So, do we *really* have to know?

There is a lot of debate and anymosity out there about this subject, and I wanted to get some feedback. Is the media getting too involved in military strategy--i.e., are they giving too much information to the viewers that could hinder future military plans? I personally do not think they are, especially if there are no possible issues of national security at stake. We must understand ratings are one of their priorities also.

But here is the point: It’s OK if they report on a large scope about the war, like “is the war going our way”, or “what major victories we’ve accomplished”. But when they put on TV five military strategists with a map of Afghanistan speculating the chronological order of all U.S. attacks, isn’t that a little too much?

And what about this Anthrax thing? Has that been blown out of proportion?

Latin_Boy

Even during the Gulf War,the media was being their usual asshole selves.Schwarzkopf even mentioned this in saying how Hussein watched cnn for information,and how the allies would use the media as a tool at times.It is a military operation with many lives involved-some things do not have to be open to the public.It's more like these jackass reporters trying to look like they actually matter.
While accurate information is necessary,this bunch isn't to be trusted to give evenhanded,or even accurate,accounts.Those of us who have msn had access to an article about reports favoring the taliban.A particular reporter has also given a false story about a botched mission in kabul,just as he gave a false report of US troops executing Iraqi POWs in the Gulf War.Seeing as how this guy is still being paid to report,one has to wonder about the mentality of the media.

Useful....

From a military standpoint though, these morons in the media are quite useful. If you let them leak 3 inconsequential true things and a 4th that will allow you to divert important enemy resources, then all is well. You didn't hear that from me though... Q

I think that in general the media goes too far on any major issue. In some cases, as with the Gulf War and now the War in Afganistan, I think that they provide too much detail. In others, as the Anthrax issue, the media seems to feel the need to report something, even when there is no real news to report, so they keep plugging the story using different angles hoping that some new outbreak will happen to provide more fodder. Or at least that is my take on it.

Mykal

Bear in mind that the function of the media is to sell cars and mouthwash. If the public wants news, they will provide it, even if they have to create it themselves. Notice how, when there's nothing to report, they either interview each other (including "consultants" like retired generals) or beat to death the tiny scraps they have (a dozen anthrax cases, only a few of them fatal.)

In this war, the establishment media have decided that they have to be on the same side as the rest of us, like in WWII, or be punished by losing viewers to other outlets. That's not true of National Public Radio and their "SOME Things Considered" news program. One of their asshole reporters said that his right to publish trumps all other considerations, including the lives of US and allied servicemen. Seems to me that his investigative skills could be best put to use finding problems in the Federal Prison System - from the inside.

Strelnikov

I have no idea who coined this phrase, but it's very true: 'The first casualty in any war is the TRUTH.'

Here's hoping that the reporter strel is speaking of is interviewing bin laden at the exact moment a missile hits.
Frankly,my opinion is that the media will report news that is old,bad,false,or even if they have to invent it themselves,as they have been discovered doing before.
Don't have much use for them.

Haltickling said:

I have no idea who coined this phrase, but it's very true: 'The first casualty in any war is the TRUTH.'

Click to expand...

I think it was Sir Winnie. But, don't quote me on it.

AFA the topic in general, I think we have a right to know some things...AFTER the fact when it comes to planned action. But, we have reports nearly every day pointing out our weak spots for everyone to see. Why doesn't the media just paint a big target on these places, drive the terrorists to them and help set the charges?! Are they really that stupid?!

I think the gov'tneeds to USE the media. Feed some false info. to them to broadcast all over. Draw the terrorists into a trap. I'm sure that's what Bin Laden and his cronies are doing. I mean... doesn't anyone else wonder why areas have been falling so easily the last few days? I give it two weeks and we'll see one of three things...an attack from behind if they're hiding in the caves... people getting sick if biological or chemical contaminants were left behind...or bombs set in advance going off. However it happens, I don't trust that lousy ******!

Ann

Are they really that stupid? YES.

I agree with you, Latin Boy, sometimes members of the media do not employ common sense and go too far. I think this was constantly reflected in the fact that Rumsfeld was having to field questions in news conference after news conference about strategy when he had previously outlined that he would not answer such questions.

Perhaps, if we examined military conflicts of the past, we could see the importantce of the media. The current situation is one in which we are enjoying a much more unified homefront. Certainly not everything this government has done in the world is right or to the benefit of its citizenry. There are countries where the media is used solely as a propaganda tool for the government- a scary thought indeed. Having said this, I don't see the need to know military strategy during or prior to its execution.

Surely, the anthrax scare was exasperated by the media. The effective part of the scare is that it was directed at them. At the same time, the media performs the function of informing the public and helping us to understand what the real threat is of contracting the disease.