PDA

View Full Version : Should there be a news black-out on the casualities in Iraq?



banquo's_bumble_puppy
2003-Nov-04, 01:11 PM
Should there be a news black-out on the casualities in Iraq? Specifically, does telling the public help or hurt the cause?

kucharek
2003-Nov-04, 01:31 PM
Yeah! Give us more of plush reality!

As long as they are simply reported and not sensationalized, they should be reported. That's reality. And when there was a political decision that may lead to casualities, these should be faced. If you won't face, change your political decision. The dead have a right to be recognized.
In some way, in todays world, we have more problems with few casualties as with much casualties. One killed soldier can be personalized by the media, giving a deeper impact. A thousand can't.

Harald

Glom
2003-Nov-04, 01:32 PM
Political! Political!

Amadeus
2003-Nov-04, 01:39 PM
In todays age I dont think it would be possible to black out the reports.
All that you could do is black out loacal stations then people would asume the worst.

On a side point I think the main problem here is that the america public has gotten used to "no risk war" and if the us and britain had just carpet bomb the entire country the left thats what we would have had. But we would also have had a huge amount of civilians dead. I'am not saying that a lot died anyway but If troops had not gone in on the ground there would have been a whole lot more.

I am not a fan of bush in any way and I do not agree with him on any issue but I do think that the war was the lesser of two evils. The alternative being keeping the UN sanctions up wich have killed an estimated 2 million people. And I doubt if any of them were in the militery or the Baath party.

NASA Fan
2003-Nov-04, 01:52 PM
That is the beauty of living in a democracy, we are told about the casualties. If we lived in a country run by a radically different type of political philosophy we might only get to hear what they wanted us to hear.

(Trying to keep my comment as non-political as possible).

captain swoop
2003-Nov-04, 01:56 PM
How would you enforce it?

Close down the Internet? ban satellite TV? Jam Radio and TV along the Canadian and mexican borders? Stop US citizens getting foreign mail? Ban them from phoning abroad?

Anything else?

gethen
2003-Nov-04, 02:00 PM
How would you enforce it?

Close down the Internet? ban satellite TV? Jam Radio and TV along the Canadian and mexican borders? Stop US citizens getting foreign mail? Ban them from phoning abroad?

Anything else?

Ban travel to all foreign countries.

NASA Fan
2003-Nov-04, 02:16 PM
Grethen, don't forget travel into the contry.

Archer17
2003-Nov-04, 03:05 PM
I voted "no" .. uncensored media is a touchstone of democracy. It would be next to impossible to stop flow of info anyway as has been pointed out.

To elaborate on Captain Swoop's jamming Mexican/Canadian radio & TV signals, this would not be easy in that jamming the AM band would require extremely powerful across-the-band jamming and would interfere with our own AM broadcast stations as well. Cuba, for instance, has some very powerful AM stations that I can receive here in Pittsburgh after sunset ..FM/TV freqs near the border would be somewhat easier since both are primarily "line-of-sight" and those of us not close to either border wouldn't be picking up the signals anyway, but it would still be a pain in the butt. We would also have to jam international shortwave broadcast stations that beam their signals to the US.

johnb
2003-Nov-04, 03:16 PM
I voted "no" .. uncensored media is a touchstone of democracy. It would be next to impossible to stop flow of info anyway as has been pointed out.

To elaborate on Captain Swoop's jamming Mexican/Canadian radio & TV signals, this would not be easy in that jamming the AM band would require extremely powerful across-the-band jamming and would interfere with our own AM broadcast stations as well. Cuba, for instance, has some very powerful AM stations that I can receive here in Pittsburgh after sunset ..FM/TV freqs near the border would be somewhat easier since both are primarily "line-of-sight" and those of us not close to either border wouldn't be picking up the signals anyway, but it would still be a pain in the butt. We would also have to jam international shortwave broadcast stations that beam their signals to the US.

Is`nt your media being subtly censored anyway.Watching FOX news I heard them say they were allowed to show pictures of the wounded but not the coffins being flown home. You do`nt have to jam comms to control information flow. Anyway I believe the families should be the arbiters in this case; i.e do they want the info broadcast, I believe this should apply to disaster reporting as well.

Archer17
2003-Nov-04, 03:50 PM
Is`nt your media being subtly censored anyway.There's bias (both ways) in the media here, but no censorship in my opinion, subtle or otherwise.
Watching FOX news I heard them say they were allowed to show pictures of the wounded but not the coffins being flown home. You do`nt have to jam comms to control information flow. Anyway I believe the families should be the arbiters in this case; i.e do they want the info broadcast, I believe this should apply to disaster reporting as well.To me showing coffins is tacky sensationalism. If people perish in a house fire or automobile accident does one have to show the coffins/fatalities to get the point across? I can't see why families would want the coffins containing their loved ones paraded on national TV anyway. If not showing this stuff is your definition of subtle censorship, I strongly disagree with your interpretation. If the deaths are not being reported, that's censorship.

SollyLama
2003-Nov-04, 04:02 PM
I vote for disclosure. However, no single news outlet is innocent of using those images and numbers to spin their agenda.
Watch CNN and it's Vietnam all over again.
Watch Fox and they focus on Iraqi casualties as much as possible.

Both sides of the coin used the soldiers themselves during the war too. Like there was a competition to be the most 'soldier friendly' channel.

I find little value in the media today except to pick out the few concrete facts they pepper their painfully biased stories with. And that includes Fox, who's slant at least agrees with mine somewhat.
Yellow journalism never really went away.

Chemist
2003-Nov-04, 06:20 PM
I voted no. But I disagree with "full disclosure". I think it's appropriate to report on casualties but withhold the names until the family is notified.

As supportive as I am of the war, finding the causalties rise is depressing. But it is also the reality. Their sacrifice should be recognized, not censored.

Chemist
2003-Nov-04, 06:24 PM
I The alternative being keeping the UN sanctions up wich have killed an estimated 2 million people.

That's the first I heard of this number. What time frame are we talking about here? I remember sanctions being blamed for 1.5 million deaths during an 8-year period. And it turned out that even this figure was an exaggeration. Who estimated 2 million? :o

Superluminal
2003-Nov-05, 12:33 AM
More US soldiers died in the first few minutes of D-Day than have died since 9-11. How would the American people react if we started incurring that kind of casualties?

tuffel999
2003-Nov-05, 03:11 AM
20-0 for no interesting.

captain swoop
2003-Nov-05, 09:29 AM
Is`nt





Isn't

Amadeus
2003-Nov-05, 10:07 AM
I The alternative being keeping the UN sanctions up wich have killed an estimated 2 million people.

That's the first I heard of this number. What time frame are we talking about here? I remember sanctions being blamed for 1.5 million deaths during an 8-year period. And it turned out that even this figure was an exaggeration. Who estimated 2 million? :o

I don't claim to be and expert. I can only go by what I have heard from various sources, mainly british media.

snowcelt
2003-Nov-05, 10:13 AM
Can not vote because there is no middle ground.

Tell when anyone dies? No. Why? Because if that person was doing something sensitive it would not be in the best interest of all those still alive.

Yes. I think Americans are mature enough to face the truth.

If those boys/girls were back at home base, or, in the case of reserves, at home: there is a good possibility that many of them would have died of training/work related accidents.

Statistics state that people die. If Americans understood this there would not be a problem.

johnb
2003-Nov-05, 10:18 AM
I said Fox because that`s where I heard it, they implied it applied to other channels. They also said it was a restriction imposed on them. That`s censorship. I agree with Archer about tacky sensationalism, but how many reporters make their living that way?

Captain swoop- I also wrote do`nt :oops:

Argos
2003-Nov-05, 11:23 AM
I think this question shouldnīt be asked, after all the blood that were shed through the centuries for we could enjoy the liberty of being informed.

Should we opt for hearing little white lies about how victorious is the Iraq campaign? Iraq is no wonderland [itīs a swamp instead], and the public must be informed of that.

Never trust any government (nor the CNN)

captain swoop
2003-Nov-05, 12:07 PM
In the Falklands war at Goose Green the TV news teams broadcast the details of the attacking force just before it went in and the Argentinian defenders were better prepared than they would have been. Following this the British commanders clamped down on the press and kept them in the dark until after attacks had gone in. Was this censorship? Sometimes press 'restrictions' are valid.

Amadeus
2003-Nov-05, 12:21 PM
In the Falklands war at Goose Green the TV news teams broadcast the details of the attacking force just before it went in and the Argentinian defenders were better prepared than they would have been. Following this the British commanders clamped down on the press and kept them in the dark until after attacks had gone in. Was this censorship? Sometimes press 'restrictions' are valid.

I can see the point in delaying reports so you don't warn the enemy.

Argos
2003-Nov-05, 01:01 PM
Was this censorship?

I beg your pardon, captain, but Iīm affraid it was. If the military donīt want their plans to be exposed they should take steps to do things right before the press come in, being smarter than the reporters, but never restraint the work of the media.



Sometimes press 'restrictions' are valid


I think restrictions would be unfortunately valid if it were a consensual world war against a really, really dangerous and powerful tyrant, like Hitler. They do not apply in dealing with Saddam Hussein in rags.

By using the euphemism "restriction" you get close to admit the censorship. One of the alleged aims of Iraq invasion was to ease the several "restrictions" that the totalitarian regime used to control the society. "Comical Ali" is an example of how restrictions and deception work in favor of a government.

Chemist
2003-Nov-05, 01:04 PM
I don't claim to be and expert. I can only go by what I have heard from various sources, mainly british media.

That's fair enough. Usually when I here specific claims I ask for details. I suppose if sanctions continued long enough there'd be two million deaths. That's why I asked about time frame. Since 1.5 million within eight years wasn't right it would obviously have taken longer.

But at any rate, I agree that the war was the lesser of two evils.

Humphrey
2003-Nov-05, 05:36 PM
Guys be careful, this is getting really close to political.

William_Thompson
2006-Jan-21, 09:19 PM
The Pentagon has a television network. I think that that should be broadcast.

Monique
2006-Jan-22, 12:17 AM
I am told American is democratic republic, how can citizens make choices if not informed. I agree in middle ground. Not necessary every time to tell situation of death, names not necessary until family inform, numbers need to be told.

Democracy mean people choose representatives. If American citizens do not want war in Iraq, military must come home.

paulie jay
2006-Jan-22, 12:39 AM
William!!!!! Enough with these ancient threads!!!!!!!

ToSeek
2006-Jan-22, 12:45 AM
Not an appropriate discussion for this forum. Locked.