The Media In Times Of War

[Diva]

Do you think the media should have unlimited access to the war zone. A reporter actually complained to the Secretary of Defense that they were not allowed on a mission. The Secretary of Defense couldn't answer right away, he was too stunned.

What rights, if any should the media have? When does reporting the news become sensationalism?

A reporter sends pictures of hurt and maimed citizens. Later the reporter tells that he was escorted by troups and told which pictures he could take. Yet he still sent them in. The terrorists use the media to their advantage.

Is there such a thing as freedom of speech without rules?

[LucifersChild]

wow i hadnt heard that.. that is absolutely ridiculous. no way should they have access to anywhere they want to go, especially the war zone. thats jeopardizing our national safety. and the fact that they already report too much in my opinion, is one of the reasons we're in the mess we're in. things of a intelligence nature, etc, should be left to the government to make press conferences on, etc they will tell us what we need to know without the media making accusations about it all

[Villager]

Originally posted by LucifersChild
they already report too much in my opinion, is one of the reasons we're in the mess we're in. things of a intelligence nature, etc, should be left to the government to make press conferences on, etc they will tell us what we need to know


Seems like a slightly naive view. Did you know that in the UK we still censor the press? Would you prefer that, to have a panel of Govt ministers decide what you can and cannot see?

Appreciate what you have in that, girl, freedom to and freedom from.

[Diva]

Villager, I understand your view... and for the most part stand behind the freedom of speech get out of jail card that the media uses.

But at what cost to the public safety? There has to be a point where the media backs off. I understand wanting to know what is going on in the war. But do you truly believe the media has a right to go on missions and report the location of our troups? By doing so they endanger both the troups and the outcome of the war itself.

Sure, showing death and victims can give you viewers... But we all know that these trajedies are a part of the war. Knowledge of the possibities and seeing it in color are two different things. People who once stood behind the war effort now start to waffle. War is hell and war is death. But what it shouldn't be is a reporter's oportunity to win that next award.

[Villager]

I didn't say that! being of partial conservative persuasion myself, I fully support the censorship of the press should they pose a risk, but it's a compromise, and my point was that in bemoaning the freedom of the press, LucofersChild was perhaps forgetting the advantages of such a system.
By all means censor the press, it's necessary, but freedom of the press is important in order to maintain a society which people feel is fair and not intruded upon too much by the government.

[Diva]

My appologies. I misinterpeted your reply. This subject is also based on personal experiences with the press and how they trample on peoples' human rights as if they own them. Then they flip that Freedom of speech clause and walk. They are not held accountable for the lies and incorrect reporting that that is given. I believe 'accountability' is the issue at hand.


I'm curious, when is the press supressed? Who makes the call? Is the information given to said person to be edited before approval? The UK has some of the most notorious gossip magazines around. It seems that they are above 'accountability also. How sad that the 'true' news items are the ones censored.