2007-02-04 08:31:04 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
They weren't as liberal and they reported what they saw not what they were told to see.
2007-02-04 08:35:46 · answer #1 · answered by Brianne 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm gonna take a guess here... as say that reporters in Vietnam, unlike those in the Iraq war, were not living and traveling with military units, as they do/did in Iraq. This would mean, I think, that reporters in Iraq would feel much more protected. They were probably in a safer position. In Vietnam, reporters had to act more independently.
But now that "official combat operations" are long over, isn't the Iraq war just about as bad - if not worse - than Vietnam?
I wouldn't want to be a cameraman in either one of these hellish misadventures.
2007-02-04 08:43:15 · answer #2 · answered by Zezo Zeze Zadfrack 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem isn't the reporters, it's the consolidation of the media industry. Far fewer owners who are in control of the broadcast airwaves, papers, magazines, etc.... Don't you see the connection between huge donations and media like Fox News which is anything but fare and unbiased.
2007-02-04 08:36:28 · answer #3 · answered by deno 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps it was because they were a generation closer to the reporters who risked so much in World War II.
2007-02-04 08:38:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The military has complete control over news from Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of the news from over there is not even fact checked.
2007-02-04 08:43:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because they were not imbedded with the troops. Yet many more journalists have been killed in Iraq than were killed in Viet Nam.
2007-02-04 09:00:51 · answer #6 · answered by beez 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes they were much cooler!
2007-02-04 08:34:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
they were on the front under fire---real live action...
2007-02-04 08:36:07 · answer #8 · answered by cork 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋