Serious thought about media coverage during war

[SCpoloRicker]

Lets just ignore the Iraq -- 9/11 thing guys

Mango, don't forget the scale of the engaged forces and the type of conflict. WWII had national armed forces of pretty much all of Europe engaged. Battles would be staged on the battalion (w/e, big!) level, with thousands on each side.

I would assume more people died on one beach in Normandy that in both Iraqi conflicts combined.

Particularly in this case, where there is an armed insurgency, you simply won't see large pitched battles and corresponding high casulties.

I wonder if having a higher level of media access and equip would have had an impact on how the armed forces conduct themselves in a large conflict. I would have to agree that it has affected every conflict since Vietnam, but we haven't seen any theatre-style conflicts since Vietnam. Nothing but smaller regional conflicts.

[Ov3rmind]

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.

I think that is an issue of proportions. The larger the war, the more deaths are accepted/expected. if we currently fought a war the size of WWII, 30 deaths in one day would not make the news. But since the biggest event of a day in the war is 30 deaths, then it is reported.

[1stdeadeye]

Well said JT! Well said.

[SAW]

In WWII there were rather clear-cut sides. The Axis powers were the "bad guys" and the Allies were the "good guys". This led to a solid, unified public opinion.
However, in the modern day, things are not as simple. With all the cultural diversity and intertwining of cultures, its tough to say which side is right and which is wrong. No two groups will ever really see the Iraqi plight in the same light. The media and politicians realize this fact and use it to their benifit, whether that be ratings or winning an election.
Just my outlook.

[BlackWeenie]

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"?

i would have to agree with this guy here. the reason why its seen as harsher for 1300 ppl to have been killed as opposed to 55 million, is because with so few casualties, the general public can, for lack of a better word, relate to them. for instance, if there are 3 recorded casualties, then CNN can take the time to show pictures of these people and say their names. this will hit a lot closer to home then saying "1500 people were killed in vietnam today". especially if they same a name of someone they know (ie. "jon") or show a picture of someone who looks similar to one of their friends/family. this causes them to think of how it feels if they lost that person, which therefore helps them relate to families who have lost their loved ones. this in turn equates to a greater feeling of remorse.

[drg]

Here's a follow-up -- take a look at how the world media is covering the Asia quake/tsunami disaster -- 30,000+ dead and it is indeed getting more attention, more air time and more days on the headlines than 30 dead in Iraq. This story will last weeks, months, maybe even years. By and large a bombing in Iraq is news for one day unless it gets someone important.

So no, there is no "media" or "liberal" conspiracy at work here.

[SCpoloRicker]

So no, there is no "media" or "liberal" conspiracy at work here.

phew. thanks for clearing that one up.



I guess I can take that off now.