Propaganda & Mass Persuasion: 04/15/2007 - 04/22/2007

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

No News is No News

This article shocked me that the truth was distorted from the public. The Pentagon was putting restrictions and we still didn't have the story what what happened earlier in the invasion. The question is why would they do that? I just boggles my mind because why would they do that. The article said that reporters have to work under the supervision of the press officers and hand in stories for review to determine if they contain sensitive information" They basically just want to have their own guidelines of censorship. In my view I think the public should get only the truth because if they find out the brutalities of the war, they would get even more upset for not being able to know about it. This influenced my perception of what is being told to the the public. I think from now on, I'll always question whether news is altered or not.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Good News From the Front


During the last battle of the Iraq war on April 3rd there were eighty five embedded journalists assigned to the third division. The embedded reporters gave a clear image of the combat that was truthfully going on. I am glad that the brave embedded journalists were reporting the true facts. Why the United States military was trying to hide or ignore it I do not know. I guess they were afraid of the public's reaction. It seems as if they really want total control over the news media.

Why are So Many Civilians Dying?


"THIS much is all but certain: when bombs fall, some of them will fall on the wrong people. Sometimes innocents are killed, in what is coolly referred to as collateral damage."

In Cushman Jr.'s War's Hidden Cause, He stresses the fact that since this country has gone to war with Afghanistan and wars before we have been killing mass numbers of women and children. Without a doubt civilians will be killed but today should the numbers be so great? The American public expects pinpoint precision but no bomb is guaranteed to hit its exact target. In this Article Cushman Jr. writes about how many families have lost members and how many people are killed off at a certain place and time. If these targets are supposed to be checked, leaving civilians out of harm, why are so many dying? This can in no way be considered as "collateral damage."

Robert Kalb Explores New Realities of War Reporting

During the Gulf War of 1991, most reporters complained about the lack of access to the troops or the front due to the disadvantages of the Pentagon's new pool system. One of the main reasons for the pool system was because the effect of the public's negative outlook on the Vietnam War did not want to be had again. Now we face another war, the Iraqi war. How is journalism going to change this time around?

"Embedding is a part of the massive White House run strategy to sell single message about the American mission in this war--that is the United States is
liberating Iraq from a bloddy dictator, who has used weapons of mass destruction
against his neighbors and his own people, and that is a war against terrorism or
states that help terrorists and not a war against Islam."

Access Denied


The article by Neil Hickey describes the how restrictive the government has been with the media in terms of how they cover the war in Afganistan. The journalists covering the war had two problems with how they were able to obtain the information they needed. The first problem was that they "did not have reasonable access to land and sea bases from which air attacks were launched" and " little or no opportunity to interview pilots upon their return from their missions". The second problem they encountered was that the "information is funneled to journalists in briefings by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and upper-echelon military officers", therefore they can not depend on that information solely because it is unbias. One point in the article that I found important was that most of the operation in the beginning was fought by special forces which means the mission was a secret. Something I strongly disagreed with in this article was the fact that when the Marine commanders stopped journalists from taping soldiers who were killed and wounded by friendly fire, the journalists wanted an apology. I feel as though that is not something that they american public needs to see. I understand that it may sway peoples feelings toward or againist the war but if it were my loved one that was killed, I would not want everyone to see him or her like that. On one hand I feel like these images do not need to be shown on television but on the other, some anti-war people may use these as a tool to get their point across. The media wants to show the grusome aspect of the war put do not want to put a "real" face to that person. You do not see who that person was when you see them dead, you see them as a dead soldier. The media needs to put a personality to that soldier. With that, the media has a hard time because the government may think that these images will make things worse.

Good News From The Front

This article's main point was the total access the reporters had to the front line during this Gulf War. It goes on to point out that press from many different companies were allowed to accopany the solders as they attack different points in Iraq. Also, pictures and reports on the dead and the solders honest reaction to their involvement in the Middle East. Also, "Embedded journalist did not shy away from reporting things that the US military was doing the best to ignore. Most notably Iraq casualties." Things have changed a lot since the first Gulf War that William Arkin beleives that,"Each of these finger thrusts was described in news dispatches with an immediacy that matches the best of the reporting from Word War II."
Open Access For Media Troubles
Pentagon 'Embedded' Reporters Become Mixed Blessing
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 31, 2003; Page A25

"We just thought the natural challenges of broadcasting from the field would restrict it," the official said. "Had we known it would be this wide open, we might have considered restrictions."

This article discusses the growing concern over the photos and stories that are coming out of the current Iraqi conflict through embedded reporters. The pentagon and military officials have begun to second-guess themselves in allowing reporters to accompany the troops into conflicts, being “embedded” with different units (both Army and Marines).

After the complaints of numerous reporters and news corporations following the first Iraqi war; over the pool system and attempts to limit the access of information. This time around the pentagon and military advisors decided to allow reporters to accompany troops. Now they are regretting it, the uncensored gritty, violent images being delivered by the various war correspondents in Iraq, are causing a growing concern.

Officials are rethinking the whole system once again, trying to figure out a way to rein in some of these reporters and their stories. They have already limited access and use to satellite phones for reporters out of a well-founded fear that they may compromise or give away a unit’s position. (This has already happened once during the beginning of the war, when Geraldo Rivera foolishly reported the position of the unit he was with) The main thing, according to this article, that the pentagon wants is to find a way to once more gain control of the access and flow of information that is coming out of Iraq. The press can and has through the negative images and negative reports, swayed the public’s opinion from being supportive of the war to being against the war.

Monday, April 16, 2007

Future Coverage


I do not think the coverage of wars is ever going to be the same again. During the Gulf war, the government felt as though hindering coverage would enable them to fight a war and win before the public realized the casualities and damage that was caused. This sounds logical but it is very hard to keep the public in the dark when they have the right to know what is going on. It is their families that are overseas fighting and they need to know how things are going. It becomes a problem when the knowledge they recieve puts their family members at risk. I also do not like the fact that people fabricate information just to make it seem as though they know what is happening. Lies do not help anyone's situation and it makes things worse because people become very upset when they find out the truth. According to James LeMoyne,"At times they staged events solely for the cameras." I understand that the military needs to be presented in a positive light but the truth needs to be told because people find out the truth eventually.

The coverage now is very different because of the internet and all the other access of media that people have. The soldiers have computer access from the field and can easily send footage to family members and friends. The government can no longer control what information gets to the public so they need to find to new way to win a war quickly and keep the public on their side. They definately need to do it quickly because they are not doing a good job with the current war in Iraq, which is also a completely different war.

Troop's Eye view is just that..

"I haven't seen any destroyed tanks. I haven't seen any dead bodies. I haven't seen any disturbing images," said Jones. From the Pentagon's point of view, "it's been one magnificent recruitment video." Howard Kurtz quotes a press director's view of how embedded journalism is taking place during the war. Throughout the course, we have seen many examples of censorship by the American government, and I feel this is one case where the opposite is true; it is the journalists' themselves exhibiting a form of self-censorship. The images and information that embedded journalists recieve are far more in depth than that of a pool journalist, which is important in two aspects; one is that they are prevy to information otherwise unattainable in the media, and two-that the information they do have is presented subjectively. While I agree with using embedded journalism as a medium to present a realistic way of how the war is actually being run, it is difficult to imagine an embedded journalist portraying the troops they live with in a negative light. The occasional military mishap, friendly fire death, or civilian casualty might be overlooked, giving way to a successful Apache helicopter mission.

Sunday, April 15, 2007

Civilian Death Rates Low

In an article dated on July 23, 2002, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfield stated that the civilian death rates were low compared to any other war in history. Many would agree that it is a sad fact that there are even civilian death rates. Rumsfield said, " It's an unfortunate fact of war that, inevitably, innocent civilians are killed.
The question that develops is, why are so many civilians killed? The article focuses on how American commanders relied on inaccurate information but Rumsfield beliefs differed from those who believed that. The article states, ' Mr. Rumsfield rejected assertions that America and its allies had been duped into attacking innocent civilians or had fallen prey to false tips from warlords or other regional leaders hoping the military would kill rival fighters'.

Embedded and Taking Flak


"The 600 embedded correspondents have clearly braved difficult conditions to bring viewers and readers the most vivid, compelling and instantaneous coverage in the history of war. But they are taking considerable flak for overly sympathetic reporting, dismissed by some as part of the military propaganda machine...."I don't think 'embed' means 'in bed,' " says Kathryn Kross, CNN's Washington bureau chief. 'I can't imagine an alternative that would give us this kind of access, this kind of firsthand view, and be this comprehensive.' .... Whatever the drawbacks of embedded journalism, most media people agree it's a vast improvement" (Howard Kurtz, "Embedded, and Taking Flak," Washington Post, 3/31/03)

Writing only one month into the start of the Gulf War (round 2), Howard Kurtz is commenting on the system of embedded reporters, something unheard of in the first Gulf War. Though there are obvious advantages to allowing reporters to be first-hand observers of war- riding, sleeping, and eating alongside the troops- embeddment also has its share of critics. By being so closely involved with the soldiers, i.e. "in bed" with them, critics argue that it might be harder to report objectively. There is the fear of embedded reporters losing the "big picture" and only seeing what is in front of them (e.g. the trail of humvees making their way across the desert, like so many trained elephants in a circus, to reach the next destination).

Though it makes sense that there is some truth to this criticism of embeddment, I would agree with Kurtz that the advantages offered to embedded reporters outweigh its disadvantages. Being allowed to be "up close and personal" with the troops offers the American public a bird's eye view of what is going on over in Iraq. The picture is not a pretty one, as lives are lost on both sides every day. As Kurtz explains, "War, it turns out, is a far more messy enterprise."