Should reporters be allowed in warzones.....?

Question

Hey my name is Phil

I was just wondering what your opinion is; should reporters and the media be allowed at the frontlines?

All of this anti-war feeling is probably fuelled by the media. First, they lie to the public saying something like "if we don't invade, 'X' will happen!", and then they turn around and start saying "we need to pull out!".

If there had been reporters like there are today at the eastern trench-front in 1916, or reporters blabbing away about how the battle to crush facism in the 40's costing 50 million lives, would those wars have lasted long?

Is it the reporters and their constant negative media, or have the western nations lost the will to fight for whats right?

After all, the only thing worse than war is to not be willing to fight for anything, eh!

(PS Iraq is not right, Afghanistan is though. What the devil are you doing there...)

MikeGolf - nice

Philip - first off, I thought MY name was Philip eh!

Secondly, they shouldn't be allowed to just pour out the negative media; people are losing the drive to FIGHT for what is RIGHT.

Answer 1

Ms. Funandgames:

I served in Iraq in a TOC (command post) and we had cable news running 24x7. We were able to compare the things you reporters were saying with 'ground truth.'

The fact of the matter is that you reporters are putting a negative spin on the news coming out of Iraq and thus deceiving the American people as to the true situation over there.

You reporters have killed American soldiers by deliberately and knowingly publishing classified information on IED jammers when the enemy did not know we had them.

You 'reporters' send one third-string reporter to Iraq. This reporter does nothing but stay in a hotel in the Green Zone where he buys film footage from the enemy and reads scripts written for him in New York.

When you reporters claims that "hundreds" of civilians had been killed in the battle of Samarra, myself and three other people had to risk our lives to investigate. Then after we determined that the report was reckless and false (7 civilians had been killed) you reporters _refused_ to correct your story.

When I responded to hurricane Katrina we again had cable news running 24x7. You reporters were so determined to blame the President that again you knowingly wrote misleading stories as to what was happening.

Stop trying to claim innocence. Those of us who have seen reporters in action are not impressed.

Answer 2

Simply put? NO. If there were the amount of media in WW I & II that we have in Iraq today we would have lost both wars. For some reason people seem to think that the enemy isnt able to see what the American media is reporting, but that couldnt be further from the truth. IT'S A WAR ZONE. And the spin that can be put on things most of the time is crazy, and only done for ratings.

Answer 3

No,There should be a 48 blackout on any news they do get, they twist the truth to fit their agenda, and they make our fighting Men and Women look bad!!!

m1a1mikegolf & Blackwater:THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND COURAGE, THOSE OF US WHO KNOW THE TRUTH DO APPRECIATE YOUR SACRIFICE AND THAT OF YOUR COMRADES, Thunder.45


funandgames55: I have family and friends in Iraq and I know that the stories that your media ilk report are 90% BS, the casualty numbers are inflated and the way the Iraqi people see our soldiers is not what gets reported, I have a co-worker who was there as a Marine and he told me stories, not of horror and death, but of mothers and children thanking him for liberating them from the tyranny that they had lived under!!!
If the media would keep their noses out of the war zone then the terrorists would have no reason to be there either, because they can't scare the American people if we don't see what they are doing there!!!

Answer 4

The main reason for not wanting reporters in war zones is the need to cover up the horrific truth from the public Maybe a lot of people would rather stay in their comfort zone believing their country is the goody goody but other people like to know the truth about what their country is doing in their name. War zone reporters are incredibly brave men and women who risk their lives so that we can know whats going on ,its an insult to compare them with the sensationalist press or the paparazzi .if people get to see the real horror of war and not the Hollywood version it might be an incentive to avoid it in future .

Answer 5

As a former journalist - it seriously annoys me when the "public" blame the "media" for reporting bad news. Ever heard of the phrase don't shoot the messenger?!

Before you jump on the bandwagon and start blaming reporters for producing "negative" news (and what is positive at all about a war zone, tell me?), answer this - have you ever bought a newspaper or magazine? Watched the news on TV or listened to it on the radio?

If you have - then it is you who gives the media justification to carry on. If people did not seek news, the media would not present it.

If you don't like what you see being reported - switch off or don't buy the paper, it's as simple as that. If, however, you have issue with HOW it is being reported, you can do something about it: contact the Press Complaints Commission (www.pcc.org.uk)

And finally - do you think if something wasn't being reported on, it wouldn't be happening?! The fact reporters are there can actually help dampen down what is happening because people are then aware that they are accountable.

To those that have come back at me after their experiences in war zones - I respect your opinion and do value your first-hand experience. One question however: journalists are there because they military are allowing them in. If reporters are causing this sort of problem, why aren't they barred?

Why do you think the Iraqis curtail the media? Because they have something to hide perhaps? In the Western world, we have fought for freedom of speech and people are entitled to know what is being done in the name of their country - good and bad.
Furthermore, I note none of you have answered my question about the part the PUBLIC play in the press, and whether or not you have ever supported it by buying newspapers or watching news on TV?

Answer 6

No. The military has better things to do than babysit some reporters like fight a war.

Answer 7

The media is the biggest war monger we have.They feed people glad I do not listen to them.Have to admit I use to now i ignore what ever they say.At the end of the day all they want to do is make money.No they should not be allowed to go near a war zone.

Answer 8

so which you think of the Gov. now has the authority to harass, undercover agent on and persecute a reporter for doing his job. unlike that bunch of Obama worshipers at MSNBC, genuine journalists are meant to deliver at the same time and disseminate counsel. What precisely has he been charged with besides.

Answer 9

How the hell would you enforce that? Start putting journalists in prison simply for doing their job.

What about Freedom of Speech and Press?

Are you proposing censorship? Should we tell the media what to say?

The press is always the first to be blamed by a corrupt government. - George Washington

Answer 10

No, I don't think reporters need to be in War Zones. They pollute the public about what to think. And can edit the video and comments to hit whatever statement you want to make. I disagree with their biased reporting.