Serious thought about media coverage during war

[Mango]

I was reading some pages on the supernet about death tolls, more specifically the major causes of widespread death since recorded history. Many were pandemic and included plagues, etc. but then I came across World War II.

55 million reported deaths for all countries included in the war, including labor camps,etc. Now, this is simply staggering. Imagine if we had the media coverage we have today, with embedded reporters, etc. It was nothing for 20, 30, 50 thousand soldiers to die in a day. Today, 15 to 30 deaths is international news. Of course any soldiers death is horrific to think of but it is amazing how times have changed thanks to media coverage. And today we think 1,400 deaths in the war on terror is "appauling". Well it's war and people die, espeically those who put thier lives in the line defending our freedoms.

It burns me up to think that the media and the liberal parties tried to use these numbers against Bush during the reelection campaign. It is scarey to think what the mood of the public would have been during World War II had there been such extensive media coverage.

This page has some staggering numbers to look at in terms of lives lost.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

[brianlojeck]

honestly, I think the public outcry (such as it is) have been pretty civil.

consider the vietnam war, when hippies camped out across from the oval office and shouted "hey hey, LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?" over and over, all day and night long, for weeks on end.

consider the hatred against vietnam that led to people growing to hate the soldiers themselves (unconcionable and pathetic).

Naturally politicians (on both sides, conservative and liberal) will use everything they can to skew public opinion, but at least so far the outcry and hatred has been against the war and the man in charge of it, and it's been civil.

[TheDuelist]

I think the focus is different as well. WWII was a global conflict with massive implications for everyone involved. The Axis wanted to conquer the world. The war in Iraq is looked upon as a localized conflict without the same implication. The media was involved in WWII but communications back then didn't allow for reporting "live" from the front. The whole attitude towards the war effort was looked at as heroic because of the threat from the Axis. It was also easier to support the war when there were definitive lines of battle and the enemy wore a distinctive uniform as opposed to the insurgency we are fighting now.

I believe Americans today are beginning to get complacent once again and are in the mindset that there won't be another 9/11. When it happens again the focus will once again revert to a mandate against terrorists and their beliefs.

[drg]

I think the reason a relatively small number of people dying (for a war) is a bigger deal now for several reasons:

- Wars are "safer" than they have ever been. The last few we've been involved in, we got through basically unscathed. (See below for more on this)

- Iraq is not seen as a necessary war by many parties, BOTH on the left and the right. In this context, ANY deaths are unnecessary and appalling.

- We have been at peace for a long, long time. America as the world's only superpower was supposed to be keeping us from having to wage regional and territorial conflicts. In truth the war on terror is neither, but the Iraq war makes it into one.

- Life expectancy in general is longer for all people, so death is a less familiar (fewer-and-further between) thing to the newest generations.

- The effectiveness of media has grown massively since WWII, so that we can send out a single person's life story worldwide almost instantly. We see lives being destroyed and the horror of war as it happens. In many earlier wars, by the time you heard about it, the scale was too large to focus closely and it was too late to do anything about it anyway.

Now comes the kicker, however. The numbers the "media and the liberal parrties" supposedly used against Bush during the election were actually very kind. 1,300 US soldiers dead is such a small fraction of the real cost of this war. The body count in Iraq does not take into account the many thousands who are injured but do not die. A combination of situation and medical science has allowed us to save more wounded soldiers than ever -- that alone is keeping the toll from this conflict from reaching Vietnam-like numbers. Many of these injured soldiers will now be the responsibility of the government healthcare system -- one which will be adversely affected by tax cuts and deficit spending, not to mention how the lives of the soldiers themselves, individually, will be affected by debilitating injury.

To top it all off, somewhere between 15,000 and 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths are a byproduct of the war -- numbers that apparently hold almost no significance to the American public. How appalling is that? The American public put little premium on these considerations, which kept them out of the election debate.

Finally, please stop the reflexive liberal-bashing. It's intellectually lazy. Which honestly makes more sense: "tax and spend" or "don't tax, but still spend"?

[SCpoloRicker]

*bunch of stuff I can pretty much agree with*

Finally, please stop the reflexive liberal-bashing. It's intellectually lazy. Which honestly makes more sense: "tax and spend" or "don't tax, but still spend"?

meh. "intellectually lazy." kinda lost me there.

Media exposure, and public outcry are inevitably going to be larger. Comparing to WWII isn't nearly as relative as Vietnam. Not calling Iraq "next Vietnam." Yet.

/just sayin

[logamus]

i tend to not pay much mind to the news coverage of the war. i communicate with my best friend who is over there on a fairly regular basis so i know whats really going on.

as far as the point of this thread, i think anyway, the media in the 40s understood the importance of having everyone back home supporting the war effort. to that end, most of the really horrible things that happen during the course of war were covered up and not reported on. people at home just didnt need to see omaha beach drenched in the blood of our sons. that all changed with vietnam. the tet offensive is a prime example of how the media changed. on every front other than the media the us won that particular battle, but because of the media everyone back home felt that we had just been handed a serious defeat. granted, the military at the time was not very fourtcoming and didnt help the situation, but still the us soundly defeated the communists.

btw, in 1968 we lost around 14,000 men in vietnam with tens of thousands more wounded.

[SCpoloRicker]

logamus; wasn't 68 the worst year? I remember writing a term paper on "How 1968 Changed America Forever" back in hs.

Tet wasn't ever a feasible win for the VC/N. Vietnamese. There was no way that they could hold the city. It was a propaganda victory; the American media jumped all over it.

Enemy forces were out of the city within a few days, and the worst was over first night.

If anything, Vietnam proved that propaganda wins and insurgency style tactics are the only means of removing a superior enemy force. Just like the Afghanis did to the Russians. Eventually, the larger force will run out of political capital to keep the effort up.

/why do they hate our freedom? *troll, troll*

[brianlojeck]

re: the tet offensive... I've only learned about it in history classes, but wasn't the big problem with Tet the fact that for weeks/months the government/president had been saying we were winning, and had all but destroyed the VC's ability to make war, and then they rise up in a big offensive against us?

[SCpoloRicker]

re: tet

Also, the VC had extended a cease-fire for the Tet holiday in previous years. The U.S. was unprepared for an assault, which is why they were able to push into the city proper for a while.

The U.S. had been pushing that increased bombing in the North was limiting their war machine. Tet showed that they didn't really have / need a war machine.

[CasingBill]

This thread couldn't have been posted by the real mango......

[-Carnifex-]

You're comparing WWII and the Iraqi War?

[RiddalinJunkie08]

One of the biggest mistakes of the Vietnam war was the fact that we were on the defense the whole time. We never once went into North Vietnam with a sizeable force. How are you going to win a war if you're never attacking? Also, as Brian said, the government kept saying that we were winning while General Westmorelan(sp?) kept asking for more troops. Eventually the public caught on and the Tet Offensive sealed the deal.

I wish we could go back to the WWII style of combat where nations would decimate entire cities until the enemy gave up. As someone said about WWII and the Axis trying to take over the world, we felt threatened. "Help us defeat the fascist threat!" Now, it looks as if we are running around fighting everyone who has ever wronged us. I do believe Iraq had something to do with the 9-11 attacks, everyone knows it, but no one can prove it. Im done...Im just rambling now.
-Mark

[drg]

I do believe Iraq had something to do with the 9-11 attacks, everyone knows it, but no one can prove it.

Everyone KNOWS it? I am consistently amazed how prevalent this view is, given that our own administration -- who has the most to gain by this being true -- had to grudgingly admit that it was not.

[pputkowski]

Everyone KNOWS it? I am consistently amazed how prevalent this view is, given that our own administration -- who has the most to gain by this being true -- had to grudgingly admit that it was not.

Kudos.

[Mango]

You're comparing WWII and the Iraqi War?

No. I was just contemplating what it would be like if we had the extensive media coverage during World War II, that we have today.


Imagine if we had this near instantaneous reporting with video phones, digital cameras, embedded reporters, etc.


Also, it is odd how times have changed in terms of the number of lives lost. Tens of thousands would die in World War II in a day and that was horrible. Today, 30 dead in a day is international news.