War and The Press
Posted by: Deane F on 31 March 2007
This topic was inspired by a post of Rasher's and deserves a thread of it's own, I reckon.
I tend to agree with Robert Fisk in that if the news media were to report war properly then the citizens of democracies would not allow their countries to go to war - but find some other way.
"Report properly" means NOT sanitising it or making it "low key":
Let the news media show exactly what bullets do - rather than make wee holes like in the movies.
Let them show the bodies with bowels hanging out.
It is all there in the archives. The camera operators in the "trouble spots" take the footage.
Arguments for or against?
quote:Originally posted by Rasher:
The real problem is that the media is blowing this up into a serious international incident way beyond its actual importance, which will only promote the importance of the act, and may lead to further unncecessary repercussions. If only the press would leave it low key, it would just ride itself out. The press is the real serious risk to world peace because they want to report conflict.
I tend to agree with Robert Fisk in that if the news media were to report war properly then the citizens of democracies would not allow their countries to go to war - but find some other way.
"Report properly" means NOT sanitising it or making it "low key":
Let the news media show exactly what bullets do - rather than make wee holes like in the movies.
Let them show the bodies with bowels hanging out.
It is all there in the archives. The camera operators in the "trouble spots" take the footage.
Arguments for or against?
Posted on: 01 April 2007 by Don Atkinson
Deane,
Your thread might/might not be useful.
However, you have got of to a bad start by not making it clear that the opening quote you have copied from Rasher was refering to a DIPLOMATIC incident, which the press was seeking to turn into a newpaper-selling headline-grabbing event, which runs the risk of escalating the incident out of all prportion to the initial events - even to the possibility of war itself.
Rasher was therefore right to suggest that such things were best left low-key.
From my point of view, the press can't be trusted to do anything other than further their own interests. To this end they will make mischief. I don't consider this mischief-making will decline if they are permitted to use "blood-and-guts" footage as freely as you are proposing.
Cheers
Don
Your thread might/might not be useful.
However, you have got of to a bad start by not making it clear that the opening quote you have copied from Rasher was refering to a DIPLOMATIC incident, which the press was seeking to turn into a newpaper-selling headline-grabbing event, which runs the risk of escalating the incident out of all prportion to the initial events - even to the possibility of war itself.
Rasher was therefore right to suggest that such things were best left low-key.
From my point of view, the press can't be trusted to do anything other than further their own interests. To this end they will make mischief. I don't consider this mischief-making will decline if they are permitted to use "blood-and-guts" footage as freely as you are proposing.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 01 April 2007 by Deane F
Don
I take your point with regard to Rasher's post and my quoting of it here. Too late to edit, however.
The Press is not an organ of government in a democracy, however. Diplomatic incidents (by their nature international events) are government business and we all have a right to be informed.
Certainly the news media has a responsibility to exercise restraint in certain circumstances and there are examples of them having done so in the past. While they might pander to their audience to a greater or lesser extent they do also serve a very important function in a democracy. Expecting them to act (or not) in a certain way in order to achieve a particular outcome would be an abdication of their responsibility.
It is governments who have shown us how dangerous it is to manipulate information to achieve political (or diplomatic) ends. To ask the news media to do the same goes too far.
Deane
I take your point with regard to Rasher's post and my quoting of it here. Too late to edit, however.
The Press is not an organ of government in a democracy, however. Diplomatic incidents (by their nature international events) are government business and we all have a right to be informed.
Certainly the news media has a responsibility to exercise restraint in certain circumstances and there are examples of them having done so in the past. While they might pander to their audience to a greater or lesser extent they do also serve a very important function in a democracy. Expecting them to act (or not) in a certain way in order to achieve a particular outcome would be an abdication of their responsibility.
It is governments who have shown us how dangerous it is to manipulate information to achieve political (or diplomatic) ends. To ask the news media to do the same goes too far.
Deane
Posted on: 01 April 2007 by Don Atkinson
quote:Expecting them to act (or not) in a certain way in order to achieve a particular outcome would be an abdication of their responsibility.
I haven't suggested that we should "ask" "legislate" or "otherwise force" the news media to act in any way other than under their current restrictions in the west (children watch the news as well). You have - suggesting they should be encouraged to show blood and guts. And you made it quite clear WHY you want them to do this - YOUR political ends.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 01 April 2007 by Deane F
Don
Absolutely fair point in respect of my own political ends etc.
And I don't interpret anybody as having suggested that the news media should be forced to do anything.
I do suggest that if our decisions and opinions were fully informed then our governments might be more apt to be what we want them to be.
Discontent with government runs high in the West.
Deane
Absolutely fair point in respect of my own political ends etc.
And I don't interpret anybody as having suggested that the news media should be forced to do anything.
I do suggest that if our decisions and opinions were fully informed then our governments might be more apt to be what we want them to be.
Discontent with government runs high in the West.
Deane
Posted on: 01 April 2007 by Roy T
The customer gets exactly what they pay for when it comes to reporting be it by tv, radio, press, free press or blogs. This I feel perfectly reflects the importance that members of the public place upon having access to quality news gathering and well considered editorial content.
An example of this might be to look at how the FT view the capture of British forces in the Gulf and judge if you think it worth the cover price.
An example of this might be to look at how the FT view the capture of British forces in the Gulf and judge if you think it worth the cover price.
quote:Dangerous test of wills in the Gulf
Published: March 31 2007 03:00 | Last updated: March 31 2007 03:00
Iran's seizure of 15 British sailors and marines in the northern Gulf may have begun as a shot across the bows of western powers as they upped the pressure on Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions and its demands to be recognised as a regional power. But it now has the makings of a crisis - one that could spiral out of the control of both sides unless they damp it down fast.
This is not really about whether the Royal Navy patrols were in Iranian or Iraqi waters when they were seized by Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards. The barrages of grid-references being fired from both sides are absurd given that there is no agreed demarcation of the waters in question (as opposed to the Shatt al-Arab that flows into them).
What this would seem to be is a test of wills. The UK servicemen (and one woman) were picked up the day before the United Nations Security Council voted, unanimously, to tighten sanctions on Iran until it suspends its uranium enrichment programme.
More broadly, the US and its allies have been trying to "push back" against Iranian forces and proxies in Iraq, supposedly prior to negotiating with Tehran from a position of strength. These robust tactics, including the capture and killing of Iranian "agents", may be spreading into Iranian territory. Somebody is stirring up Iran's non-Shia and non-Persian minorities - from the Kurds in the north to the Sunni Arabs in Khuzestan, within sight of where the marines were seized.
The Iranian regime, certainly, believes the Anglo-American coalition in Iraq is operating special forces inside its territory - in the same way it did in western and southern Iraq in 2002-03 prior to launching an invasion.
Under these circumstances, and with both sides flexing their muscles, any provocation is extremely dangerous.
That said, Iran's treatment of their captives, parading them on television and issuing coerced statements, is grotesque and intolerable. It is a reminder of how the mullahs' regime tramples upon the rights of its own people and does nothing to advance Iran's cause.
The British government should not, however, be altogether surprised that its indignation is not registering with quite the force it supposes. The Security Council has not let the UK down by only expressing "grave concern". The last time the Council adopted an unedited account from a member-state into a resolution - after the Madrid bombings three years ago that the then Spanish government insisted were carried out by Basque terrorists - it was made a fool of within hours. This is not a cut and dried situation.
It needs to be defused with a mix of firmness and finesse. Escalation, by either side, with the narrow waters of the Gulf already boiling with warships, carries huge risks. Iran still needs to be confronted with a reasonable menu of rewards and penalties for its behaviour by a united international community. But this is not the battleground.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Posted on: 01 April 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:These robust tactics, including the capture and killing of Iranian "agents", may be spreading into Iranian territory. Somebody is stirring up Iran's non-Shia and non-Persian minorities - from the Kurds in the north to the Sunni Arabs in Khuzestan, within sight of where the marines were seized.
The Iranian regime, certainly, believes the Anglo-American coalition in Iraq is operating special forces inside its territory - in the same way it did in western and southern Iraq in 2002-03 prior to launching an invasion.
Under these circumstances, and with both sides flexing their muscles, any provocation is extremely dangerous.
erik scothron
Senior Member
Posted Sun 19 March 2006 17:00 Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Roy T:
Annexing Khuzestan; Battle-Plans for Iran Visit it (via Google Earth) why you still can! I think that the Proposed Iranian Petro Bourse is the one to watch.
Roy,
I agree. I have mentioned this on a couple of threads but no one took it up - I KNOW British and American special forces have been covertly crawling over much of Khuzestan for some time looking for ways to secure their oil and refineries. Just like Iraq they are looking for any pretext to invade and it is not coincidence that the recent spat over Iran's alleged desire to develop nuclear power has taken on such significance. It was entirely predictable.
Erik
Posted on: 01 April 2007 by Beano
Would we be safer in the dark?
Beano
Beano