A couple of you place the blame on the masses for the state of the media, but you seem to forget an age where the media was actually responsible in its reporting. Perhaps you're all too young. Heck, I know for sure I am. However, a look back on the incredible career of Walter Cronkite is enough proof that the media has certainly changed over the years to the ratings mongering cesspool that we must bear today. I'm pretty sure that in my formative years, political commentators were few and far between and networks had real policies against reporters choosing sides. Nowadays, they're a dime a dozen and it seems like everyone is biased and it's become a free for all of reporting how you want to. The professionalism has surely degraded.I'm only 25, but I'm quite adamant in my belief that the news of yesteryear was presented much more professionally. Sure, we have all this technology now and platforms where people can express their opinions, but why do we suddenly need infotainment all over the place rather than just no-nonsense reporting? Liberal media, conservative media, back and forth...what the hell is this malarkey? It used to be that reporters and journalists were looked up to as beacons of information and truth. Now with the even-handedness gone we can't tell heads or tails from this chimera.It IS about accountability. Sure, we have this wonderful thing known as free speech, but when networks, whose power of speech is unequivocally very influential upon the masses, start injecting their agendas into the information they present, they are robbing their viewers of the power to formulate their own independent worldviews. Of course, there are people who will try and argue that it's the individual's choice what they want to take in, but what if I want to choose a network with the resources to bring me current events in a timely and accurate manner without attempting to polarize the views on what is being reported? That's the choice I don't have anymore and that's the one I miss dearly.I say restore journalistic accountability. Whether it is war reporting, natural disasters, a shooting at Fort Hood (messy reporting if I've ever had to sit through it), an attempt to reform American Health Care, etc., it just seems reporting without commenting no longer exists. I'm sure that Walter Cronkite was already shaking his head before his death at the downward slide of journalism. He's most certainly rolling in his grave now. This is not how the news used to be and this was not how I envisioned growing up to watch the news would be like. I refuse to acknowledge these clowns nowadays as legitimate reporters. It's all just infotainment.Let me be very clear though, as war reporting is the main subject here. It is intrinsic to a free nation that it be educated and informed of that which the nation undertakes. As such, not only does war reporting need to be done, it needs to be done without bias and without agendas. Walter Cronkite's amazing efforts in Vietnam are proof positive that we need such reporting. How else are we supposed to decide logically upon whether or not it's justified or whether we need to remain entrenched? People like Joe The Plumber are merely mouthpieces for ignorance to remove impediments for conservative agendas and warhawks.As far as how much they get to report on? Everything BUT troop positions and that which can compromise operations and lives in real time. We need to know if our troops are conducting themselves properly as representatives of our nation. War is messy, but we need not become beasts against lesser forces. However, about one thing that was addressed, earlier: although the military should not waste resources on the constant escort of journalists in war zones, I think it's proper that we not leave American citizens in enemy hands should that occur. Of course, this is not to say they need no protection, but they should at least offer up something in return monetarily or at least hire a private military corporation for such purposes.
I believe the mass media should be able to cover war in the United States. As far as other countries, I have no specific feelings since I know not their customs or practices. In the United States we try to spread this equality idea around. Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, etc.With Freedom of the Press, this states that any individual or group of individuals is allowed to report on anything they wish, even if this bad faces the current government. Because of this, the people have a right to know what their government chooses to do with their money. One of things they do with the money is help fund wars. If people disagree with these wars, they should have the right to find out the truth regarding said war, and if they feel strongly enough about it, they should also have the right to let others know what they have found out. This is what our "mass media" supposedly does. However, in present times, mass media as a beacon of truth is non-existent. It is all about publicizing and becoming the next main anchor. Securing your own personal career over providing unbiased truth to the public for them to discern. Imagine, if Paul Revere had been given the wrong amount of lights to know how the British arrived, just because the messenger decided to change things up a bit. That could very well have been the victory of the British. Now, this still cannot be ethically considered, since we still have two sides. What if the reporter favors the enemy? Should they not have the same right to provide false information. Is it a crime to lie? Only under oath. What if their goal is to bring about downfall of American Military? If they can accomplish this in a non-violent way...should it be allowed? Many would say that because you live in so and so country, you should support so and so country. What if the country is not something you do support though? What if you do not believe in the systems implemented in the first place to keep said society existing. Should you be forced to relocate just because you do not agree and you voice your opinion on the evening news for all to hear? Lawyers use and twist words to get guilty criminals away from conviction. Why can't the same apply with the news reporters? A news reporter should be able to state whatever they like on the matter. If they took the effort to go to the place in question to get their word validated over others who choose not to go, they should be able to use their knowledge and words to sway the public to whatever direction they choose. Tis the Freedom of Speech. If others want to debunk the slandering reporter, then they too should go to the military and gain the same credentials and challenge the other reporter on even grounds. The general public is at the mercy of hear-say. If the public wants to really know whats going on instead of being manipulated and hand fed all their information they need to find out first hand. If they wish not to take the effort to do so, then they have no justification for complaining about receiving false information. It is the individual's responsibility to learn what is correct and what isn't. Whether they hear this from the biased government, biased news networks, or biased military, they either need to learn to sort out all the details, or they need to find out for themselves.Should a soldier be responsible for making sure civilians are safe while they try to discern the truth of the event? Nope. Soldiers did not sign up to protect curious civilians who wish to wander into war territory. Just as a professor or employer is not responsible for making sure you make it home safely, a soldier should not be responsible for making sure curious civilians make it through the event safely. They can choose to if they feel morally obligated to, but for no reason should they be forced to. It is up to the individual to keep themselves safe if they are fully capable of doing this.
Sorry this isn't as well-developed a first reply as I know you were hoping for It is my opinion that war reporters are necessary. As was shown during the American Civil War, and perhaps even moreso during the Vietnam conflict, people tend to forget the realities of war if they can't see and hear about them. This is good for warmongers, as people tend to be less passionate about things that don't affect them personally, even on just an emotional level, and if they don't have to see all the dead civilians or hear about the horrible conditions both sides are enduring, they are less likely to start demanding an end to the violence. Some may argue that it lowers the morale of soldiers and makes the war effort less effective, but with so many wars started and continued for such inane reasons, we can't afford to turn a blind eye to it all and remain ignorant, just because the puppets and puppeteers don't like being watched while they work. I do think that fact-checking should be a major priority, however. There needs to be a way to hold journalists accountable for their words, when lives may literally depend on them reporting truthfully. I'm not suggesting they can't have a bias; everyone knows that bias is impossible to avoid in journalism, especially when it involves something as emotional as war. However, what facts they present need to be correct. As an example, if there have been civilian casualties, they should not be allowed to claim there were none, or to put the figure far higher than it really is. Some may argue that this interferes with freedom of the press or even freedom of speech, but just about every country that has such freedoms has reasonable limits on those freedoms (for instance, you can call someone a douchebag, but you can't say he's a douchebag who eats babies in his spare time and should be killed if seen in public). This would just be one more. Reporters need to remember that they're exactly that, reporters, and not storytellers.I do not, however, think the military should be held responsible for their safety. As I said earlier, what they're doing is necessary, and I respect them immensely, no matter their bias, for putting themselves in danger to provide such an important service to civilians, but if the military has to worry about protecting them, they've become a nuisance and a danger, as not only will they cause whomever they're with to be less efficient, but they will make that group a target. Their reporting should reduce the number of lives lost unnecessarily, not increase it.
Hm....I think we, as citizens, must demand more of our media (I realize I'm a bit off topic, penalize me if you must). Our media can essentially say what they want and report on whatever they like and we just accept it. During the 9/11 attacks, there was a news report of 4 non-Arabs being arrested for having connections with the attacks. What happened to it afterwards? Anyone hear anything about it? Anyone remember anything about the bombs that were planted on the George Washington Bridge? Politics and media have a strong bond between each other, the media reports what politicians and those people in charge want them to report. We need to start being more critical of our media. In Canada, there was a case where Canwest Media forced all of their editorials to take the same position on an issue. Those who did not comply were fired. Link The point of media in democracy is to report to the citizens of the on-goings in the city and within government. When media does something like Canwest did, that's when people need to be exceptionally critical of the things they see, hear and read. As another example, Joe the Plumber (a complete waste of life and space, but that's another matter) was sent to Israel to report about the on-goings there about a year ago. Link . This is a situation where we should have been more critical of the decision to send him over. What in the hell makes him well suited to go report in Israel? Citizens should have been angry that pjtv.com did this (unless the plan was to get him in harm's way, in which case, ok, gotcha ) because Joe has a clear conservative bias and has no media credibility.I think the blame falls more on the shoulders of the citizens than on the media. Of course, we can't expect the media to be perfect, but we as citizens must get all perspectives on an issue. It is our duty as citizens in a democracy to get informed on government activities and voice our opinion, after all, democracy comes from the Greek δημοκρατία - dēmokratía, meaning power to or for the people. We control society, government and media work for us. We must make sure they are doing their jobs properly, not us being told by them what is right or wrong.
Now that i have read it once I notice it is slightly off topic.My apologies.There is no media worse than the indian television media where the many private TV news channels compete against each other to see who has the most controversial news.It is horribly annoying and It feels like they are Trying to develop a simple mistake or unimportant event into an international scandal and then can take credit for doing so and revealing the 'scandal'.They have gone so far as to interrupt expert speakers so they ask questions and get out the answer they want and they also are very biased and it is a rather large influence they have on the whole educated nation. They occassionally speak not full truths (slightly more than half truths and love to focus on unimportant things which they can have the viewers almost debating each other about it and again cause all sorts of problems.The way they present their news is also now in a way that they induce the wrong thoughts in people and deepen and worsen the situations.There is little censorship and that was a big risk during the Mumbai terror attacks of 26 Oct 2008, Where the terrorists watched Live TV to know where the special forces were. The newscasters must realise what kind of an impact they have and use it well.At this point of time they are using it and they think they are usingg it well but they are so blindly patriotic and stuff that the younger generation of viewers tend to believe them completely and form an opinion without knowing the whole story.This misuse of the power they have is against the fundamental goals of journalism which is to get all the information possible to the people without being biased.( I feel)They do this to get a bigger viewership and whatever comes with it.However the State owned channels (which do not need high ratings and still are watched by the masses and have standards set by the government which have been kept up beautifully down the years) give the facts and no opinions So the viewers may make up their own without being affected by anybody else's.The example at present is theat the attacks on indians in australia (Horrible as it is getting to be with quite a few attacks in 6 months including 2 deaths) is termed as racist (which is possible) and that the australian government and police are not doing enough (or hardly anything according to some news channels,They don;t even completely condemn the attacks) to protect the indians.I feel that the tension is growing and the people are getting angry but luckily we have good politicians who don't make a meal out of it yet (although the media has made it a feast).Now a bit on war journalism.I do believe that in wars on terrorism where they may have to resort to many means of combat to achieve it the army may and must tell the press what they can and cannot do. So No information is leaked and they do not become predictable. And at times when they are in an emergency they may well have to resort to special methods and the camera may distract them and the precense of the press may affect the way they g oabout things and reduce the whole efficiency of the operation.I made up this post in a short while so i think you will find lots of things to argue with as i haven't edited it,It's four lines in notepad but its so much bigger here.
