taks revives what I feel is an important point from my original post. T owhat extent should the press be under control during national crises such as wartime?

 

Leaving aside the general impact of the media on warfare in a democratic country, there have been specific incidents where even public service broadcasters like the BBC have aired reports indicating operational intent. These reports have lead to enemy speculative artilllery fire. On most major occasions the only thing preventing disaster has been that the enemy can't believe we would be so stupid as to release such information. They assume it is disinformation.

 

Examples of this would be the asssault on Goose Green in the Falklands, or the Iranian embassy seige where reporters broadcast live the fact that hostage rescue units were going in. In the case of the latter, and given that the terrorists were known to have TVs it was quite staggering that no deaths resulted.

 

As i say we have been trememndously lucky in the past, with these keys instances. But the fact is that as awareness spreads of our tendency more people will take advantage of it.

 

The counter-argument is naturally that the people have a right to know. But I ask on what timescale have they a right to know? The people cannot do anything about operations 8,000 miles away, or even in London that day or even that week.

To what extent should the press be under control during national crises such as wartime?

 

They need to be controlled. Anything that destoys moral on the home front should be omitted. Truth of whatever negative situation that happened can come to light after the war. Just look at Vietnam. News people sticking their nose where it doesn't belong cause moral issues at home, leading to war protesters and riots.

taks revives what I feel is an important point from my original post. T owhat extent should the press be under control during national crises such as wartime?

 

and...

 

The counter-argument is naturally that the people have a right to know. But I ask on what timescale have they a right to know? The people cannot do anything about operations 8,000 miles away, or even in London that day or even that week.

i left out the rest because it is merely factual support for your question, and eventual position.

 

there are plenty of instances in which the media should be limited, even denied. they don't have access to classified discussions, for example, and war-time activities above all qualify as classified, often even top-secret or better, compartmentalized (i can't explain what that means other than "higher than TS").

 

even the freedom of speech has its limits - you cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded auditorium, nor can you publicly tell someone to harm or kill another, while claiming protection under the freedom.

 

the side effect of having a military conduct operations, presumed legal, on foreign ground is that any misconduct will take a while to get to the public scene. it has to be that way else the enemy knows what we know, so to speak.

 

taks

The only purpose of the media is to have their sponsors satisfied.

 

It used to be more, some individuals inspire for more.

But at the end of the day, nothing else matters.

Catch this video before it gets taken down. It's old, but it's great stuff.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaoX_SgNO70...ted&search=

 

really talking about the subversion of the media.

 

 

Was he describing propaganda techniques or executing them? It didn't ring true to me.

To what extent should the press be under control during national crises such as wartime?

 

They need to be controlled. Anything that destoys moral on the home front should be omitted. Truth of whatever negative situation that happened can come to light after the war. Just look at Vietnam. News people sticking their nose where it doesn't belong cause moral issues at home, leading to war protesters and riots.

 

That's a good example, if a tricky one in my mind. On the one hand the war was lost by a loss of civilian morale. But at the same time it was lost by diastrous and wrong-headed strategy and tactics. Facts that were accurately reported. My feeling is that the public reacted wrongly. Rather than fixing the damn problem they upped and quit.

I jut think that any people who didn't attack us we should not attack or get involved with them militarily. That includes Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. The press should tell the truth of events, good and bad, and let the public judge it accordingly. Its not the US people or government's responsibility to solve the world's problems.

I jut think that any people who didn't attack us we should not attack or get involved with them militarily. That includes Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. The press should tell the truth of events, good and bad, and let the public judge it accordingly. Its not the US people or government's responsibility to solve the world's problems.

And Germany don't forget.

Actually, Germany had an alliance with Japan and when Japan attacked us it gave the US an out to attack not only Japan but also all of her allies, including Germany.

Of course you know I'm olny picking on you because you have not been around much lately.

Computer has been down. Soon after I was able to get a working motherboard the CPU fried. Finally got a back up single core CPU and I'm sending the dual core in for a replacement.

I think the media serves the public to the extent that it provides to the public a great deal of useful information about events and and products and services.

 

The media serves more powerful interests to the extent that it screens and frames the news primarilly according to their preferences. To the extent that powerful people share interests with the public this is good for the public. To the extent that powerful people have interests that exploit or harm the public this is bad for the public.

 

This is not going to change.

 

But there hope for the victory of truth over spin because the media is actively engaged in making itself an entertainment center and obsoleting itself as a news source.

 

Billions of independent news sources are taking their place.

 

Some are concerned about this and are desperate to maintain control (of the news and the message). That may be difficult.

Great (and old) spoof on how the media reacts to war.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvyX-CwHpAQ

Wonderful!