2007-02-07 03:49:25 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No, judging by what NBC is doing, they should not! It's wrong for a news media to be pandering to a political agenda.
2007-02-07 03:59:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
Not at the expense of the military's own Public Affairs units. There were few PA units called to duty because of the policy of "embedding" commercial media into the units. The policy sounds great, but you don't get an objective look from any news source. If you remember the start of the "war" the coverage was the same, whether it came from CNN or Fox (The idiot Geraldo being the exception). But the administration continues to reap what it sows. It's another example of their Pollyanna attitude toward global politics.
2007-02-07 03:57:14 · answer #2 · answered by Garth Rocket 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not just the liberal media, but any media. That's a good question. Should war be allowed to become a spectator sport?
Pros: Better coverage and understanding of events
Cons: War becomes a sport, people being killed becomes an event to be casually watched by people who are safe in their homes.
2007-02-07 03:52:39 · answer #3 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We want media from all sorts of perspectives in Iraq and in any war. We need to have people who report from different perspectives. Why would you want only one perspective? So that the media can be complicit in misleading the public?
How else would we find out about things like the 9 Billion or so IN CASH that went missing.
2007-02-07 03:53:44 · answer #4 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Censorship prevents the media from telling you it how it is, really. I doubt you would watch the news if the coverage you received was unadulterated. The media should still be there to observe, only thing is you get your truth in book form years after the event has past.
2007-02-07 03:59:34 · answer #5 · answered by dingdong 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why wouldn't it be? Someone besides Fox needs to be on the scene. Actually now that I think about it would best if no liberal media were there so that only conservative journalists and media hawks get killed. Someone should give Rush a really thin kevlar vest and a one way ticket to Iraq or Afghanistan. They should aim for his big fat head anyway.
2007-02-07 03:54:41 · answer #6 · answered by teeyodi 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Gee, lets see. If the media wasn't there to report the truth, then that means the republicans would be getting away with even more illegal activitiy then they already are. Typical right wing thinking. You want complete control of everything so the masess remain stupid and ignorant to the truth.
2007-02-07 04:00:18 · answer #7 · answered by Hecate Strait 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Personally, I think that the "liberal media" should be dissolved and a real news worthy one be put in it's place. The liberal media is always telling half truths and lies. It's why I don't read the whole news any more.
2007-02-07 03:57:35 · answer #8 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It is right for the media to be there, however I don't believe they should have unfettered access. As a country that espouses freedom it is important to show that we work hard to make sure that civilians and civilian targets aren't harmed. We have freedom of the press and speech so excluding someone because of their ideology won't work.
2007-02-07 03:53:05 · answer #9 · answered by meathookcook 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I noticed a lot of young liberal reporters who move to war zones and live with the troops year in and year out become more conservative minded than their original fantasy minded ideas..... war is ugly no matter what side anyone is on. Most important is to keep our soldiers thinking positive and keep the enemies thinking negative because all wars are won or lost by WILL
2007-02-07 04:00:29 · answer #10 · answered by Nat 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
By liberal media I assume you mean the media that tells the truth. The answer is yes, we need the media there so that we can get the shole story.
2007-02-07 03:52:45 · answer #11 · answered by toff 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋