« fair use: the happiest place on earth | Main | fair use: congress shall make no law... (but maybe they should) »
In Times Like These
by anna at 08:15 PM on April 01, 2003
Now that shock and awe has given way to duck and crawl, it’s time to boot those 600 embedded reporters out of Iraq. What about the public’s alleged right to know, you ask? When did you obtain this right? Did I miss something?
You sure didn’t have it during Gulf War I or in the Afghan conflict, and you have no such thing now. You have a right to know whatever distortions the military brass chooses to foist upon you and no more, just as in those past wars.
Ah but wait, there’s more! These talking heads are in a raging war zone where they clearly don’t belong. Also, they require provisions, pampering and protection; which detracts from a military mission that has proven much tougher than expected in its early going.
Moreover, embeds are a constant distraction to our troops. In case you hadn’t noticed, guys tend to get horny after a few days without sex. And a lot of these correspondents are indeed hot tamales, some of whom may engage in wanton debauchery. Given that and the fact that our GIs are allowed to have Bibles but no porno, wouldn’t they be all over the hottest embeds and vice versa?
Which brings up the question of their objectivity. Perhaps because they’ve cozied up to our fighting men in tents, many have accused them of presenting a cheerily skewed view of unfolding hostilities. Myself I’d disagree on that point. Seems to me we’re receiving plenty of depressing news from the war front.
Hello. This embryonic war’s been going on for two weeks. Iraq is a heavily fortified nation the size of California. It takes time to invade it and oust its leadership. Yet the endless filing of redundant reports has made this campaign seem like a torturous eternity. So far it hasn’t eroded public support for the war but it will in time. Trust me.
Then there’s the matter of our badly tarnished image worldwide. Bush II was already widely viewed as a cocky cowboy overseas. What does letting a contingent of fresh-faced scribes tag along on a major military incursion say to you? To me it says 3 things: 1) Certain US officials, to varying extents, view this as a video game-like lark. 2) It will be over quickly with a minimum of televised carnage. 3) They want to control what images are aired as much as possible. (BTW, Arabs are being subjected to an entirely different version of Operation Iraqi Freedom on al-Jazeera. It’s more like Operation Iraqi Massacre. Or, should I say, they would be but for the ingenuity of patriotic computer nerds stateside. I don’t know how it’s being portrayed elsewhere. Perhaps readers might shed some light on that.)
Now don’t get me wrong. I support our valiant soldiers. I just think they should be allowed to go about their grisly business without reporters likening their peril to that of those in harm’s way. To say nothing of Peter Arnett fraternizing with the enemy or that self-aggrandizing 20th century relic Geraldo Rivera compromising operational security. So, Scud studs and Desert Foxes, it’s time to come on home. You’ve worn out your welcome, and it's time to get down to the nitty-gritty.
And I'm not so sure you're cut out for this sort of thing.
comments (19)
Well, you have 3 categories of countries, therefore more than 3 categories of media.
1) Countries currently in war against iraq.
2) Countries under attack (Iraq, that is) and other middle east countries (who know they are next or who just feel it's a West vs East conflict)
3) Countries that dissaprove of the war and take no part.
I live in the 3rd category but have access to media from 1 and 2 (everyone, not just me).
So here's what I gathered.
1) the Against iraq countries : CNN shows a greatly edited, friendly-to-gevernment thing all day long. After some days of viewing it's quite obvious there's even fake, properly-as-in-movies directed scenes. To me it's war propaganda (as expected). CNN has a definite opinion about US army being the liberator. Everyone who opposes them is supposed to be in saddam's army or under his control, completly ignoring that most civillians do. (And most of them are armed too.) US ARE GODSENT, IRAQIS WAIT FOR THEM TO LIBERATE THEM.
Skynews is on the same line but a bit more objective and careful.
Then again in Spain media until 2 days ago the war was a minor subject on the evening news. Like, well, it's not so important is it?
2) The pro-iraq countries and iraq. Obviously it's all about the evil americans that want to eliminate all kind of muslim life on earth, eat human flesh and kill people for fun. As expected too. I can't blame them (cause they are being invaded) especially after Bush (months ago) called these wars a "crusade". Anyway, they are on their extreme: AMERICANS ARE 3-HEADED MONSTERS, IRAQIS SHOULD KILL THEM ALL.
3) The countries that dissaprove of the war. Well, apart from the foreign channels we can watch (CNN 24/7, mixed Skynews+AlJeseera with translation), there's greek media too with their own reporters etc. And well, as expected again, they are on the "US is to blame for this war, this will rise terrorism for all of us, you-don't-take-us-into-consideration" side. Cause over here ppl wanted EU to play part in everything, at least through UN as individual countries. + Protests in europe are huge and continue until now, so media and politicians can't really ignore public opinion. So their point (in media) is : US GO TO GET IRAQI OIL AND DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT WHO DIES OR NOT, SADDAM IS A CREEP BUT IRAQIS DEFEND THEIR COUNTRY AND THEY WILL PAY FOR EVERYONE'S STUPIDITY.
That goes for french TV too (was there for 3 days last week - mom lives there) and German TV as well (Haven't been there but dad's brother lives there so that's what he's saying).
Finally, I very well know that perhaps nothing of all we see is true, from any side. Perhaps it's a matrix-like condition. In fact I get the feeling we march to a "1984" kind of world.
by necropethamenos at April 2, 2003 2:40 AM
Thanks for the international perspective. I actually toyed w/ the idea of linking to that English language version of al-Jazeera, but figured they're getting enough hits as it is.
by Anna at April 2, 2003 7:44 AM
BTW is it true that NBC is linked to the gun industry?
by necropethamenos at April 2, 2003 8:04 AM
Anna, I was on active duty when the upper brass caved in to the Christian Coalition, and other entities, and took our porn. The makeshift PXs (militery exchange stores) during deployment used to carry a great selection of porn rags but pulled them all from the shelves. Damn, I thought we were going to have ourselves an old fashioned mutiny. GIs were pissed. Some young entrepreneurs had them sent from home in bulk and started selling them for quite a profit. The brass, in all their wisdom, took away a harmless outlet and prompted a black market operation to start. Smart huh?
I agree with you on the journalists. In my experience, they just get in the way and become a liability to all the troops around them. I believe in free speech but I think you have to weigh the costs of it and act accordingly.
The BBC seems to be covering the war from a neutral standpoint. I was watching it last night and they didn't seem to be pro American, or British for that matter.
by Ezy at April 2, 2003 10:36 AM
NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the largest corporations in the world, they have their hands in just about every industry imaginable. CBS is owned by Westinghouse that, similarly to GE, is involved in numerous industries. The other major US networks are owned by strictly (or mostly) media companies - CNN is by AOL Time Warner, Fox by the News Corp and I can never remember whether ABC is owned by Viacom or Disney.
I'm not exactly sure why, but for some reason I feel like the media outlets owned by huge diversified conglomerates are more trustworthy than the straight media conglomerates.
by mg at April 2, 2003 12:49 PM
PS: I think the embedded troops weren't a bad idea. The concept was to show the war without a filter, to prove that the US wasn't committing the kids of atrocities that are surely being reported by the likes of Al-Jazeera. And I think it's done a pretty good job to that end. The problem is that the technology isn't quite there, so most of the bigs news outlets are using journalists in Kuwait and Qatar to do the reporting. I don't care if Matt Lauer won a Pulitzer prize, a decade on the Today Show has removed any credibility he ever had. What's happening with these superstar reporters like Geraldo, and Arnett is that the story isn't about what is actually going on, but how they feel about what is going on. What we are seeing in Iraq isn't journalism, it's blogging on TV, and thats really unfortunate, to say the least.
by mg at April 2, 2003 12:58 PM
Three things, and then I'll shut up: Ezy, this porno ban has nothing to do w/ the Christian Coalition. It's out of deference to Muslim abhorence of nudie pix. But it is nice to see a military guy agree w/ me. And MG, I do agree they've done a fairly good job so far. Still, I'm not so sure we want these snoops around should things take an ugly turn. Lastly, have you deserted me Lockheed? Douche?
by Anna at April 2, 2003 6:04 PM
Well, besides for Arnett, who was sitting comfortably in a Baghdad hotel, I'd wager that none of the embedded reporters are saying that the war is going badly. It's just the reporters playing it safe in Juwait City or Qatar or the talking heads back in the news studios that are thinking things are going badly.
by mg at April 2, 2003 6:48 PM
The Pentagon wanted these reporters embedded for a reason: to provide a balance to Al Jazeera. The Pentagon wants to make sure that the truth gets out there for us to know what really is happening.
by MrAnonymous at April 2, 2003 7:47 PM
"The Pentagon wants to make sure that the truth gets out there for us to know what really is happening."
Come on, you're talking about the military leaders of you country! What truth? They want their propaganda to be believable as any national army leader would.
This is not a "US army lies" comment. It's an "armies lie" one.
by necropethamenos at April 3, 2003 3:09 AM
People…
I mean please, the US sheets cover it from the US standpoint and Al Jazeera covers it from the Arabic world’s point of view, do you expect any less? I believe Al Jazeera has actually been objective in it’s reporting.
They have only offended people with the truth, you Americans love to tout the free speech thing but when it’s used and it’s not on your side you've all cried and whined about how horrific those pictures were, screaming the Geneva Convention and so on. The US was the first to break the Geneva Convention when the US media quite happily used Iraqi POW’s as a propaganda tool.
The BBC is always objective here in the UK.
I hope the US will be consistent in it’s fight against weapons of mass destruction, please go and see Israel after this, after all they were the last country to use them, not Iraq... but that didn't matter... or so it would seem.
by o_O at April 3, 2003 3:18 AM
Say what? Last I checked Israel was partial to bulldozing occupied Palestinian hovels. Hadn't heard about them breaking out their nukes, germs and nasty poisons? Not that they wouldn't in a pinch.
by Anna at April 3, 2003 7:38 AM
Was only a few years ago they used chemical weapons on the Palestine people. It's been a LOT longer since Saddam used them on the Kurds.
Israel is the main cause of the Eastern unrest, not Iraq, the US turned a blind eye to what Israel is doing so long as the US was aloud to use it's air strips to bomb Afganistan. Speaking of which, just how long is the US going to keep people from Afganistan in concentration camps in Cuba? Just a thought.
Also why did the US (you helped to fund it) allow Israel to develop a Nuclear Program in the first place?...
Questions, Questions yet little answer from the Whitehouse, wonder why that is? Hypocrisy maybe? One rule for one country and another for another, or is it only friends that are allowed in the nuclear club these days? US made countries & states? This whole thing stinks of double standards, excuses for war and bully mentality.
by o_O at April 3, 2003 1:42 PM
Israel has nuclear weapons because they do. Just because one person has something, why should everyone else be allowed to? What are we, communists?
Sure, much of the Arab world would like to see Israel go away, and maybe there would be peace if they did, but an Israeli state exists and it isn't going away. Nukes stops Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, etc from invading Israel. So the simple truth is that Israel having nukes stabalizes the Middle East. No one attacks Israel because they'll get their asses kicked, and Israel doesn't attack anyone because they aren't asshats.
But, believe it or not, I am a strong proponent of a Palestinian state - unfortunately they don't know how to behave civilly. If they'd quit the damn suicide bombings, they'd have gotten their state a decade ago. Besides, the Arab world doesn't really want Palestine to have a state anyway, if they did, don't you think they could have put enough pressure on to make that happen? They like the situation as is because it gives them a reason to hate Israel.
by mg at April 3, 2003 2:13 PM
They banned porn mags well before we decided to go to war with Iraq and terrorists in muslim states. They banned them in 96 from PXs and BXs.
"Military Honor and Decency Act of 1996 - Prohibits:
(1) the Secretary of Defense from permitting the sale or rental of sexually explicit material on property under Department of Defense (DOD) jurisdiction; and
(2) a member of the armed forces or a DOD employee acting in an official capacity from providing such material to another person."
Bastards.
by Anna at April 3, 2003 2:42 PM
That's my post above. I just wanted to see what it felt like to post as Anna. I'm a new man ;-)
by Ezy at April 3, 2003 2:44 PM
I have a friend who lived in Saudi Arabia. He says the Palestinians are @ the bottom of the Arab social hierarchy. Snooty sorts consider it shameful to associate w/ them. They employ them as maids. But the funniest thing is when people try to drag racism into the debate. Palestinians are Caucasians.
by Anna at April 3, 2003 3:25 PM
"Israel has nuclear weapons because they do. Just because one person has something, why should everyone else be allowed to? What are we, communists? "
?!
All right then! Iraq has nukes cause ...it does! What is US's problem??
(+Communism has really nothing to do with your argument does it?)
The fact is US would NEVER hurt Israel but they've fucked up iraq for soooo long.
You wanna know who's next? All middle east perhaps but it will never be Israel.
Palestinians don't know how to behave? If you ever lived in their poverty, their condition and the absolute raping of their rights (tanks coming in your city and destroying your home just because THEY CAN!") I don't think you'd behave really gfreatly either.
remember: People who die just to kill their enemies have NOTHING to lose. Can you imagine why? Maybe cause they've already lost everything.
by necropethamenos at April 4, 2003 3:15 AM
No MG they have them because the US helped pay for them. They don’t act as a peace mechanism in the Middle East whatsoever, it’s actually one of the main reasons the Middle East hates the United States and hates Israel. Has it never occurred to the majority of US citizens as to why this hatred is how it is? Do you all just accept it because you’ve all been told why it is? Hypocrisy is one of the reasons. US foreign policy has always stunk of double standards; Israel’s Nuke program is just another example.
Terrorism is usually born out of frustration; a suicide bomber does what he/she does because there is nothing left to do. No MG you’re right Israel is content with genocide of the people that in fact inhabited the land an eon before the Israelis, that idea echoes bells for me with the US, funny that.
The Palestine people would never have had anything a decade ago, that’s pure crap and borders on crass. You know as well as I do that wouldn’t have happened and I don’t think the Palestine people need a reason, Israel are the aggressors.
I don’t what communism has to do with my comment, care to expand on that flippant remark?
by o_O at April 4, 2003 4:15 AM