The Media & Military, Now and Then

[ethics]

I've long been a critic of today's media and their coverage of war. I won't re-list them. The main reason I've put this post/thread in to this forum is I want to focus on the military aspect of the issue and not the general Iraq war. The secondary reason is that I am going to quote Tom Selleck, a celebrity, who is writing an OpEd in a conservative magazine (http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200405291425.asp)--although Selleck is an Independent. Having put a disclaimer there, however, I thought he voiced a valid explanation and gripe about WWII and now, and how the invasion of Normandy would be covered or even allowed.


"[S]ome liberals who have seen the movie say it validates the need for broad coalitions in war fighting. One of the things I wonder about, though, is whether the D-Day invasion could happen today in a 24-hour news cycle. The media would be asking all time about the exit strategy. Remember, 1944 was an election year. There would probably be a December 7 commission running around. Reporters would be saying that Patton doesn't have an army up north and you've been lying to us for two years, and that you can't put our boys in those firetrap Sherman tanks. We're living in a different world now...


"I'm a registered independent with a lot of libertarian leanings. I think we should have stoplights, fire departments, and strategic missile defense. I'm keeping quiet about a lot of that right now but I'm becoming so concerned that I might have to speak up. I don't know if that will help me get more work in Hollywood. So be it.

"I'm proud to say I was in the Army National Guard, infantry, for six years, from 1967-73. I'm sick of hearing people trivialize that service. It was a tremendous honor to put on the uniform."

[Steve]

Although I agree with all that and admire his views, his are still no more nor no less valid than those of the Dixie Twits ;)

[ethics]

Agreed. So let's leave Tom out of the equation for a bit.

The death toll in Normandy for the US was how bad? When did the press know about the casualty numbers?

[Neo]

There were a couple of things different about the American media back then other than the technology. First the journalists thought of themselves as Americans. Pretty radical stuff by today's standards. Two they were as a group more representative in their views and personal standards of the national population as opposed to now. And finally they not only knew the difference between good and evil but actually had a moral compass to guide them in "dealing" with the two concepts or entities.

[Steve]

Exactly. In particular, today's media seem to lack the ability to ask themselves a simple question: will this information cause more harm than good, in the middle- to long-term?

[Coot]

Exactly. In particular, today's media seem to lack the ability to ask themselves a simple question: will this information cause more harm than good, in the middle- to long-term?
That statement presupposes that the media is actually on 'our' side in things. That is a view I wouldn't be too quick to adopt in this day and age.

[Steve]

Actually, I believe that attitude of the media's is the primary reason they appear to be "against us". In the willy-nilly scurry to exercise their First Amendment rights, the media have completely neglected responsibility, without which any given right becomes meaningless. Consider: even the First Amendment has restrictions, ones imposed from a sense of responsibility; the restriction on yelling "fire" in a crowded theater; the restriction on child pornography; and so on.

A right exercised without a sense of responsibility is a travesty, and a tragedy as well!

The media during WWII refrained from displaying images of the President in his wheelchair for obvious reasons. Today, Dr. Phil would be holding forth on Oprah about the pros and cons of having a crippled, sorry, "differently abled" President. Ted Rall would be inking tasteless cartoons about the "sitting President".

No sense of responsibility, whatsoever.

Now, anticipating the inevitable question, "who decides what is responsible?", the only answer is "everyone". And the simple guideline by which responsibility in the media can be judged is contained within the simple question "Does this information cause more harm than good, in the middle- to long-term?"

Watergate destroyed a Presidency and tarnished that office for years; in the long term, it was good that those crimes were exposed. Can the same be said for Clinton's hummers? Distasteful as we may hold such activities by such a person, can anyone honestly say and show that any long-term good arose out of that whole mess?

Two different events, two similar outcomes; in one, the media exercised responsibility - in the other, the media stridently exercised its "right".

The media are, in fact, largely anti-American if being responsible is one of our core values.

[Coot]

I think it goes farther than that Steve. The media, with their strident left wing bias, sees a U.S. defeat in the WOT and Iraq as a 'victory' for their side. The right loses and the left wins.

[Steve]

There are plenty of far-left liberals in the media who sound that tune. It's an unfortunate function of the business they're in that they receive an inordinate amount of attention and coverage by other media outlets.

I believe the majority of the media, though, are simply irresponsible. They have this enormous power, one that has literally toppled governments and changed the world, a power that just as easily can ennervate, corrode, and erode us as it can enlighten, empower, and preserve us.

They wield it clumsily, at best; destructively, most of the time. They fail to comprehend the scope of the power they have and so they fail to understand the necessity to exercise that power responsibly.

The strident left wing bias of the media arises more from an inability or an unwillingness to counter the extreme left-wing views espoused by some of their colleagues. We see the same sort of behavior in our political system or, indeed, in any large group informally governed by consensus and approbation.

Unfortunately, "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" is no way to run either a democracy or the media.

[jfcjrus]

I don't know if you can focus the blame, or the differences, on just the media, or the 'instant' type of news we have today.

I think it might have a bit to do with some culture differences between then and now.

I've come to the conclusion that 'many' in America today view the current conflicts as nothing more than inconviences, and relate the waging of war as one would a video game.
There just doesn't seem to be an appreciation of the horrible killing, the maiming, the destruction, of war.
It seems it's just an abstract thing that is interfering with the economy.

Everybody's second guessing everybody, every hour.

I hear a lot of retoric about supporting our troops, and all that, but I don't see a lot of commitment to what we're currently tasking them to do.
But, to be fair, commitment requires a goal.
About a year ago, our commander-in-chief landed on an aircraft carrier, and proclaimed that the goal was achieved.
Everyone rejoiced.
But it seems there remained MUCH more for our troops to do.
And their new goals have been somewhat less defined for quite some time now.
So, a year later, many of us are wondering just what the hell is going on.

Thus, I wonder if we can really compare the current military events to those of yore, in a strictly media perspective.
I rather think the various qualitys and expertise of 'leadership' would be a much more pertinent element in the discussion.
Should we not also be comparing Ike, Bradly, etc... to the generals of today?

Just my thoughts.
Regards,

[ShinyTop]

Clinton's trouble began before Lewinsky and it all was because he could never tell the truth. He lied to grand juries and prosecutors about his assaults on women. It was a true character flaw that should have prevented his election if known in time. Talking about it just being about receiving hummers is trivializing a greater problem and it should have been revealed. His excellent defense team and a well off American public chose to ignore it. But when a national leader treats law as he and Hillary have they should not be elected to the office that is responsible for the enforcement of laws.

I do not believe the political media is a whole lot different now than 150 years ago. A recurrent theme from me, but take a look at political cartoons and revelations without proof of Lincoln during the Civil War. The left and even those who lightly oppose Bush are attacking every time a story comes out. He was guilty of Enron, Tyco, Worldcom and yet still no evidence exists and yet it has been written how he escaped. Pardon me, I never saw any evidence.

We did get in a period of time that included the 40's-60's where the main stream press laid off tales of philandering, etc but I think history shows that was the aberration, not today's attack anything anywhere hoping something will stick.

One disclaimer: the press did know how to support their country during a war. Now they consider themselves globalists instead of Americans. I think part of the problem is the military and courts not saying and enforcing that they have no right to all that information until well after the fact.

[Steve]

So your position is that the press has always been yellow, except for the period during WWII?

[Neo]

...I think part of the problem is the military and courts not saying and enforcing that they have no right to all that information until well after the fact.

Actually, the press doesn't have the right to know anything, before or after the fact. In that regard they are no different than your average citizen. They do have the right to print whatever they find out though. Hopefully, they will decide responsibily what and when to print or broadcast something, but when they don't there isn't much that can be done about it.

[ShinyTop]

So your position is that the press has always been yellow, except for the period during WWII?

Pretty much. From the history I have read the political press has always been prone to character assassination first and apologies, if ever, second.

[Steve]

Samuel Clemens had much to say about that :) Can't say I disagree, entirely.

If so, give me the "good ol' days" of WWII!

[Neo]

Pretty much. From the history I have read the political press has always been prone to character assassination first and apologies, if ever, second.

Yeah, and the full length feather character assassination story is on the front page above the fold with the subsequent apology or retraction, if any, is on page 22 in a small paragraph at the bottom corner.

[ShinyTop]

But shouldn't we ask a deeper question? Who is to decide where and when the media goes too far? When they reveal Patton is a decoy and the real invasion is not for Calais then we all know they were wrong. But when they reveal character faults in our public figures who decides? My problem is with what they report (with obvious reservations regarding national security) but that they report so much with little or obviously false evidence.

The press in this country is part of the process. The reason we have free speech is not so much that you can say stupid things whenever it pleases you, it is so that the press can print what they want with few restrictions. They are the tool that, along with the vote, is designed to keep our government in check. Their main flaw is the vigor with which they pursue that goal and the lack of vigor in checking for veracity.

How else will we know that the Patriot Act is being used contrary to its stated purpose? Whether or not you agree with the Act you must agree to the dialog.

How else would we know that Kerry's shipmates are not in unanimous agreement regarding his character or that the medals he threw over the wall were not as advertised?

There are many in California's government who would just as soon their part in the energy crisis not be revealed so if it was up to government we would be screwed even more.

I detest the way most journalism is practiced today yet I can see no substitute, I can think of no way to limit it that would not do more harm than good. It is not perfect, but then neither am I, although I know most of you are. :)

[ethics]

Wonderful discussion, folks, keep it up!

[Neo]

But shouldn't we ask a deeper question? Who is to decide where and when the media goes too far? When they reveal Patton is a decoy and the real invasion is not for Calais then we all know they were wrong.

But that is the point. No one decides because they have the right to report what they find out. And although in the practical, common, moral, and ethical sense they would be wrong to report about Patton they have the legal right to do so. Literally. Hence the burden of responsibility. And they fail that burden miserably. Instead of playing by the rules set by others they are in the unique situation of making their own rules and answering only to themselves. They are accountable to no one. The results are predicable.

[jfcjrus]

One of the things I wonder about, though, is whether the D-Day invasion could happen today in a 24-hour news cycle.

I read in the paper this morning (Sat) that MSNBC has a two hour show tonight (8:00) that will simulate how D-day might have been covered if modern technology were in place in 1944.

Might be interesting.
Regards,

[Neo]

I read in the paper this morning (Sat) that MSNBC has a two hour show tonight (8:00) that will simulate how D-day might have been covered if modern technology were in place in 1944.

Might be interesting.
Regards,

Easy. The Germans watching the same TV as us would have concentrated, redeployed and unleashed all their forces on Omaha and Utah beaches and wiped us off the beachhead--especially at Omaha. That is one thing that would be different.

[Coot]

Easy. The Germans watching the same TV as us would have concentrated, redeployed and unleashed all their forces on Omaha and Utah beaches and wiped us off the beachhead--especially at Omaha. That is one thing that would be different.
Actually, they very nearly did that anyway. The first two companies that landed at Omaha were decimated.

[Neo]

Actually, they very nearly did that anyway. The first two companies that landed at Omaha were decimated.

That is my point. If the Germans knew how bad it was for us at Omaha they would have reacted, (from learning of the situation via CNN), and redeployed and reinforced at Omaha. Again just one example.

[jfcjrus]

Easy. The Germans watching the same TV as us would have concentrated, redeployed and unleashed all their forces on Omaha and Utah beaches and wiped us off the beachhead--especially at Omaha. That is one thing that would be different.
Perhaps. ;)

From what I gather MSNBC is going to simulate the 'inbedded' reporters, and the 'talking heads' with their retired generals pouring over maps, etc, etc.....just like they do today.

I don't know if the special is going to be well done, or a piece of crap.
But, I think I'd like to watch the special, if I get a chance, and THEN join the discussion on whether the German's would have gained some more info to defeat the invasion.

I simply thought it interesting that MSNBC was doing something related to the thread topic.

I, for one, will reserve my opinion of the possible consequences of their 1944 simulation until I see what they depict tonight.

Regards,

[ShinyTop]

While I agree that we would have had a much more difficult time if the Germans had learned or convinced Hitler that Normandy was the main effort I have to disagree they could have thrown us back into the Channel. We had such complete mastery of the air over Normandy that only TWO, count em, 2, enemy aircraft appeared over the beaches. Our air mastery would not have permitted enough reinforcements in enough time to change the issue. Now if they knew a week ahead ....