News reporting, American vs other

[NecronLord]

http://www.ww1-propaganda-cards.com/images/inter01.JPG
I smell crude propoganda...

That's a very nice image there, actually. Shows some fight, it does!

I'll have to get Saddam/Bush photoshopped into it over the Kaiser.

[Companion Cube]

Sorry to bring this back up, but I was being facetious when i was talking about the 'Restraint' of the British press.

*Damn missing edit button*

[Stuart Mackey]

Yeah , I found that interesting as well. News anchor crying? ABC wasnt he? man needs to get it together.
We also had the POW's displyed as well as we got coverage, didnt the American newsies selfcensor that?

While there was much to absorb if you were channel flipping -- videos of Iraqis in Safwan cheering the arrival of U.S. forces, NBC's footage of the crashed American helicopter that took 12 lives, Tom Brokaw crying during an interview with the mother of a Marine killed Friday, the father of a slain Marine angrily telling President Bush to "take a good look at this picture" of his son, or a bevy of informative reports from the battle, it was the initial "shock and awe" attack that remained most vivid.

And yes the major network and cable news outlets did not show the full tape, although on Sunday night, NBC showed the interview with a POW, after establishing that his family was aware of his capture.

I still have not seen it. But if I so desire, I'm sure I could easily find somewhere to download it.

Ahh, the chap I saw starting to cry was over a commanders mission breifing/pep talk.

[RogueIce]

Ahh, the chap I saw starting to cry was over a commanders mission breifing/pep talk.

Well, depends on what was said I guess...

But still, just one man, not exactly reflective of all US media and it's reporters.

[Howedar]

That's exactly it. Not only is it patriotic to support war (and somehow therefore un-partriotic to not support it), but it is a religious obligation. Remember when Bush said that he was going to "conduct a Crusade against terror?" Remember how he said numerous times that it's the Christian thing to do? And that God is on our side? And that we will seek justice in the name of God? The media loves that crap. They eat it up. So now not only is it un-patriotic to oppose the war, but it is also a heresy.

I've said it before: You know who else did that? Hitler.

Of course, the actual problem with Hitler was that he killed a lot of people and caused a world war. Has Bush done that, or do they just use the same hair gel?

[Stuart Mackey]

Ahh, the chap I saw starting to cry was over a commanders mission breifing/pep talk.

Well, depends on what was said I guess...

But still, just one man, not exactly reflective of all US media and it's reporters.

Proably not. Thing is that here, you just dont see that happen. From where I live, American media is far too much sensationalism and apperance, to the degree that it detracts from the actual facts of a story, and this war seems to have increased that.

[Darth Wong]

That's exactly it. Not only is it patriotic to support war (and somehow therefore un-partriotic to not support it), but it is a religious obligation. Remember when Bush said that he was going to "conduct a Crusade against terror?" Remember how he said numerous times that it's the Christian thing to do? And that God is on our side? And that we will seek justice in the name of God? The media loves that crap. They eat it up. So now not only is it un-patriotic to oppose the war, but it is also a heresy.

I've said it before: You know who else did that? Hitler.

Of course, the actual problem with Hitler was that he killed a lot of people and caused a world war. Has Bush done that, or do they just use the same hair gel?

Are you denying that there is anything wrong with the practice of tying jingoism, patriotism, and religious fervour together into a "take it or leave it" package? The fact that this was but one of Hitler's many crimes does not redeem it.

[RogueIce]

Proably not. Thing is that here, you just dont see that happen. From where I live, American media is far too much sensationalism and apperance, to the degree that it detracts from the actual facts of a story, and this war seems to have increased that.

I haven't seen it detract from the facts that much. People bring up the whole "have we taken Basra or not?" incident, but that's less to do with sensationalism and the like to conflicting reports; they can only go on what they're given.

As for the crying bit...well, maybe it's just because our reporters are human...

[Stuart Mackey]

That's exactly it. Not only is it patriotic to support war (and somehow therefore un-partriotic to not support it), but it is a religious obligation. Remember when Bush said that he was going to "conduct a Crusade against terror?" Remember how he said numerous times that it's the Christian thing to do? And that God is on our side? And that we will seek justice in the name of God? The media loves that crap. They eat it up. So now not only is it un-patriotic to oppose the war, but it is also a heresy.

I've said it before: You know who else did that? Hitler.

Of course, the actual problem with Hitler was that he killed a lot of people and caused a world war. Has Bush done that, or do they just use the same hair gel?

I dont know about you, but I have always thought that Hitler really needed a new personal apperance assistant. Have you seen his hair? shocking! So lank and greasy, so unattractive, how he inspired confidence I dont know.
Now Bush is better, but his hairsylist really needs to be more imaginative, his current look is so boreing.
Appearance counts, and even more so when conqueroring nations. No nation wants to be overrun by an evil overlord with no colour or style, they want imagination and flair from their invaders. Bush should learn from Hitlers mistake and get a new stylist, could be the difference between the conqueror's white horse or a shallow grave!

[Stuart Mackey]

Proably not. Thing is that here, you just dont see that happen. From where I live, American media is far too much sensationalism and apperance, to the degree that it detracts from the actual facts of a story, and this war seems to have increased that.

I haven't seen it detract from the facts that much. People bring up the whole "have we taken Basra or not?" incident, but that's less to do with sensationalism and the like to conflicting reports; they can only go on what they're given.

As for the crying bit...well, maybe it's just because our reporters are human...

The Basra thing has everthing to do with media being to lazy to either, confirm it properly or when conflict arisses with information to ask appropriate questions. Either way they are being spoon fed and taking things as fact and not confirming details like they should. hence sensationalism.

[RogueIce]

The Basra thing has everthing to do with media being to lazy to either, confirm it properly or when conflict arisses with information to ask appropriate questions. Either way they are being spoon fed and taking things as fact and not confirming details like they should. hence sensationalism.

The military thought it was secured. The military was wrong. What exactly would you have them do? Send a legion of reporters to walk the streets and see if anyone gets shot?

Tempting though it may be ( ), I don't think it'd be practical...

[Stuart Mackey]

The Basra thing has everthing to do with media being to lazy to either, confirm it properly or when conflict arisses with information to ask appropriate questions. Either way they are being spoon fed and taking things as fact and not confirming details like they should. hence sensationalism.

The military thought it was secured. The military was wrong. What exactly would you have them do? Send a legion of reporters to walk the streets and see if anyone gets shot?

Tempting though it may be ( ), I don't think it'd be practical...

I would expect the journo's not to be spoon fed by the Millitay PR people! insead of swallowing like they want it, they should be actually talking to people other than Army PR and patting themselfs on the back. being a reporter is not about hairstyle and public popularity, it is about getting out and getting the facts.

[RogueIce]

I would expect the journo's not to be spoon fed by the Millitay PR people! insead of swallowing like they want it, they should be actually talking to people other than Army PR and patting themselfs on the back. being a reporter is not about hairstyle and public popularity, it is about getting out and getting the facts.

Weren't they also going on what the embedded reporters told them, ie: the guys in the field?

[Stuart Mackey]

I would expect the journo's not to be spoon fed by the Millitay PR people! insead of swallowing like they want it, they should be actually talking to people other than Army PR and patting themselfs on the back. being a reporter is not about hairstyle and public popularity, it is about getting out and getting the facts.

Weren't they also going on what the embedded reporters told them, ie: the guys in the field?

Trouble with these 'embedded' guys is that their ability to get facts is extreamly limited by being stuck with guys who have only limited and possibly inaccurate info. You have to talk with a wide varity of people to get a accurate picture..or at least find out what is not accurate.

[RogueIce]

Trouble with these 'embedded' guys is that their ability to get facts is extreamly limited by being stuck with guys who have only limited and possibly inaccurate info. You have to talk with a wide varity of people to get a accurate picture..or at least find out what is not accurate.

Well, who exactly are they going to talk to? The Iraqi military command? Find some way to ship reporters out to the cities in question? So far as I know, the guys in the field, CENTCOM, and Washington are the only sources you really have (at least in position; anything more would take a considerable amount of time to get in place).

[Stuart Mackey]

Trouble with these 'embedded' guys is that their ability to get facts is extreamly limited by being stuck with guys who have only limited and possibly inaccurate info. You have to talk with a wide varity of people to get a accurate picture..or at least find out what is not accurate.

Well, who exactly are they going to talk to? The Iraqi military command? Find some way to ship reporters out to the cities in question? So far as I know, the guys in the field, CENTCOM, and Washington are the only sources you really have (at least in position; anything more would take a considerable amount of time to get in place).

You talk to anyone you can find! Try talking to a guy in a logistics or maintanance unit about what is getting to the front for example, or wear on equipment. What you dont do is just take information like a slack jawed hillbillie, from the very people who have an interest in you printing only what they want you to print.

[RogueIce]

You talk to anyone you can find! Try talking to a guy in a logistics or maintanance unit about what is getting to the front for example, or wear on equipment. What you dont do is just take information like a slack jawed hillbillie, from the very people who have an interest in you printing only what they want you to print.

I won't deny talking to them would provide useful information, but I don't see how it'd help determine, for instance, whether a town is secured or not (since we mentioned Basra and all). That is, unless they happen to get ambushed or something in the course of the interview.

[Stuart Mackey]

You talk to anyone you can find! Try talking to a guy in a logistics or maintanance unit about what is getting to the front for example, or wear on equipment. What you dont do is just take information like a slack jawed hillbillie, from the very people who have an interest in you printing only what they want you to print.

I won't deny talking to them would provide useful information, but I don't see how it'd help determine, for instance, whether a town is secured or not (since we mentioned Basra and all). That is, unless they happen to get ambushed or something in the course of the interview.

Ok, how do you tell if a town is secure? one would think that you would approch the town. Is there gunfire? are nearby troops worried about ambush or snipers? are engineers clearing road for supply trucks. Are water mains being repaired, sanitation sytems put back in order? Are gunships firing rockets at supected enemy tanks?
That newsies didnt know that it was secure tells me that they were not doing there jobs.

[Spyder]

As for Tom Brokaw crying, well, Hell, he was interviewing the mother of a dead Marine. You don't think that couldn't get a tad emotional?

The anchor I'm talking about was crying as he read out general orders. This wasn't during an interview.

[RogueIce]

As for Tom Brokaw crying, well, Hell, he was interviewing the mother of a dead Marine. You don't think that couldn't get a tad emotional?

The anchor I'm talking about was crying as he read out general orders. This wasn't during an interview.

Was responding to what they said about Tom Brokaw. Just found out what was meant earlier only a few posts ago.

[RogueIce]

Ok, how do you tell if a town is secure? one would think that you would approch the town. Is there gunfire? are nearby troops worried about ambush or snipers? are engineers clearing road for supply trucks. Are water mains being repaired, sanitation sytems put back in order? Are gunships firing rockets at supected enemy tanks?
That newsies didnt know that it was secure tells me that they were not doing there jobs.

That would work, depending on how long after the town was reported as secure, of course (in other words, have they had time to get the people who know how to fix the stuff up there).

And, not Basra, but those oil fields they thoguht were secure and weren't? Didn't they already have the firefighting crews up there before they started getting attacked (in other words, support-esque people arrived before enemy still there attacked)? So it's not exactly foolproof to say it's secure, no matter what you look for, especially not with reports of soldiers dressed in civvies and all that.

[Stuart Mackey]

Ok, how do you tell if a town is secure? one would think that you would approch the town. Is there gunfire? are nearby troops worried about ambush or snipers? are engineers clearing road for supply trucks. Are water mains being repaired, sanitation sytems put back in order? Are gunships firing rockets at supected enemy tanks?
That newsies didnt know that it was secure tells me that they were not doing there jobs.

That would work, depending on how long after the town was reported as secure, of course (in other words, have they had time to get the people who know how to fix the stuff up there).

And, not Basra, but those oil fields they thoguht were secure and weren't? Didn't they already have the firefighting crews up there before they started getting attacked (in other words, support-esque people arrived before enemy still there attacked)? So it's not exactly foolproof to say it's secure, no matter what you look for, especially not with reports of soldiers dressed in civvies and all that.

Right, but you wouldnt know one way or the other unless you were actually investigating things now would you? thats part of what reporting is about, not being spoon fed only info the millitary wants you to know.

[RogueIce]

Right, but you wouldnt know one way or the other unless you were actually investigating things now would you? thats part of what reporting is about, not being spoon fed only info the millitary wants you to know.

Eh, point taken.

[Stuart Mackey]

Right, but you wouldnt know one way or the other unless you were actually investigating things now would you? thats part of what reporting is about, not being spoon fed only info the millitary wants you to know.

Eh, point taken.

No worrys mate.
My mother was a reporter of the old school who actually did investigate stories and always confirmed the information she got. She, and I, dont much like this new lot of Journo's who just dont know how to do the job, and it shows.