Should the media be required to get government approval before reporting stories in this time of war?

Question

Let's face it folks, the media is doing everything that it can to undermine the war on terror. They will print everything that they can get their grubby little hands on so long as it hurts public opinion and decreases troop morale.

In this time of war should newspapers, TV stations, and other media get a "seal of approval" for the news it reports? Should the freedom of the press be suspended for the safety of all Americans?

Answer 1

several months ago....the "press" that was embedded with a group of Marines..reported that a young Marine shot and killed someone....the Marine said he did it because he thought his life was in danger.......the only thing i thought he did wrong was he didn't shoot the reporter and camera-man before he shot the terrorist...SEMPER FI by the way how come we don't bring back some of those WWII type of movies...wait..that was back before the USA was infested by a bunch of limp wristed....broke back mountain...peter-puffers that want to emasculate the country.......what was i thinking.....

Answer 2

The hallmark of our country is based on freedom of speech. Of course, the British Gvt wanted to stop Thomas Payne and other writers from fomenting revolution.

But the US press is not without limits. It cannot provide troop movements (but can report them later), or other information that would affect an imminent or ongoing mission.

The problem seems to be one of perception. The press seems to be starting to view its roll as not being an apologist for the US government, and will not any longer simply accept the position of the US Government. It is beginning to question the government, and report facts that the government does not want reported.

Of course, those who support current government action also do not like to read these things.

But it is neither unpatriotic nor unamerican to report facts, and give opinions, in opposition to the congress or to the administration. It is the job of the press, the fourth estate, to provide an outside check on all government institutions. This can only be achieved by protecting their rights pursuant to the First Amendment.

The safety of all americans can only be preserved by preserving their liberties, including the first amendment.

We have learned that politicians and leaders, of all parties, beliefs, and affiliations, will run amok if there is not light shed on their activities -- and on the consequences of those activities.

The problem with troop moral has nothing to do with the press. It has everything to do with the fact that the American people are learning what the troops have known for the last 3-5 years -- that there is no way to win the war in Iraq (not that their efforts are unappreciated, but there is no effective strategy to make it work).

The problem with troop moral has nothing to do with the fact that the US people now know that the Taliban is as strong as before the war in Afghanastan, and that poppyseed (heroin) production is back above the levels before the war.

The problem with troop moral has nothing to do with the fact that the American people are learning the truth --- it is that the truth is being learned. Neither the trooops, nor the Amerian people, are served by a policy of putting one's head in the sand and pretending all is well. The press is not (or at least should not) simply be an arm of the US Propaganda efforts.

This is not to say that the US Government should not be in the business of propaganda. Radio Free America and the Armed Forces Radio, both produced by, and censored by,t he United States Government, provide an important function. But a free press is perhaps the most important of all tools to protect us all against government oppression and arrogance.

Answer 3

Yes and No first the presidents secret service conditions and eliminates on who can work the media so if the president is corrupt no one well find out about it and there well be side flak ohh the prez is kissing a nother female impersonator. But on the other hand like with the end of Germany there was a run away press some one said Hitler killed all the queers I spoke with the original soldiers in charge and they order the SS to prove who this queer was that they killed in there death camp it took them some time to come up with a couple of possibilities of who the queer was The Soldiers had there doughts if this was the fagit and ask why they added a s after stating homosexual "s" some writer made a mistake and put it in the paper it was a dog run away press that was duplicated the Germans where all fags queers. And even today the information is wrong in print duplicated so many times they never killed there own type.

Answer 4

Aloha
Technically, the media is not censored and freedom of speech has protected information related to the mass population. Journalism is a highly competitive business. Journalism schools teach the rules of conduct . Historically you have many examples of blacklists and monitoring of the media. Mostly by fear back then.
In 2006 we are in a techno age. We, the mass population, do not know who is talking. But we believe or hate them for talking.
Who's behind FOX? Who owns the papers? And then you get who financed the campaign of whatever President. Who has a debt.???
I believe in this reality TV age we are responsible for this mess. I love Rosie O'Donnell Don't agree with her but she is on target. Wake up AMERICA!! VOTE!!!! Write? Finally. If it takes all this then I adore her despite her politics. She is doing her job as does Bill O'Reilly, Geraldo Jerry Springer the list goes on.
So, no, the government should not , could and would not regulate the airwaves. OR DO THEY?
Did Monica have to save that dress in a bank? Check The Body Count -Clinton if it is still there.
TY

Answer 5

It's really frightening when we start to think about putting restraints on freedom of the press, however I definitely feel that something needs to be done to curb some of the reports that are publicized. In these days of embedded journalists and instant communication, there doesn't seem to be any censoring of information being reported as it occurs. This has in the past and will continue to be a danger to our national security.
With the majority of the press having a viewpoint that varies from somewhat to strongly liberal, and mostly anti-war, they seem willing to print anything that helps to portray conservatives in a bad light. It never seems to occur to them, or maybe just not matter, that while they are doing this they may be endangering our entire nation and everyone in it.
As I said, I have a great deal of hesitation in this, however, during this time of war, it appears that it may be necessary to put some limitations in place.

Answer 6

All media should be under regulation to stem the rivalry in the streets and country's as a example between American media and Australian media .Its takes the politician and media to make enemies of each other .Why has not the American government placed regulation on American media to stop them from making allies enemies instead the media should be more thought full and know that they can cause a war through exposed even Muslim men stripped naked and destroyed for nothing .Even there twin towers fell through the media as there where games showing flying planes into the twins towers .Even the Australian media makes fun of people in there advertising both government and private advertising .The only media outlet i have see to be one of the best was DWTV Germany as these media people are settle and informative in how they present there format and presentation .

Answer 7

Well there are a lot of lives that are are endangered if they do report anything they want to. I do not think they should be aloud to do that. At the same time I do not agree with staying in a conflict that is a drain on our resorces. We should bomb them until they are so discusted with fighting that they give up and beg for peace. But what we have now is more like trench warfare in the middle of a civil war you can not fight like that it has never worked. Esspecially if you don't know the difference between your enemy and people that are suposed to be friendly. But the news organizations are also backed by major oil companies and who owns the oil companies. Rich muslims that support terrorist groups. Who backs the oil companies our own government. So tell me what are we really fighting.

Answer 8

Hi,

The media is reporting on the doings of the bush administration and because it is so full of corruption and distaste, you seek to blame the media, for reporting bush's corruption and wrong doings to the American people. Take away the media, and the bush third Reich performs its illegal activities in secret, which I am sure gw would like.

We happen to still be Americans, and freedom of press is a part of our heritage and if you are in favor of suppressing freedom of speech, suggest you get a one way ticket to Russia, or China, and you can bask in no freedoms all you want.

John16 mentions the press printing secrets. There would be no secrets to print if they were not being leaked by the bush administration for political gain and retaliation and if anyone should go to prison, it should be whoever leaked the secret information, not the press for printing the truth to the American people.

And to catch you up on current events, we are not in a time of war, we are in a time of illegal occupation and invasion of a foreign country by the bush administration, without congressional approval, which makes it illegal.

Darryl S.

Answer 9

Most times I hate a very powerful government, but lets face it, the media just loves to destroy the image of America. In a time of War, when the stakes are high, certain stories should not be "leaked" to ensure public security. Its just like reporting outside a bank robbery telling the bank robbers exactly where the police are. Not a good idea in my opinion.

Answer 10

You asked
"Should the freedom of the press be suspended for the safety of all Americans?"

No, You cant "defend" peoples rights by suspending them. They should withhold information for operational security issues but thats where it should end, and they already do this.

I dont own any firearms but right now if I wanted to I could go purchase one. What if the government told me "for your own safety you cant buy a gun because you might accidentally shoot yourself."

Doing something like what your suggesting would undermind the very principles we are suppossed to stand for. We have certain freedoms within the US. Sometimes they are a pain in the a-s, and sometimes they are not. That still doesnt mean we should do away with them just because they do not fit our agenda.

Answer 11

If the media is going to announce troop manuevers in strengthen and placed them in hazard, confident. through fact the media does have specific freedoms, with that comes specific household initiatives, which includes to blame journalism. That has been a usual between the newshounds and the government through fact the Civil conflict days. postponing freedom of the click isn't a competent theory, yet asking them to be to blame of their reporting is. Even President Kennedy had matters with reporting in the process the Cuban Missile disaster. He asked them to hold off till after the disaster replaced into over earlier the thoughts went to press. that could be a thank you to handle it. If the media can't be to blame, they shouldn't get passes to precise aspects of operation.