Burnt bodies weren't on TV during Vietnam. You had to go to Newspapers for that. TV coverage during Vietnam consisted mostly of Kronkite (or whoever) talking about things. No coverage from the field. Television journalism has definitely improved, the problem is that newspaper journalism has declined, and that was where war coverage shined.
Lou we went from burnt bodies and casualty counts on TV to basically feel good stories about the All American football star hero military, with the rare "unfortunate but superficial effect of war" introspective. A lot more has changed than adding some stations.
Perhaps, but you're blaming it on mega-corps owning all the media channels when I illustrated that there are actually more corps (albeit still "mega" ones) owning major TV news outlets at present than during Vietnam.
Whatever the reasons are for not showing the horrors of war on the TV news, mega-corp ownership isn't one of them.
Lou we went from burnt bodies and casualty counts on TV to basically feel good stories about the All American football star hero military, with the rare "unfortunate but superficial effect of war" introspective. A lot more has changed than adding some stations.
Perhaps, but you're blaming it on mega-corps owning all the media channels when I illustrated that there are actually more corps (albeit still "mega" ones) owning major TV news outlets at present than during Vietnam.
Whatever the reasons are for not showing the horrors of war on the TV news, mega-corp ownership isn't one of them.
OK, but that's entirely tangential to the point I was making in the first place.
What you don't seem to realize, Muppet, is that the vast majority of war isn't in combat, and the vast majority of combat is (if you're not in it, but only watching it) tame.
Greg, dude, I wasn't born yesterday. I'm not stupid. I understand that war is quiet quiet quiet OH MY FUCKING GOD quiet quiet quiet quiet.
The trouble is that an awful lot of the OH MY FUCKING GOD, particularly when it involves the mass killing of dark skinned people in places that an awful lot of Americans couldn't label on a map, just never makes it into any coverage that the majority of Americans pay any attention to.
I wonder at what point you'll have live satellite feeds watching combat zones as if it was a spectator sport, with POV cameras on the players/soldiers and the ability to livestream any part of the battlefield complete with former generals' commentary on the events.
The trouble is that an awful lot of the OH MY FUCKING GOD, particularly when it involves the mass killing of dark skinned people in places that an awful lot of Americans couldn't label on a map, just never makes it into any coverage that the majority of Americans pay any attention to.
I'm curious what exactly you are referring to when you mean "OH MY FUCKING GOD". Also, please refrain from using the phrase mass killing when the number of deaths is relatively low compared to most armed conflicts.
I'm not minimizing their deaths, but you need some historical perspective if you think 20k dead in 14 years of continuous war is a mass killing. Otherwise we are just arguing semantics in which case there is no point in arguing.
I'm not minimizing their deaths, but you need some historical perspective if you think 20k dead in 14 years of continuous war is a mass killing. Otherwise we are just arguing semantics in which case there is no point in arguing.
Each drone attack in and of itself typically kills enough people to be a "mass killing." It only takes like 5 or so to really couint. I would consider it one of the easier achievements to unlock. Also semantics are really important w.r.t. war and its cultural impact imo!!!
Yep especially since propaganda and conditioning, particularly online, are BUILT on semantics. And yeah 20 thousand pointless deaths is a mass killing.
Yep especially since propaganda and conditioning, particularly online, are BUILT on semantics. And yeah 20 thousand pointless deaths is a mass killing.
All deaths in war are pointless. Also, don't forget to double layer your foil when folding.
If you seriously think that the discussion on major internet forums doesn't include government (and corporate) shills, you're delusional. That's not tinfoil hat territory, it's reality and something that is actually prudent for them to do (at least, from their point of view, which has a lot more to do with their own interests than ours.)
Next you're going to tell me that there's no bribery in Congress.
Well I'll be, using semantics to discredit troublesome posters with inconvenient knowledge or analyses and/or steer conversations (or derail them entirely.)
So yes, how you define "silly" things like what a mass killing comprises is actually pretty fucking relevant.
It may not be overt, but there's a big difference between a journalist independently reporting in a war zone, a la Vietnam, and a guy who works, eats, sleeps, shits, laughs, cries, etc, with a bunch of soldiers and then reports on them.
That's also not what you said. You said they were groomed and filtered, not that they developed empathy for the people around them.
IF you want to go back on your point, feel free, but if you're going to try and tell me how different parts of journalism work, at least try to be internally consistent.
So you don't think that embedded journalists are selected carefully, and you don't think that the guys they basically become coworkers in the extreme with (surviving a war together tends to make for some pretty strong bonds I'd imagine) pretty much de facto groom them? No, not going back on my point.
I'd change my opinion if truly controversial stuff ever came from embedded journalism, but I've never seen an example. Sure, there's stuff that people will object to and find disturbing, but there's never been any sort of a smoking gun or scandal revealed by American embedded war journalism. It's sanitized in the extreme, in my opinion. I allow for the possibility that I'm wrong, but I'm extremely skeptical.
I'd change my opinion if truly controversial stuff ever came from embedded journalism, but I've never seen an example. Sure, there's stuff that people will object to and find disturbing, but there's never been any sort of a smoking gun or scandal revealed by American embedded war journalism. It's sanitized in the extreme, in my opinion. I allow for the possibility that I'm wrong, but I'm extremely skeptical.
Uh well there could also be no smoking gun for them to discover haha. I think mass journalism is pretty frigged up but I'd figure its relative "lightness" has more to do w/ the nature of maintaining profitability and not ostracizing advertisers than a direct conspiracy to serve up propaganda.
Comments
He's even doing a live stream! http://baloogancampaign.com/2014/03/05/upcoming-ukraine-2014-stream/
Whatever the reasons are for not showing the horrors of war on the TV news, mega-corp ownership isn't one of them.
The trouble is that an awful lot of the OH MY FUCKING GOD, particularly when it involves the mass killing of dark skinned people in places that an awful lot of Americans couldn't label on a map, just never makes it into any coverage that the majority of Americans pay any attention to.
20k civilian deaths over 14 years of war (in Afghanistan here) don't really qualify as mass killings. Just a really shitty outcome from war.
Next you're going to tell me that there's no bribery in Congress.
Well I'll be, using semantics to discredit troublesome posters with inconvenient knowledge or analyses and/or steer conversations (or derail them entirely.)
So yes, how you define "silly" things like what a mass killing comprises is actually pretty fucking relevant.
Source of leech-like blog post linked above:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
But Glen Greenwald, who the heck is that crackpot anyway, right?
IF you want to go back on your point, feel free, but if you're going to try and tell me how different parts of journalism work, at least try to be internally consistent.