To what extent should the media be allowed to report on U.S. military involvement? Should we censor our media during war time?
2007-02-20 06:26:15 · 11 answers · asked by eternalreverence 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Since I believe in freedom of the press I do not believe they should be censored in general. However, I draw the line at anything which places the lives of our soldiers in jeopardy. By this I mean they should not be allowed to report on troop location, movement or strength. I know many people feel it is unpalatable when the media reports we are losing the war, but I would say this is a matter of perception and while I don't like the effects such reporting has on morale in general, I don't think it is unacceptable. We live in a world of 24 hour media and the Internet, the simple fact is that these days you can find reporting which is tailored specifically to whatever ideological viewpoint you hold. Now more than ever the old adage holds true. "If you don't like the programming, change the channel".
2007-02-20 06:37:00 · answer #1 · answered by Bryan 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well in wars of the past, I think they called relaying vital information to the enemy treason and the spies were drug outside and shot for war crimes. The better question is are they giving away tactical information such as troop deployment or station sites, Battlefield tactics or Armory supply? And how easy is it for our adversaries to gain this knowledge?
Personally I think that we have a right to know what's going on after the fact but the media hypes up things that we shouldn't concern ourselves with because it is beyond our control. If we have a say-so in the matter we wouldn't be at war. But in a way I feel that we are. So sad to say that we shouldn't be there and it certainly shouldn't be made public knowledge. Loose lips sink ships. And there is an awful lot of gum-smackin goin on.
2007-02-20 06:38:54 · answer #2 · answered by Charles G 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A resounding yes to censoring the media. Let them report what is going right and let them report dissension at home. As for the battlefield, they need to stay out. I am all for freedom of the press, but limits in time of war are necessary for national security. The media is why we will never win another war. The media is very much against war. War is a brutal and nasty thing. We all know that, but we do not need to see it. If the media were to all of a sudden portray Iraq in a positive light, we would win in a very short time. Public perception is what drives the politicians and our enemies. The spin propagated by a biased media is bad for troop moral, moral at home and does nothing but embolden enemies. And to those of you that believe our enemies are not emboldened, do you honestly believe they have no access to our media? Bin Laden has even stated that America does not have the stomach for war. He is right in large part because of the media.
2007-02-20 06:36:24 · answer #3 · answered by JAY O 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
1st amendment Free Press. If we go to war to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, as expressed in both Presidential oath and Military Oath, and censoring the press is a violation of the Constitution even if we go to war then wouldn't the enemy be anyone that tries to change the Constitution by censoring the press or in any other way?
2007-02-20 06:44:45 · answer #4 · answered by Jose R 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
That's a difficult question. On one hand, I do not like war becoming an 'entertaining TV show', but on the other it is an important current event and so long as its factual, and it is not compromising our operations, I feel it should be allowed. If you are going to show it, no censoring unless the subject matter is too graphic, in which case an explanation would be appropriate.
2007-02-20 06:38:09 · answer #5 · answered by Pfo 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Today's media is far more adversarial then it was in WW2. There are certain military companies whose missions and activities are too sensitive to have reporters embedded with them. The Armed Services should always maintain control over media involvement.
2007-02-20 06:39:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's up to the military commanders to determine what news the media has access to. The problem is that the media only wants to hear certain news.
2007-02-20 06:42:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I love how people say it 'emboldens the enemy' when the news reports how badly things are going. You know what REALLY emboldens the enemy? When the threat of that enemy makes us so afraid that we start to act like the fascists they accuse of being and we start censoring the news media. When a democracy starts acting like a dictatorship, the enemy has one and democracy has lost.
2007-02-20 07:05:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
U.S. militia workers consent to it as component of their training, so as that they might have the flexibility to guard their united states of america in the event that they are captured and tortured. while military Seals, working example, are waterboarded, that is nevertheless seen torture. they are agreeing to be tortured, so the act is criminal if so.
2016-11-24 20:29:09 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as they are not publishing information about current or future troop movements or other items that would directly undermine the safety of our troops, they should be allowed to report anything they want.
2007-02-20 06:35:56 · answer #10 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋