NationStates Jolt Archive


June 6, 1944: What if Today's Media Had Covered It?

Mister Abe
14-06-2004, 17:59
For your consideration, friends:

D-Day as covered by today’s media
By William J. Tobin
Here’s how today’s media might have covered D-Day, 60 years ago:
On the coast of France, June 6, 1944:
Hundreds of paratroopers have fallen wide of their target zone. (In Washington, the Senate Armed Services Committee is demanding an explanation. The Army chief of staff may be called to testify.)
The French village of Cerville has been destroyed by mortar fire from a U.S. infantry platoon. Four civilians were killed, including one elderly great-grandmother. German defenders had retreated hours before the American attack. Army intelligence failures are cited.
NBC Exclusive: Four bombs dropped by 8th Air Force raiders failed to explode when they fell in an empty field close to the village of Le Challimond. An examination indicates the duds came from an Iowa munitions factory. An unidentified Army corporal said additional defective bombs may already be aboard other U.S. bombers heading for France.
Thousands of American casualties were suffered today as troops poured on shore at Omaha Beach. (In Washington, a Nebraska congressmen charged that many GI’s were unprepared for what they encountered during the invasion. “Somebody needs to be held accountable,” he said.)
Heavy Navy shelling from battleships and cruisers had little effect on Nazi gun emplacements raining fire on U.S. forces, several correspondents at the scene reported. (In Washington, a World War I veteran interviewed by a reporter questioned the value of troop support by warships, saying “the days of naval involvement in battles is long past.”)
CBS Exclusive: Bombs falling on the tiny French village of Entierier killed all four cows on which residents depend for milk and cheese. Severe shortages are feared unless U.S. forces can replace the animals by next week.
A 411-year-old church in the village of Marsuiles was destroyed by Army artillery fire after a German sniper was detected shooting from the bell tower. The Vichy French government mayor of the town protested to advancing GI’s, saying the sniper surely would have ceased firing had the American soldiers asked him to do so. He demanded an apology from Gen. Omar Bradley.
NBC Exclusive, in a report from Paris: Residents here fear the Eiffel Tower might be destroyed by advancing American forces. “They probably do not appreciate the beauties of the City of Light,” said Pierre Mutrand, the mayor appointed by occupying German forces. His sentiments were echoed by a number of Parisians and several Nazi SS officers, interviewed while sipping aperitifs at sidewalk cafes along the Champs-Elysées.
A river near the French coast has been contaminated by fuel leaking from two disabled tanks that advancing GI’s pushed over the side of a bridge. French puppet civic leaders questioned the need to clear the bridge by such drastic action, saying it appeared soldiers could have climbed over the wreckage had it been left in place. Correspondents were denied an interview by the young Army captain commanding troops in the area.
CBS Exclusive: American forces bogged down in the hedgerows of the French countryside have been calling for reinforcements to help escape withering German fire. Communication problems, however, have left commanders on the beach unaware that some of their troops are in a desperate situation. It makes you wonder whether their training was adequate - or even if there was any training at all.
On the home front:
As first battle reports indicated heavy casualties on Omaha Beach, a Republican leader addressing a Republican rally in Bloomington, Ind., told a group of somber Hoosiers that the invasion losses are evidence that President Roosevelt is incompetent. The Indiana congressional delegation responded by saying it would begin bipartisan hearings to see whether Roosevelt had concealed information that the invasion would be more costly than expected.
In a panel discussion broadcast by NBC Radio, four White House correspondents provided illuminating insight into the difficulties being encountered by Allied forces in France. Jeremy Jeffords, Washington Bureau chief of a small Midwest newspaper, said, “The decision to start the invasion this early in June is open to severe criticism. Gen. Eisenhower and his planners apparently failed to take into account that delaying this assault until August would have found much of the French population on a holiday and thus removed from the path of the fighting.”
In Chicago, the Rev. Blakely Elmera, a noted peace activist, deplored the violence taking place on the French battlefields. “Apparently our government in Washington gave no thought to the possibility of negotiating with German leaders in an effort to resolve their differences,” he said. “We seem to be blindly following Churchill’s affection for war.” In London, the British prime minister lit a new cigar and declined to respond.
William J. Tobin is an editor of The Anchorage Times.
Poochistan
14-06-2004, 18:06
Poochistan
14-06-2004, 18:08
Harrummph!
Safalra
14-06-2004, 18:12
Ah, because WW2 is comparable to Iraq, isn't it? :roll:
Aluran
14-06-2004, 18:41
Aluran
14-06-2004, 18:41
Aluran
14-06-2004, 18:45
Oh my Gawd....come to think of it..if today's media were reporting the invasion of Europe..I can see them reporting it that way....accusations of incompetence..hearings on the Hill..protests..

I mean...we're not so much talking of Iraq....although I realize that was the model..but the model of the media and how they'd report it were smack on target. They'd be questioning the purpose of the invasion..could Hitler be negotiated with as long as he got Europe?..could the British be compelled to negotiate..yada..yada..the media of today would have blasted the Normandy invasions and called for a recall of FDR.
Incertonia
14-06-2004, 18:48
Considering the amount and the quality of the fellating of the administration and the military during the early days of the Iraq war, I'd say that the above example is ludicrous.
Aluran
14-06-2004, 18:52
Considering the amount and the quality of the fellating of the administration and the military during the early days of the Iraq war, I'd say that the above example is ludicrous.

But think of it incertonia..just the media model...not Iraq ok..just how the media would report it..can you not agree that that very example might come to pass?
Aanmericaa
14-06-2004, 18:54
Considering the amount and the quality of the fellating of the administration and the military during the early days of the Iraq war, I'd say that the above example is ludicrous.

I would justly say the same. Imagine this, 4 years ago, the germans took all of Europe. If you were a Brit, you may not be bothered or you might, considering that Hitler had his sites on the UK and was going to bomb the island to hell until he got it. 4 years after that, you hear that the Germans are torturing the Jewish and anyone who did not agree with the Nazis ideals and killing them in all sorts of horrible ways as well as experimenting on a race that they consider "sub-human" therefore the media pointed at the invasions at D-day would have been very different, in fact the media would have given very positive reactions to it.
Incertonia
14-06-2004, 18:56
Considering the amount and the quality of the fellating of the administration and the military during the early days of the Iraq war, I'd say that the above example is ludicrous.

But think of it incertonia..just the media model...not Iraq ok..just how the media would report it..can you not agree that that very example might come to pass?Because it hasn't come to pass yet. Every time--and I do mean every single time--the US military is in the field in battle, the reporting of the battle at the time it occurs is always positive. Always.

The recriminations come later, and it's possible that by June of 1945, the reporting of D-Day would have been harsh, just as it has taken the press significant time to report on what's gone wrong in other military situations the US has been involved in.

But while it's happening, while the battle is being waged, there is no criticism of the troops in the field or how they are carrying out their duties. If reporters have criticisms, they swallow them until the aftermath or their editors cut them out of the stories. Simple as that.
Druthulhu
15-06-2004, 01:12
Druthulhu
15-06-2004, 01:16
Oh how hilarious! :roll:

But just for a little perspective, did you happen to notice the media's coverage of the war in Afghanistan? ...or Desert Storm? Surprisingly they really don't have much to say that is critical about military actions that are NOT unilateral and that ARE a response to hostile actions against the attackers or their allies. Go figure... when our administration DOES attack another nation that is minding its own business, no matter how dispicable their internal policies are, our media takes a less lenient approach.



- Rev. A.J. Harris

Why Waste Another Vote On the Old Coke-or-Pepsi Party?
Waste Your Vote On Me
Veiktorya
15-06-2004, 01:34
To say Iraq was minding their own business is not really accurate, but thats not the focus of thread.


Oh just imagine todays media and Hiroshima... :?

I wish Bush would ditch the pansies who are advising him to try to satisfy the news media and the interests of America at the same time, ie: not bombing mosques/heavily armed and terrorist stocked bunkers so we dont anger the mooOOOooooOOOslims
Colodia
15-06-2004, 01:35
Ya know...ya can't say that this wouldn't have been how it turned out.

Now I'd like to see how the media would portray the U.S. Civil War and Generalk Sherman's "total war" tactics...
New York and Jersey
15-06-2004, 01:48
For those of you who say, this is comparable to Iraq, get your head out of your arses. The media hasnt only FUBARed on Iraq II. It goes much deeper than that. Remember Somalia? The reason why reporters werent critical of US troops in Iraq I was because the ground war lasted 3 days, and if you folks forget many in the media DID lambaste our involvment in Iraq after the video of POW flyers were first being shown. However the media was kept on such a tight leash they couldnt say we were losing the war, simply because the military didnt give out a lot of information. Before the Gulf War though we have the biggest example of how the "modern" media can be harmful to a war effort. Vietnam. During the Tet Offensive Walter Croncite said we had lost the war...this is even though after 48 hours the VC had been removed from Saigon, and after 2 months all that was gained by the VC had been lost with losses on the US front being laughable at best.

The media and television have posioned the public when it comes to war. The ability to possibly see someone die on TV sickens many. It drives people to look to other solutions no matter how stupid they maybe. (Such as a withdrawl from Iraq even though there are still problems which need to be resolved). What was posted was a rather sad truth. The WWII generation was tempered by the Great Depression, and before that WWI. There were no luxuries that are taken for granted now that were taken back then. Every successive generation after Korea has been pampered and this has also led to further misunderstandings of just what war really is. Then you've got the ever present spectre of Vietnam in US culture. The fact that any prospective war the US undertakes is refered to as Vietnam is an example of this. (Oh Afganistan was the Soviet Vietnam, so why wont it be our own? Blah blah blah..)