War is war, its always been bloody, unkind, and cruel. The reason I believe the US has lost its nationalism and willing to stand by its leaders is because of the media's sensationalism. What are your thoughts?
2007-06-09 09:12:38 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes I know about the first amendment, but that was written 200 years ago before there was any media (except the occasional yellow journalism) Im not trying to turn this into a "should the constitution be used today" debate, Im just saying any points that involve the first amendment are void. How can you decide how to govern something that hasnt been invented yet?
2007-06-09 09:40:13 · update #1
Absolutely not !! The First Amendment protects that...
What I think SHOULD happen is when should use the Military Journalists MORE... we should see the GOOD the troops are doing, and not just the whining liberal press of the broadcast networks announcing each single death because they need to fill their new's slots
2007-06-09 09:30:34 · answer #1 · answered by mariner31 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋
This is what I don't understand. Conservatives love to talk about fighting for our freedoms (and we should fight for our freedoms) but they often seem to not understand what those freedoms are.
No, there should be no law against press coverage of this war or any other. Typically the military has the power to ban the press from the war theater. For this war, they chose not to and even embedded civilian reporters with the troops. So what the military policy folks understand is that hiding a war from the public is no way to foster support for it.
But exactly how is the press sensationalizing this war? It is has degenerated into the daily car bomb attack. The same thing every day. Sure, those attacks are mentioned and when there is footage we see the blood and gore. I read and watch the news everyday. Most of the coverage is on policy, leadership, and what is being done or not done to bring this war to an end. Hardly sensationalistic, but oh so important to our understanding of what is going on.
2007-06-09 09:32:18 · answer #2 · answered by jehen 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The media helps to tell the story of what war is really like to all the people here that are not involved everyday in the war. People need to know what is happening, that war is not what the President tries to make it out to sound like. By having the media involved we have that choice whether or not to watch things like that. By prohibiting the media to cover such things, the people are not exposed to the truth. People have a right to know. Other people should not hide the facts from them.
2007-06-09 15:23:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. War needs to be covered so we can make informed decisions about our leaders.
The media's sensationalism would be nothing if Americans had a sense of history and how many were killed inprevious wars. A sense of perspective, which the media does not have, would help in judging the coverage.
2007-06-09 09:18:00 · answer #4 · answered by Tom Sh*t 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I guess liberating close to 50 Million people doesn't mean much to you then...Ending genocide of the Kurds may not mean much to you either or perhaps the strategic implementation of bases within Iraq that will allow us to defend and react much quicker if/when something takes place in the middle east (real reason as to why we are there) doesn't mean anything to you either. In addition... what more do you really want? Is it not enough that we have prevented many attacks on our soil? Be thankful..
2016-05-21 00:31:39 · answer #5 · answered by nerissa 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People already (and will always) know the cruelty of war with or without media coverage. Ever read All Quiet on the Western Front? Nationalism is ridiculous, patriotism is good. And I believe that it's patriotic to try to bring our troops home instead of standing back as they die.
2007-06-09 09:27:07 · answer #6 · answered by Dash 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Please do not be a tool. There is no sensationalizing of this war. There is a gag order on the free speech aspect of this occupation (by the way, this is the word that Iraqis use, vrs. our use of the word war).
When they start showing the caskets flying in and the actual firefights and road side bombings, the desmemberment on TV as in Vietnam, then maybe the American people like you could understand the true cost of this war. Or, maybe it takes losing someone you know, I don't know....
2007-06-09 09:35:37 · answer #7 · answered by neuromansuperhero 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. And yes I will "scream" that that would be a violation of of first amendment -- I am amazed at people like you who are willing to trash the constitution and call it "nationalism".
2007-06-09 09:20:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
I see we don't agree with the constitution of freedom of the press, perhaps the Soviet Union is more your style, well luckily most of the rest of us understand the importance of being informed of just what our actions around the world, afterall it's all doen in our name
2007-06-09 09:29:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I'm not a liberal, I'm a Democrat. There is WAY too much info being broadcast, including on Fox News, about the war. Does the media think that only friendlies watch their news?
In WWII, this would never have been allowed, and the media themselves were cooperative in withholding info.
2007-06-09 09:19:26 · answer #10 · answered by psatm 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋