Interesting thought regarding war & the media.

[Gary Swartzlander]

Listening to ESPN radio this morning (of all places) one of the on-air personalities was discussing some of the political issues of the day.

He was talking about the war, and said something that made me think, he said "war was never intended to be covered on the minute by minute basis that it can be covered now days". That may or may not be true, but got me wondering what the implications would have been for the revolutionary war or the civil war, if the media coverage was like it is today?

Many times fighting continued well beyond any surrender etc., because it took so long for news to travel.

What do you think? How different would the outcomes have been?

[Barb Bouldrey]

I think we know too much about the day-by-day war. I believe that there were atrosities in the Civil War that would make us cringe and say, "Americans just do not act that way."

And today, I think we have more "yellow" journalism than truth. It appears as truth, but so much of it is slanted.

Barb

[Bruce Carriker]

I'm guessing that in today's environment, had the public been bombarded with television new coverage of the landings in North Africa, Anzio, Normandy, Tarawa, etc, etc, our public will to continue fighting that war might have been affected as well.

To borrow the old "law" joke, WAR is like sausage - no one should watch it being made.

[Sara Sheppard]

If the revolutionary war would have been covered as our current war is - we would likely still be under British rule.

I would agree that war is not meant to be covered in a minute by minute update. War, as with any major change, evolves over time. It is not simply 1 battle. maybe a battle could be covered with details but not a war. Wars are long. They have days of "winning" and "losing". And there are so many "unknowns" about war (to the general public they are unknown). IF what we know is all that is reported then there is still a large part of the story not reported - simply because it is known only by gov't and military at this time.

Sara

[Cindi Hammons]

Sara,

I agree. Washington was a real loser...seriously...for quite a while until he and the military started winning. If CNN had been at Valley Forge, Washington would have been thrown out and we would still be saluting the royal family of Great Britain. The Revolutionary War was a looooooong campaign which our modern model of war does not allow. In fact, were it not for French assistance, I'm fairly certain we would not have won the war.

Intersting thoughts.

[Bruce Carriker]

The first ones...I think...to grasp the value of the media and public perception, as it relates to war were the North Vietnamese. For example, at every level, the Tet Offensive of 1968 was a military defeat for the NVA/VC. However, the way it was covered in the US press, it was the first step down the long road to withdrawl because it was perceived as a loss by Americans at home.

Years later, COL (ret) Harry Sommers, who was (is?) and editorial writer for the ARMY TIMES, returned to Vietnam and walked over the battlefields with some of his wartime opponents, who were generals in the Vietnamese Army.

Sommers said to one of the, "You know, General, you never defeated us on the battlefield." To which the guy replied, "Ah, but Colonel. What you failed to realize was that we didn't have to."

[Jim Franklin]

The Battle of New Orleans would never have been fought at the end of the "War of 1812" since it was fought several weeks after the peace treaty was signed supposedly ending the war. It is absolutely deplorable the unfair and unbalanced bias of the major press to snatch a loss out of possible victory and cause our veterans of Vietnam to be treated less than the heros of freedom for which they fought. The possible downfall of the USA may certainly be laid at the feet of the major press gurus. Too many of the electorate accept the slant that they put on their so called version of the news. As I asked NBC's Brian Williams "how wrong will your polls and predictions be when the votes are all counted and how come the reports and accounts given by our returning heros is so much different than your broadcasts." Having studied journalism in depth I am glad I did not follow that career possibility. One problem has been that the Republicans have been "shooting themselves in the foot" for most of the time since they took over Congess in 1994. The old Western Independent Conservative. Yes, I have already voted and included an Independent for the Ada County Commission and not a straight ticket.

[Scott Daniels]

This thread is a little like Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men" saying, "You can't handle the truth..."

I heard the ESPN comment also, and understood that here is a secular guy saying a secular thing. I believe he was saying, "War means that there are times when you have to overcome evil with evil, and not everyone has the stomach for what really happens in war."

I guess my question from a Christian perspective is: If I believe we are supposed to overcome evil with good, why are we arguing that public knowledge of the horrors of war is such a bad thing? Maybe being forced to view the terrible things that happen in battle might make us more dilligent to look for alternatives to war in the future?

My fear with the 24-hour media coverage is that it is making us harder rather than more sensitive to the ugliness of war. We've become used to hearing "120 people died in a bombing in Iraq today... and now this, Reese Witherspoon and her husband are splitting up." Our attention span, even for violence is pretty short.