Embedded Journalist Poll

**Vex** · 04-07-2003, 11:07 AM

Reporters have always been there with our troops--it's just that we've never had the equipment to transmit what they were reporting until Desert Storm. Ernie Pyle did a lot of reporting during WWII. He was also killed during the Battle of Okinawa. These reporters are briefed and understand the risks that they are taking in order to bring us the full story about what we are doing over there. If it weren't for these reporters, a lot of people would still be in the dark as to what our military actually does during times of conflict.

**cphilip** · 04-07-2003, 11:36 AM

I have mixed feelings on this.

On one hand I think is good for people to see what is realy happening and it discredits other missinformation that is put out. It makes it hard to get away with anything if your trying to fool the people with lies. And it gives us a chance to see what the real situation is to some degree.

But on the other hand I fear people will become too comfortable with it. Like it's a video game or something. Its far to easy to become relaxed and comfortable with what you see. Its not a movie. And I fear some people are feeling that way.

Its benefits outweigh its negatives though I think. Just slightly. And in this world of so much missinformation it make it verifiable who is telling the truth. If you chose to believe what is put in front of you. Some people will chose not to anyway. Not sure ANYTHING helps with those people.

**Vex** · 04-07-2003, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by cphilip
Some people will chose not to anyway. Not sure ANYTHING helps with those people.

Those are the same people who think that the moon landing was a hoax...

De-sensitization to war is not caused by the networks broadcasting the war itself--it's caused by the networks' other "prime time" television shows that have way too much gratuitous, sensless violence. Don't get me wrong, I love watching a good "shoot-em up" action show, but there really isn't much difference between a free television show, and an $8 movie in the theater, and that's kind of sad.

**Koosh** · 04-07-2003, 09:37 PM

It being broadcast only half way is what I don't like. I think it should show every second of it, or none at all.

I don't think we need to give the enemy any more intellegience then they already have, and the minute by minute updates on what divisions are where, how many men there are, and what they plan on doing just doesnt seem right. Of course we don't know how accurate that information is, and under what censorship it goes through either...

The other thing is like what Cphillip said. We aren't being shown the truely horrific things that go on when the (poo) hits the fan. The daily casulty list just doesnt seem to do the men and women who have died there justice.

As for an answer, well... I can honestly say I don't know what to do. If we block it ALL out, people will cry that we don't know whats going on. If we show it all then they will cry because its too violent/gory/horrific. If we do it only half way then they both get a little mad.

A good compromise makes everyone angry.

**FactsOfLife** · 04-07-2003, 09:45 PM

koosh, think of it this way:

how much would you give for real time video of the team on the other side of the bumkers during a game?

or in rec ball or scenario games?

you'd be able to plan one hell of a defense or even use that video to set up your offensive strikes.

you can't show everything that's going on over there for our troops safety.

**Koosh** · 04-07-2003, 09:50 PM

koosh, think of it this way:
...

yes, which is why I said:

I don't think we need to give the enemy any more intellegience then they already have, and the minute by minute updates on what divisions are where, how many men there are, and what they plan on doing just doesnt seem right. Of course we don't know how accurate that information is, and under what censorship it goes through either...

I also think the American public is smart enough to know that they can't be shown everything for the troops saftey, and thats why some of the journalists were kicked out of Iraq (Geraldo anyone?)

**oldsoldier** · 04-07-2003, 11:39 PM

I concur with Phil. To add to that though, I personally thinks it hinders a soldier's ability to perform his job. If you KNOW you are subject to live filming at any time, you can have a tendency to second guess you reactions to situations. This can cost lives. I also think the public wont want to see Americans die on TV...unfortunately, death is a part of war. On the upside, I think people will begin to realize that war is a VERY confusing endeavor. It is a 360* environment, above and below ground, and people realize now that violence happens to troops "in the rear" as much, if not more so, than to the combat troops in the front.
It also provided valuable intel for us. Either way, I got addicted to it real quick.

**Collegeboy** · 04-24-2003, 05:40 AM

It has its benefits, but I think that is faults outweigh the benefits. Most of the faults have been listed above, but I will add one more.

By allowing embedded reporters from news stations the government excerpts some control over what that news station reports. Now for example I have no problem with the government saying you can not report your location or anything that will harm the soldiers. But the thing I am getting to is the government can excerpt some control over reports or interviews that criticize what is happening or anything like that. For all the government has to do was to say that the reporter gave out information that is vital to troop security and kick them out. How would their station like to be the only news station without an imbedded reporter?

I think it could be used as a tool to increase propaganda.

Embedded Journalist Poll

Embedded Journalist Poll

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment