NationStates Jolt Archive

During the Vietnam war, the world was given unprecendented access into the very heart of conflict, gaining for the first time the smallest glimpse of the truth of war. People bleeding, children burning, men with the skin sloughing off their bones. Following the monstrous public relations disaster that arose from this largely unfettered access allowed to the media, which in turn helped to swing public opinion against the war, the military establishment decided never again to allow the media such a free hand.

My question to you is this, if the media was allowed the same access as it was in the 1960's and early 70's with the current struggle, would public opinion be any different?

More importantly, is it right that we don't see the reality of war these days, but are instead largely spoon-fed sound bites, recycled images and stock footage of missiles launching?

---------------------------------------

I've tried not to make this a leftie rant, but I just recently checked out thenausea for the first time, and probably should have steeled myself a little better. It raised an interesting point in my mind.

Everyone should be given as much information as possible (and by possible I mean the only information to be withheld is information that could be damaging stratigicly). The world needs to see war for exactly what it is: humans killing each other largerly for reasons that aren't their own.

In situations like war the people can't be trusted to make rational decisions. At first they will react enthusiastically, like rooting for their home team. When the bodies start to pile up they will react out of fear and demand an end to the war, even if that would result in more deaths in the long run.

Because they will act emotionally they can't be trusted with the truth. No information that isn't strictly controlled by the government should be allowed to reach the citizens. It's a matter of national security.

There are some major differences in this war. Media types are actually designated targets of choice. It is the media itself that is limiting coverage this time around. There have been many attempts to get the media to expand coverage, but they have lost so many it is much easier and safer to cover it from the green zone or NYC.

Everyone should be given as much information as possible (and by possible I mean the only information to be withheld is information that could be damaging stratigicly). The world needs to see war for exactly what it is: humans killing each other largerly for reasons that aren't their own.

My sentiments exactly. I think half the reason we don't see those images on the news is because recruitment is so low to begin with. And they don't want "Another Vietnam"...oops...too late.

In situations like war the people can't be trusted to make rational decisions. At first they will react enthusiastically, like rooting for their home team. When the bodies start to pile up they will react out of fear and demand an end to the war, even if that would result in more deaths in the long run.

Personally, I think anyone who embraces and endorses war and then cries with outrage when their soldiers start to get killed deserves a bitch-slap of biblical proportions.

Because they will act emotionally they can't be trusted with the truth. No information that isn't strictly controlled by the government should be allowed to reach the citizens. It's a matter of national security. Would this include the covering up of atrocities committed by the military. Can we reconcile this? I know that you personally support the ideal of spreading democracy and the stamping out of of barbaric cultural practices, DC, but at what cost are you willing to accept it?

Personally, I think anyone who embraces and endorses war and then cries with outrage when their soldiers start to get killed deserves a bitch-slap of biblical proportions.
Agreed. That would mean alot of my countrymen need the biblical bitchslap.

Would this include the covering up of atrocities committed by the military. Can we reconcile this? I know that you personally support the ideal of spreading democracy and the stamping out of of barbaric cultural practices, DC, but at what cost are you willing to accept it?
That's what bothers me. Where's the right place to draw the line? How do we ensure victory without becoming like our enemies?

I think if we had the same kind of coverage as in the 60’s and 70’s then the public’s opinion would be firmly against war. Governments learnt a painful lesson from the media coverage of the ‘60’s/70’s. By allowing full, graphic coverage of war they allowed the general public to see the full horror of war. In the case of Vietnam, it was public outrage at media images that turned the tide against the US military.
With Vietnam in mind, today’s governments will never allow free coverage of conflicts. They make the public believe the media have full access by allowing ‘embedded’ reporters, which actually means that the military can control the reporter’s every movement. Anyone who shows images contry to the government’s ideal view gets bombed – think Al Jazeera in Baghdad.

I think we should be allowed to see the full consequences of war – after all the soldiers are fighting in our name. That said, desensitisation becomes an issue as we become used to the bloody images.

Bump.

Any media censorship is definitly self censorship. They have way too much information to sort out. You see, the media became lazy at war coverage. Back in the first Gulf War, the military sharply limited what the media could and could not report, which is why some of the best coverage was from inside Iraq. All of the other wars by any nation were just too short, too secret, or too unimportant to be extensively covered. So really, the last time there was good war coverage was during the Vietnam war, before most of today's reporters even knew what a war was. There wasn't any good wartime coverage, and the media has absolutly no idea how to use its many new powers these days.

Any media censorship is definitly self censorship.I'd agree that the majority of censorship involved with the news reporting the War is self-imposed, and that thanks to ideas such as "The Pool" and "Embedding", Network media is by and large uninterested in looking truthfully at war anymore.

I think the media should give full and uncensored coverage of all war. I want people to see children with their heads blown off, limbs severed, blood everywhere, crying beside the mangled corpses of their siblings/parents. If you don't know what war really is, you have absolutely no right to agree with it. I want people to see that war is not about toppling a 'bad' regime, with waving flags and marines waving at the crowds. It is about the death and destruction of people and their homes, livelihoods and families.
No more artfully posed corpses on their faces. You support war? Then every day you should have to see teenage boys with their brains blasted across the walls, little girls with no jaw, grown men screaming in agony and begging for help.
Anything else is an insult to their suffering.