Is It Time To Wake Up And Tighten Military Censorship?

Do we not owe it to our soldiers in the field to do everything we can to ensure their success?

The recent Newsweek disaster was only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to our(american) own news sources printing negative stories about the military that relied on shoddy sources or allegations by people with a vested interest in attacking America. Does anybody want to hazard a guess at how many front pages Abu Garib got in the NYTimes? The vast majority of the media has shown a clear anti-military attitude.

Now of course the liberals would call this responsible journalism, but they have wanted Iraq to be a failure from the beginning so their opinion is somewhat negligible. Any objective analysis of warfare, especially the type we are currently in will yield that in an army of hundreds of thousands of men there will be a certain amount of unsavory behavior that the military must correct. The media has shown itself unable to put this into perspective, and just last weekend it cost lives.

This thread was prompted by my friend who just emailed me from Iraq. He says that things arent half as bad as the media portrays them to be. I see this as a direct negative influence on our soldier's moral.

America has had a long and successful relationship with media censorship during a time of war. This censorship seems to have lessened dramatically in recent times and we have felt the effects already once(vietnam).

I see no reason whatsoever to allow a hostile media as much access to Iraq and our soldiers when it has been shown to cause losses in moral and more trouble for our troops. Any news about the military should be checked by the military before being shown to the fickle public. There are many lessons that must be re-learnt from WW2 it seems.

Its a sad state of affairs when American lives are at stake and the media feel it is their job to kick around the military. At a certain point we need to put our soldiers lives and our countries success in iraq on the balance with the media's "right" to know everything and see which one weighs more. Especially as the media has shown itself to be so hostile.

Ernie Pyle would be rolling in his grave if he saw some of the crap reported on today and how it affected our troops. :no:

I agree. Some of the stuff that the NYT and other media giants reports is just plain stupid. They don't report the rebuilding, all the new hospitals and schools, the people who have running water for the first times in their life, or any good things. Just "Marine kills Insurgent" and "Prisoners Tortured." It's a disgrace, and it makes me ashamed to be an American, not because of the actions of our soldiers, but because of the actions of our media.

People do have a right to know but if what is being published is affecting the troops on the ground doing their job properly or in the worst cases as we saw recently - claiming lives - then yes, there has to be stricter censorship.

No. If it's not open you get real messes, think Boer War and stuff. The media could report slightly more solidly and with regard to the bigger picture though. Having said that, they are quite good about it here now. Reports are basically "lots of people die as insurgence blow themselves up again" (couldn't really censor that anyway) and "MoD network crashes as fake music video is emailed too much".

We need to keep the government and all of their wings, including the military on their toes by exposing their corruption.
If we allow the government to control the media as you suggest, this would be disastrous.
I fail to see why someone would be against a big government, and yet for the government controlling the media and telling the people more lies than they natrually do.

Time to send the thought police after steppe! ~D jk man.

I think we should let the government control the media. At least we'd stop hearing bad things.

Well, it would be best to have "responsible" journalism. Media repeatedly flashing things that could be considered "anti-nationalistic" into the public's face just to up their ratings/sales is not very responsible at all. However, if the published things are true, and expose government corruption, etc, it is actually a good thing. But please note the distinction between the two cases, especially the motivation (and the truthfulness of the issues).

However, censorship can rarely lead to something good. And once started on that path, it's hard to stop. Very hard. You know that power corrupts, and all those cliches, but they are true. 1984, anyone ? And please don't tell me you think that was "fiction".
:bow:

I think we should distinguish between the war and the other government responsibilities.

Im all for some investigative journalism into congress or the executive, but I cannot stand the media's intense interest in scandalizing the military during a wartimes situation.

I feel the military is capable of governing itself, as it was in WW2. There was plenty of censorship in that war yet america didnt become more authoritarian - unless you consider FDR's big government a step in that direction, but that has nothing to do with censorship. ~;)

It is very difficult if not impossible to win wars with a hostile media, therefore i feel something must be done. Far too many lives are at stake for anyone to be concerned about the LATimes circulation rates.

I think I agree with you as far as the problem is concerned, but not too sure if gov't control is the right solution.
I can't really say which is the case with this war-related news coverage, i.e. whether it's a lot of truth, or very little or no truth wrapped up under big flashy headlines just to sell more / increase ratings. I can't say anything about that because I have no idea what the truth is, if their sources are valid or they take them as such, or if they don't really care to verify and just publish it away if it sounds "hot".
However, my personal feelings and beliefs tend more towards sensationalism rather than truth and "keeping the public informed". And of course, you're right, just throwing dirt isn't gonna help anybody anytime. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Time to send the thought police after steppe! ~D jk man.

---

~D

I'd be interested in hering Gawain, Red's and Dave's, and other ex military types opinons on this. Because I think that by hiding the amount of people dying, it would be doing an insult to those that lost their lives on both sides.

There should not be censorship on any governmental activity in regards to the news. However that does require the journalism profession to stick to a code of professional ethics and be responsible for what they report.

When in doubt about the story - it should not be reported until it has been adequately checked out and verified.

The journalist can not always predict accurately how the audience will react - but attention to detail and accuracy in the reporting insure that the journalist is telling the truth.

Journalism needs to be balanced - not only reporting the bad news - but reporting all the news of the day. Modern Journalists often focus more on negative news - then telling all the news. Journalists are being to free with the story telling and editorializing (SP) of the news - and not reporting the facts of the events.

Well I agree with you there. The media has to be fair, and only report on accurate, proven facts, and not on what they want to hear. And I'd say their is far to much editorilizing on both sides of the political specrtum with their respective media supporters.
While the media is often unfair, shutting them out from such an important part of our government and that has major impact on people's lives is not the proper way to fix the problem, IMHO.

What kind of punitive measures could you place on the media outlets to ensure tougher accountability? I like the idea of one year's worth of profit from The Sun and Newsweek going to an Iraqi orphanage, myself.

I would support that. Oh, and all those stupid tabloids get orphanages they pay for too...

Censorship , No .
Responsible accurate reporting of news , Yes .

One has to wonder , if the torture and murder of prisoners in Afghanistan had been fully and accurately reported at the time , then just maybe the torture and murders in Iraq would not have happened .
If you don't want people to read about torture and murder then the thing to do is not commit those acts , not tell the press to remain silent about it .

They don't report the rebuilding, all the new hospitals and schools,
Maybe they will when it happens Kapo ~;) Though a while ago there was a thread that started with an article from a US officer saying that the only media outlet that regularly reported the positive things happening in Iraq was Al-Jazeera ~D ~D ~D

Ironically the american funded al Hurra did not report it ~;p

On another note Al Jazeera is still a decent news source, but most people watch Al Arabiya now.

On another note Al Jazeera is still a decent news source,
No , it a Muslim fundamentalist anti-American propoganda machine ....which is why they cover the positive stories that emerge from the ongoing mess that is Iraq ~;)

What kind of punitive measures could you place on the media outlets to ensure tougher accountability?
Set an example . Shoot Rupert Murdoch ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Journalism needs to be balanced - not only reporting the bad news - but reporting all the news of the day. Modern Journalists often focus more on negative news - then telling all the news.

---

Journalists also need to get paid, and their employers need to sell magazines, newspapers, click-throughs, whatever. And the public has never shown much interest in how many trucks on the highway didn't explode, nor in how many fathers didn't come home and slaughter their entire families.

Demanding that the newsies report all the good news to counterbalance the bad is against human nature. People want to hear about the gory stuff. Admittedly, they also want to hear about Brad and Jennifer ... oh, wait, I suppose that counts as gory stuff too ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

~D

I'd be interested in hering Gawain, Red's and Dave's, and other ex military types opinons on this. Because I think that by hiding the amount of people dying, it would be doing an insult to those that lost their lives on both sides.

---

Well, its a fine balance. i believe that the media as well as the military have certain standards that BOTH must maintain to be the most effective. I find the recent Saddam incident highly irrisponsible and I hope that whoever leaked the photos should be exposed and punished. The biggest problem as, and at the same time, the greatest thing to have happened to the media and reporting is the 24 hour news outlet. The biggest problem is irrisponsible reporting, such as Geraldo on Fox news drawing out a map of wear the position of him and the troops he was embedded with were at. The problem I have with the media is when stories are overplayed or the editors inject their biases on a "news" story. Much like Abu Grabe. yes, it was wrong what the troops did, but it was not necessary to report it as extensively and over and over again. It simply aided the enemy (yes, the people that wanted myself, at the time, and my fellow troopers, dead are the enemy... a hard thing for the left to understand I know) and stroked the coals of hatred. Like Newsweek printing up a bunch of hearsay that got people killed. It was irrisponsible....
Along thos lines.... Could you imagine is Christians went nuts like the Muslims do everytime something is done or said against our Bible!?!?!? You liberals should be happy we are so nice!!!

Anyway, back to my point about the media. I've never been in favor of the embedded reporters. Look, war is the most evil thing on this earth (besides liberals ~D ) and I would not consider it censorship if we did not embed the reporters. Does that mean i don't want the press to report abuses or corruption... HELL NO!!! The press does serve its purpose, but I want it to be fair and accurate and not just thrown out there so it can beat the compitition for the first headlines. But much like war and the autrocities that occur during conflict, I don't see a change anytime soon.

I wait hopefully for the first blog by a soldier, updated live from the front...

Could be very interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Well, its a fine balance. i believe that the media as well as the military have certain standards that BOTH must maintain to be the most effective. I find the recent Saddam incident highly irrisponsible and I hope that whoever leaked the photos should be exposed and punished. The biggest problem as, and at the same time, the greatest thing to have happened to the media and reporting is the 24 hour news outlet. The biggest problem is irrisponsible reporting, such as Geraldo on Fox news drawing out a map of wear the position of him and the troops he was embedded with were at. The problem I have with the media is when stories are overplayed or the editors inject their biases on a "news" story. Much like Abu Grabe. yes, it was wrong what the troops did, but it was not necessary to report it as extensively and over and over again. It simply aided the enemy (yes, the people that wanted myself, at the time, and my fellow troopers, dead are the enemy... a hard thing for the left to understand I know) and stroked the coals of hatred. Like Newsweek printing up a bunch of hearsay that got people killed. It was irrisponsible....
Along thos lines.... Could you imagine is Christians went nuts like the Muslims do everytime something is done or said against our Bible!?!?!? You liberals should be happy we are so nice!!!

Anyway, back to my point about the media. I've never been in favor of the embedded reporters. Look, war is the most evil thing on this earth (besides liberals ~D ) and I would not consider it censorship if we did not embed the reporters. Does that mean i don't want the press to report abuses or corruption... HELL NO!!! The press does serve its purpose, but I want it to be fair and accurate and not just thrown out there so it can beat the compitition for the first headlines. But much like war and the autrocities that occur during conflict, I don't see a change anytime soon.

---

I have read this post twice and I have to say it's actually a reasonable, even a sensible view, Dave.

Bummer... ~D

the media should be prohibited from publishing operational details that might put lives in danger obviously......

but when an army's action's are clearly against the very principles that it claims to stand for then it's hipocrisy should be denounced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I have read this post twice and I have to say it's actually a reasonable, even a sensible view, Dave.

Bummer... ~D

---

Oh, I forgot to put in the original post that any reporter, in particular liberal reporters, should be thrown into a wood chipper if they report something inacurately!!!! There, now thats better... ~D

The problem with airing the positive news is this:

"Breaking news! School is rebuilt and village gets water!"
People wouldn't even notice if it was all over the first page, and would move on to the next paper that said something horrible. You know, we are, as a species, masochists. We like to read about horrible stuff and get horrified. I wonder why... ~:confused:
When something spectacularly positive happens then we will see the press all over it. Say a spontanious positive demonstration for US forces in Iraq by Iraqis in Iraq. That would be something... To bad we won't see it.

But at least some have a sense of selfcensorship. I think I saw a clip of 60 Minutes where they talked to soldiers after they had shot a guy lying on the ground (apparently wounded and unarmed) from a distance. If that had been aired you can bet a storm would have risen in the rest of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Oh, I forgot to put in the original post that any reporter, in particular liberal reporters, should be thrown into a wood chipper if they report something inacurately!!!! There, now thats better... ~D

---

http://www.world-of-smilies.com/html...grinangelA.gif

I think is time to wake up and tighten military interventions in the other edge of the world. As long as there will be atrocities and war crimes (that includes polluting the earth for the next 1000 years with shity clever bombs) there will be need for those to be heard and let the people that in their name those actions are done to be aware of them.

PJ just question and if you dont want dont answer. Whats this mania for justification of US army no matter what? I mean youre not even american. Why do you care so much about army being exposed for its mistakes?

Censorship of military actions (as in numbers deployed, where, what they are doing) should not occur until after the conclusion of the current campaign or when deemed safe to do so by the commanders (it may be safer to report that you have a million troops ready to go then pretend otherwise).

Censorship of military crimes should never be censored in a democracy. It makes it difficult to claim that you operate in a democracy at the same time as running a 'military are above the law ethos'. Military law should be clearcut, transparent and swift. It should if anything set the standard above that of civilian law.

Reporters should be held responsible for misleading reports. They should be charged with the appropriate crime. I would suggest if found guilty that they get the upper quartile of sentences when it involves the military or police if they have purposely/negligently reported untruths.

Quote:

---

PJ just question and if you dont want dont answer. Whats this mania for justification of US army no matter what? I mean youre not even american. Why do you care so much about army being exposed for its mistakes?

---

Ive been American for a few years now.

I speak up for the American military because they are good people doing the best they can for their country and the world.

In America there are all kinds of opportunities for young people willing to learn and work as hard as our soldiers do - but they chose to put their lives on the line for the rest of us.

Yet we have a hostile media and the leftists who only 30 years ago spit on them - and im sure wouldn't mind doing it again.

Theyre on the front doing the work most americans couldnt, and since i cant be with them Im going to damn well defend their honor from the liberals and america-bashers.

Thanks PJ... ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Censorship of military actions (as in numbers deployed, where, what they are doing) should not occur until after the conclusion of the current campaign or when deemed safe to do so by the commanders (it may be safer to report that you have a million troops ready to go then pretend otherwise).

Censorship of military crimes should never be censored in a democracy. It makes it difficult to claim that you operate in a democracy at the same time as running a 'military are above the law ethos'. Military law should be clearcut, transparent and swift. It should if anything set the standard above that of civilian law..

---

I totally agree with Papewaio. The Amerocan soldiers are fighting for Democracy and a free world. Do you think they would want to want censorship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Reporters should be held responsible for misleading reports. They should be charged with the appropriate crime. I would suggest if found guilty that they get the upper quartile of sentences when it involves the military or police if they have purposely/negligently reported untruths.

---

I think punishment of wrong articles is the same as censorship. Thgis is a very sensitive topic.
Two additional comments:
- Who believes everything that is written in the papers? We expect nothing but lies. We only believe the things we wish (wow, I think this is a Cesar quote ~;) )
- The US government and the military leaders do their best to manipulate the medias, themselves.