Very briefly, and only to correct a small misstatement:
David Strike wrote: << after much snippage >>
> And whoever came up with the bright idea of "embedding" journalists - armed
> with video-phones and not subject to censorship - with the troops on the
> ground, would seem to have little understanding of the over-riding
> importance of propaganda in a conflict.
There are TWO kinds of journalists working in the war zone. Some are 'embedded'
with specific units of the military, and others are not attached to any unit but
travel and report wherever and whenever they wish. All 'embedded' (where ever
did they dig that term up?) reporters have to sign a whole bunch of agreements
before they can ship out with the troops. Among other things, they agree to
pass all of their stories through the unit commander before transmission --
censorship, indeed, although the only material subject to censorship is
information concerning location or movement of troops or other information that
might be helpful to the enemy or otherwise endanger the safety of the
'coalition' forces or their mission. In exchange, the 'embedded' reporters
receive all of the 'perks' of the common soldiers -- food, transportation,
medical care, etc., and the assistance of the field commanders in transmitting
their stories. Plus they can interview anyone in their unit on any subject.
The non-embedded reporters do not receive the assistance of the military -- they
have to find their own food and pay for their own transportation, GI's don't
have to talk to them unless they want to, etc., but they are still restricted
from giving details of troop strength or movements, or other facts that might
endanger the troops. Both 'embedded' and non-embedded journalists take their
restrictions seriously, since even a small slip of the self-censorship lip
during a live satellite-phone interview can get a journalist's credentials
yanked and have him/her on the next plane home (at his employer's expense.)
The whole embedding idea is a reversion to World War II, when journalists
traveled with the troops in Europe. The military tried to exclude journalists
from operations in Grenada and Desert Storm I, and they now believe that they
lost some excellent PR opportunities by doing so. Hence the return of the
'embedded' journalist, who (the military hopes) will get to know the individual
grunts and the officers, and send home those human-interest stories about the
hardships endured, the boredom, the elation, the grief at the loss of a buddy.
An overview of the battles and the war is essential for good reporting, but so
is the "up close and personal" side of a war.
I can provide documentation on this if anyone thinks it necessary. The basic
agreement terms have been published in the broadcasting trade press in the US.
> (In some respects, it almost seems
> as though the whole affair has been taken out of the hands of the military
> and handed to the entertainment industry!)
As someone acquainted with the broadcasting industry, I would agree that the US
forces in this war appear to be operating with one eye turned toward public
relations. While I doubt that battles are being staged for TV, it is certainly
true that the regular press briefings are timed to accommodate the US east coast
network news broadcasts, and the gun-camera films and animated graphics
presented by the Generals make good filler for TV news. Did you notice how the
tone of the reports on the war became much more gloomy once the vehicles stopped
their rolling 'Blitzkrieg' across the open desert, and mop-up operations began
in some of the towns they had previously breezed through?
> The fact is that, despite all of us holding to our own personal views about
> the righteousness or otherwise of this war, only history will ever truly
> show whether it was justified or not. :-)
True. And it the victors who get to write the history books!
-Dave safe, (<---- scuba content)
-Dave
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dave DeBarger
[log in to unmask]
"Attitude is everything. Pick a good one!"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
