War being televised?
There is talk that if and when we go to war, it will be televised. What are your opinions regarding this? I'd really like to hear opinions from everyone.
I personally do not think that this should be televised. I understand we are going through this whole reality TV epidemic, but this is definitely not reality TV material. There are just some things that should not be shown on televesion and this is one of them. |
I don't want to see minute by minute coverage of the atrocities that will be comitted by both sides. As if we weren't already desensitized enough!
I think we should just be kept aware of major developments. That's all I need to know. I'll use my imagination for the rest. |
if the reporters want to do live broadcasts where the war is taking place then fine. but i dont want to see any killing or anything of the sort. that is just downright inhumane
|
No
Personally I do not want to see one bit of coverage on it. I really don't think that we should even be going to war, plus with all the anti-war rallies that are going on by people in the entertainment industry, that would just add to why we don't need to see live coverage of the war. If they decide to show the war that would only hurt Pres. Bush's ratings (as if they are not hurting right now). I know to many people over there and don't need to see the image of them getting bombed. That's just my 1874 cents.
One heart, One way |
During Desert Storm, were we not getting reports or feeds from that Peter Arnett guy and Bernard Shaw from CNN?
|
Quote:
Dove Gal, I agree with you 110%, although I gave my 1872 cents. :p |
I'm not sure. I want to know what is going on, and what our country had gotten itself into this time, but I also could not deal with seeing my friends and family over there fighting. I think live broadcasts are fine if you don't see the shooting, bombing, etc...just not every second of the day
|
Definitely.
I think it's really important to know what's going on over there because it affects us in a huge way -- we can't just bury our heads in the sand and pretend like it's not going on. As for little kids seeing footage, I remember seeing Desert Storm footage and yes, it affected me, but it didn't scar me for life. If anything, it just made me more aware of the role the United States plays in worldwide politics and things like that. |
NO COVERAGE please.
I know we have the technological means to do so but really that is just TOO MUCH. |
War coverage is an interesting thing. People believe that coverage of what was going on in Vietnam was what led a lot of Middle America to think that the conflict wasn't the best thing for the United States. On the other hand, it can be graphic. I don't really consider what I saw during Desert Storm as war coverage in the same way as what was shown during Vietnam--there was little hand-to-hand conflict in the Middle East.
We're going to see it on the nightly news. How much we see will definitely turn the tide towards or against any war. |
Quote:
It's easy to be pro-war when your enemy has no face and you don't have to watch anybody getting killed. |
Quote:
What I heard on the radio this morning is that a television station (not sure which one) is thinking about showing "live coverage." There was also mention about having cameras on the helmets of soldiers, although I do not know how likely that would be. Basically, they wouldn't be showing soldiers having a cup of tea, rather in full combat gear, at work. |
Guarantee ya that when the Tomahawks and Nighthawks start flyin' and the Batbombers start bombin' there's gonna be wall-to-wall-round-the-clock saturation news coverage on a scale unprecedented since 9/11. Probably way too much.
Reportedly they're supposed to be testing MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Burst, aka the super 'daisy cutter' bomb) today. (The 'daisy cutter' (military designation BLU-82) was designed during the Vietnam War to clear out thick jungle to allow helicopters to land, but it also found a new use during Gulf War I and Afghanistan as an area-denial bomb designed to wipe out minefields and troop concentrations in the open. 'Big BLU-82' had something like 12,000 pounds of explosive, MOAB has almost twice as much and packs an even nastier punch.) They're supposed to be videotaping the test, to show Saddam he's NOT going to be safe anywhere in Iraq when the shooting starts. |
My honest to God, deep down opinion is that reporters and cameras have no place in the war. I understand that the American people like to be informed of the situation, but i would rather the US Govt be giving us our updates as opposed to Wolf Blitzer on CNN. To me, allowing reporters on the front lines is a security risk, as they are not trained to respond to capture and interrogation as are soldiers.
Call me naive, or a hawk, or whatever, but i'm from the school of thought that when this country is at war, we rally behind our gov't officials and our military and give them the support they deserve. I guarantee that the Bush Administration knows far more about the situation in Iraq than any of us do and i for one am willing to trust my president. I would rather they release information concerning the war that is declassified and not a threat to reveal our plans or troop movements than have some news organization broadcasting potentially sensitive information for all the world to see. Kitso KS 361 times some of the most vehement anti-war protestors will have to eat their words after we over-throw sadaam and gain full knowledge of his atrocities. |
Quote:
I don't remember seeing anything gorey or gooky. BUT, If the media can put out ads with folks' private parts showing and the after affects of copulating, then I'm sure showing a WAR on TV isn't that big of a deal. :rolleyes: |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:03 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.