in BBC and other international news channel. I think I herd about how the different cities have fallen into the hand of the US and British, but now I have herd that that is false and there are intense fighting on every city. To the point that the Northern assault have been cancelled and have been diverted to the South to support those who are already inside Iraq. On a side note, look like a civil war have started in the north between different Kurds group. This is going to be a big mess, even if Hussein gets toppled.

RUgreek · #2 03-23-2003, 04:25 PM

yes, there have been reports all morning, early afternoon of the soldiers that were captured, though details of whether they are alive or dead is unknown. Some rerports of soldiers been shot in the forehead seems to be the hot headline now. Sorry, not really watching the news that closely....

Kevin · #3 03-23-2003, 04:41 PM

They're showing very limited stills. None of the POW's are identifiable in any of the released photos. I'm very surprised how compliant the news networks are being with the military's requests to filter certain types of information -- it probably wouldn't have been like this 5 or 10 years ago.

A drastic change in the way war has been covered if you look at the differences between this and prior conflicts in Bosnia, Ethiopia, etc.

DeltAlum · #4 03-23-2003, 08:55 PM

I think the post mortem on U.S. News coverage of this war will be most interesting.

During "Desert Storm," basically all of the news came from tightly controlled briefings given by the theatre commanders. It was probably the most "managed" news converage by the military in our history at least. That created a giant controversy for a government which is supposed to support a "free press."

(I'm not going to comment on how "free" news media should be -- that's another entire topic -- mostly for graduate journalism students, in my opinion)

Now, we have "imbedded" reporters with various units -- and there have been next to no briefings from Quatar. One good thing (from the military standpoint) about having reporters "imbedded" and relying on their unit for transportation, etc. is that the reporters can't really strike out on their own to cover other stories. They pretty much go where their military transportation takes them.

All of the reporters mention that they can't say certain things -- which is understandable in a tactical sense. It will be fascinating to learn just how much censorship -- if any -- they are under beyond what was agreed to beforehand. So far, I haven't heard any complaints, but seeing thing entirely from one side can lead to a pro-U.S. spin, I suppose, no matter good the reporter. (I'm not suggesting that's happening, I just see the possibility)

As for the pictures of dead and captured service people, I kind of see the situation as one of descretion. We don't release the names of people killed in accidents until the reletives are notified. And, we use good taste (well, usually) in terms of showing graphic wounds, etc.

Unfortunately, some world news media (like Iraqui TV) don't follow those rules. Of course, they are total propaganda arms of their government.

As has been mentioned on many newscasts here, it is against the Geneva Conventions to show or embarass prisoners -- which Iraq obviously has done. It could be said, I suppose, that our networks do the same thing, but I would argue that there is a huge difference between showing large groups of "detainees" walking down a road or standing behind Concertina wire than the kind of one-on-one questioning shown in the Iraqui tapes.

As I said, it will be interesting to study the coverage in the aftermath of the conflict.

texas*princess · #5 03-23-2003, 09:39 PM

Man, this is craziness. I was really hoping this would be a short conflict with very little or no casulties, and for awhile it really seemed like it would be

DeltAlum · #6 03-23-2003, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by texas*princess
Man, this is craziness. I was really hoping this would be a short conflict with very little or no casulties, and for awhile it really seemed like it would be

Oh, it will be.

But "short" is a relative term.

Remember that Vietnam lasted over 10 years (our part of it), WWII, lasted four years (our part of it), I think WWI was about the same length (our part of it). The Civil War lasted four years.

(Edited to add, I say "our part" because we joined most of these conflicts after they had been in progress for additional years)

Also, remember that there were hundreds of thousands of killed and wounded in each of the above.

The war that most of today's college generation remembers is "Desert Storm," which lasted only a few days on the ground, and we had just over 100 KIA.

Most wars aren't anything like that one.

That's why I support war only as a last resort.

We can only hope that this one ends quickly with not many more casualties -- but that's not something to count on.

Kevin · #7 03-24-2003, 02:02 AM

One difference that they've admitted to is that US broadcasting corps are not showing video of the POW's until their families have been notified (at least in the US).

The only video we've seen run of the POW's at this point is that of one of the soldiers (who's mother learned of his capture on a Phillipino satlellite feed) stating his name, rank and serial number.

Kevlar281 · #8 03-24-2003, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
WWII, lasted four years (our part of it)

The U.S. merchant marines ran against the Atlantic Wolf-Pack from the conception of the war.

DeltAlum · #9 03-25-2003, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kevlar281
The U.S. merchant marines ran against the Atlantic Wolf-Pack from the conception of the war.

True, of course. I was considering from Pearl Harbor to the final bombing.

There were also U.S. citizens fighting in other military organizations such as the RAF, Flying Tigers, etc. well before we officially entered the hostilities.

Optimist Prime · #10 03-25-2003, 03:39 PM

Der Kreig ist die Holle. War is hell.

DeltAlum · #11 03-25-2003, 04:52 PM

Just looking at this weeks' "Broadcasting and Cable" magazine and a front page quote by Dan Rather (not one of my favorites, but sill a credible source in his own right):

"As journalists, we have to realize there's a very fine line between being embedded and being entombed. And what I mean by that is there is a way to cocoon the journalist and place them in a position so they only report what the top tier of the military wants reported."

On a personal note, I applaud the US networks who made the difficult decision not to show the Iraqi TV tape of American POWS and KIA's -- at least until proper notification of their families had been made.

To publish or not to publish is a raging debate right now, as was discussed earlier today on NPR.

The consensus is that there is no consensus.

Finally, again, I did find it interesting that only FOX news called the chemical plant captured over the weekend a "chemical weapons plant." They have since backed off and say it is a "suspected chemical weapons plant." What makes it interesting is that the president of FOX Newschannel is Roger Ailes, former Republican strategist, and the media and campaign brain behind the Nixon campaigns. You don't find many more conservative than that.

My gut tells me that the plant will end up being tied to weapons in some way -- thus the camoflage from land and air -- but I think it's unfortunate that FOX was so anxious to make that leap so early.

lifesaver · #12 03-25-2003, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
I think the post mortem on U.S. News coverage of this war will be most interesting.....

As I said, it will be interesting to study the coverage in the aftermath of the conflict.

I think whole classes in the journalism and political science fields will base curriculum on this. I once took a class calle dmass media and public opinion, and hte whole class was a study of the Nixon / kennedy debate in 1960 and how it changed the wortld as we knew it. I am sure this will be right up there.

DeltAlum · #13 03-25-2003, 05:19 PM

For more on the above, check out:

www.broadcastingcable.com

justamom · #14 03-25-2003, 06:44 PM

ARYA, do you have any insight on what is REALLY happening on the Turkish border??? Also, what is the feeling on the question-"Injured, dead or alive?"

Delt Alum -loved you explanation and insight. I've been tempering my FOX consumption and mixing in a little CNN!

I have felt too positive an outlook has been coming from FOX.

As far as the reporters being embedded. I am all for it. People have grown so cynical that were our troops to find WMD, who would believe it? Their first response was that it was planted. Now, we have "witnesses", so to speak, that we are trying to fight a "humane war", (which some will say is a contradiction in terms) and are NOT merciless killers. Last but NOT least, we have our own eyes to report against what al jazeere is releasing. BTW, it was reported on FOX that it was GOOD to have them up and running for intelligence, but CNN said we couldn't take them out because they were placed smack dab in the middle of a children's' care facility...or something of that nature

AlphaSigOU · #15 03-25-2003, 09:02 PM

Qatar's Al-Jazeera network is one of the few non-state controlled (read: independent) news organizations in the Arab world, where tight control of the media by the state is the rule and not the exception. You have to remember that they're showing the news with a distinctively pro-Arab slant (it ain't the BBC), which does tend to run with an anti-American bias. Much like (and DeltAlum, correct me if I'm wrong) the US feed of CNN which shows news items from an American point of view, though they do have an International channel).

Al-Jazeera does have an English-language news page (it was only available in Arabic previously, which I can't read, speak or understand); the website is pretty popular so it's kinda tough to get in... I'll post the link when I finally get on.

Mind you, I don't get my news strictly from Al-Jazeera; I prefer checking out several news sites and compare information before making my own decisions.