Has modern news networks caused anti-war movement?

[Marshal Murat]

Today, I realized why there has been such strong anti-war movements across the globe (namely America) since Vietnam,
The news network.
ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc.
They have all brought riveting details of the war home, from the bombings of Iraq, Vietnam, and otherwise.

During the American Civil War, the only news was from the newspapers. During that time, the only negative anti-war causes was the Southern sucess in the East. Otherwise, the Union had support against the Confederates.

During the Spanish American war, the newspapers filled with accounts of the Maine Explosion cause Americans to fight against the Spanish.

World War I, newspapers told us of the Lusitania, and we fought against the Germans, despite their warnings in the newspapers.

World War II, we stood behind our boys after Pearl Harbor, after the losses on D-Day, Coral Sea, and more

The Maine explosion, Lusitania sinking, and numerous other cataylst for war in years gone by caused outrage among Americans, and spurred them to war against a foe.

Yet the hijacking and destruction of the Twin Towers and Pentagon, a tragedy of great magnitude, caused by designated terrorists, caused great outpouring of national emotion.
Even after what the terrorist did four years ago, Americans rally against the Army, Navy, Marines, and other armed forces, for fighting in Iraq, and Afghanistan.
For the deaths of those serving in our forces, more people want to leave Iraq. 2000 is close to the current casualty list.

That many could be killed in one battle during World War II, and we still held firm against the Nazis!
That many could be lost in a week during WWI, yet we held firm against the Kasier.

All this can be blamed on the News Networks. If the same coverage had been applied to WWI, the President would have been assasinated by now for this "fiasco" in Europe.

I'm not saying that reporting of war is bad, its just that they spin the war in such a light, that every war America fought would be drowned in critisicm over actions, and otherwise.

Basically what I'm saying is
The past wars of America's history, were all based on shaky evidence, clear warnings, and less loss of life, we have declared wars, and shaped the globe.

Then after thousands lose their lives in one day, and our nation is attacked on our soil, and we have never had a stronger base for war, people are going
"We should leave" and anti-war because of 2000 casualties, a relatively small loss in any previous war!

(Try to understand this rant about news coverage and the negative effect on warmaking, if someone would like to explain it better do so.)

[CBR]

Well now that the public can see maimed bodies during prime time it definitely forces a government to have a very good reason to go to war. But it also goes the other way as it only takes one journalist with a vidcam to create an outrage and a public demanding action/war.

But the public cant be lied to for long in these days as its not easy to withhold information. In general I would say its a good tendency.

Sure you can compare it with WW1 and WW2 but these wars were also fought against opponents whose populations also didnt get to see the true horror of war and the conflict was simply on a much larger scale and with simple goals. The bigger the opponent the more is at stake and people can tolerate higher losses.

I doubt many Americans were asking why they fought the Japanese as Pearl Harbor would always be a reminder. People cant do the same with the Twin Towers and Iraq.


CBR

[AggonyDuck]

Well yes the news network does help a bit, but on the other hand comparing WWI and WWII to the Iraq war isn't good. The World Wars were fought against an enemy that actually was a country with a standing army. The fight against terrorism is a lot different because there is no easy way to even locate your enemy and even harder to actually fight him.
Also saying that the happenings of September the 11th would be the reason for Iraq war seems a bit vague to me. I won't speculate what the US governments reason to invade Iraq was, because honestly it could be pretty much anything. Although my information about this is lacking of course.

If I remember correctly there was a nice support for the invasion of Afghanistan by most of the western nations. It was considered a war against terrorism by most of the western countries. But on the other hand the invasion of Iraq was met with a lot of opposition. Could this actually be due to the fact that most of the world didn't see it as a war against terrorism, but in fact as a war against something else? ~;)

Anyways before the invasion I was very much against the war, but sadly a withdrawal from Iraq would just make things worse. It would be a huge PR stunt for AQ and lets just say it things wouldn't stop there. Also the war in Iraq became a war against terror after the US had occupied Iraq. (my opinion of course) I think this is something that the anti-war lobbyist fail to understand.

[Marshal Murat]

What about Vietnam?

I just feel that if the news networks had the same kind of coverage for World War One, then there would be a bigger anti-war movement.

[eadeater]

The Crimean War is actually considered the first war where the public at home had access to information about it, and was the first to have serious public criticism because of this (charge of the light brigade etc. unhappiness with inadequate leadership).

[Papewaio]

WWII... the American public had to be manipulated somewhat into getting into it... some don't think making the Japanese ambassador wait hours on end to declare hostilities an accident.

Remember though in WWII Nazi Germany was a clear aggressor which was killed millions of people. Likewise Imperial Japan killed millions in its invasions. AQ on the other hand has killed about 3,000 in its terrorist attacks... since 2001... in a four year period the Axis would have killed over 30,000,000 people. So trying to compare WWII and TWOT is like trying to compare a Blue Whale to a shrimp.

[Gregoshi]

This topic is hovering on the border between the Monastery and the Backroom. Keep the discussion on the historical aspect of media and war coverage and it stays. If the discussion turns political, off it goes to the Backroom.

[Krusader]

What about Vietnam?

I just feel that if the news networks had the same kind of coverage for World War One, then there would be a bigger anti-war movement.

As I recall, the US forces allowed journalists with them to cover the war. However, they reported back on the 'negative sides' on the war, and this was the first time, at my knowledge, that viewers got to see dead or wounded american soldiers, the effects of war etc. prime-time, right in their own living rooms.

Taken from Reporting America at War (http://www.pbs.org/weta/reportingamericaatwar/reporters/cronkite/)

In 1968, while anchor of the "CBS Evening News," Cronkite journeyed to Vietnam to report on the aftermath of the Tet offensive. In a dramatic departure from the traditions of "objective" journalism, Cronkite concluded his reports with a personal commentary in which he voiced his strong belief that the war would end in stalemate. Cronkite's editorial would later be regarded as a critical indice of public opinion of the Vietnam War.

In a documentary I saw, Lyndon Johnson had apparently said after seeing that news segment something similar to "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost the public"

[Red Harvest]

Today, I realized why there has been such strong anti-war movements across the globe (namely America) since Vietnam,
The news network.
ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc.
They have all brought riveting details of the war home, from the bombings of Iraq, Vietnam, and otherwise.

During the American Civil War, the only news was from the newspapers. During that time, the only negative anti-war causes was the Southern sucess in the East. Otherwise, the Union had support against the Confederates.


There was actually quite a strong ant-war movement in the North during the ACW. There were plenty of anti-war news papers run by Copperheads and the like. The "Copperheads" were the Northern half of the Democratic party that was opposed ot the war--there were also "War Democrats" who supported the war and loathed the Copperheads. (The Democratic party had split before the war. The Southern Democrats would be Republicans by many of today's measures, while the Democrats of today would most likely be Republicans, our parties have swapped ends.)

As for casualties in the present war, the problem is that the vast majority have come after "Mission Accomplished" when the invasion phase had ended and there is not an end in sight...yet. We didn't suffer casualties like this in Japan or Germany after the war. We did have to fight a running insurgency in the Philippines after the Spanish American war, and of course Vietnam was all about fighting an insurgency.

The Philippine-American war was a guerilla war against the insurgency that had previously declared independence from Spain. It cost U.S. casualties of 4,324 American soldiers killed and
2,818 wounded. This is actually lower than our total killed and wounded in Iraq at the moment, where we've had about 12,000 wounded and about half of those have been classified as "return to duty." Incidentally, the occupying force was about 126,000 and the conflict lasted 14 years. Teddy Roosevelt declared the war over 11 years before it actually ended (sound familiar?) I like TR for other reason, but this was not one of my county's proudest moments.

American deaths in the War of 1812 were 2,260 (and it lasted until 1815) while the Spanish-American War itself cost 2,446.

[yesdachi]

The media is by far the most powerful weapon in the world. They can accuse, trial, convict, sentence, and execute without any facts and the sheep will listen. Obey the media least you be the next victim, obey, obey, OBEY… ~D

I work in marketing and know how the media works, TV, radio, newspapers, etc. Plus there is another section that answers to no one and is controlled by the private enterprise in the form of commercials and advertisements. There is no real control over what is spewed out over the many arms of the media and what control there is, is usually in the form of fines and only after years of court battles. A lie may be aired today and may not be retracted for years, think of the damage that can be done in that amount of time.

People in the media have a great amount of responsibility and many of them dismiss it and do poor research and offer only surface level analysis of many topics with no concern to the repercussions. They give great attention to trivial things and pay little attention to topics that may be of great importance but wont sell or offer them the chance of promotion. The people that create the media are typically self-centered and have deadlines and quotas to fill. Think about that next time you are watching your favorite reporter and ask yourself if they got a new boat this year because of their journalistic integrity or Nielsen ratings.

But don’t get me wrong I love the media (without it I wouldn’t know who to hate ~D ) and think the world is better off because of it. Its ability to root out scandals, liars and fakes is only overshadowed by its ability to cover-up scandals, liars and fakes.

So until there is a “bar association” for the media, take everything you see, read or hear with a bit of skepticism because for every bit of truth out there, there is a bit of false.

The media has definitely changed “Americans” view on war and everything else… or has it, is that just what they want us to think???? ~;)