Censorship of War News Undermines Public Trust - 20 views
started by Jude John on 31 Aug 09
started by Jude John on 31 Aug 09
Start a New Topic » « Back to the New Media Ethics 2009 course group
started by Jude John on 31 Aug 09
"disinformation - although it also misleads the folks at home - is very useful to the military. Every West Point cadet learns how pretending that the Normandy beach invasion was not the real thing was one of the major reasons it succeeded."
"Such phony optimism will encourage public support in the short run, just as false low assessments of the enemy's size did early in the war in Vietnam. But it undermines support in the longer run, along with the precious trust in government."
Looking at this article we are reminded that wars are not just physical battles, but psychological ones as well. Should the public demand to know specific information (such as death rate)? Or should they just rely on the "official news" from the military? This article reminds me of the movie "Wag the Dog" which shows how wars are essentially large-scale public relations exercises.
Is there an ethical way to report war? Should there be an ethical way to report war? After all, news will find its way to the soldiers on the ground, and such news can improve/ drop morale, or serve to confuse them (if information is not consistent with their reality). But then again, the public has a right to know the progress of the military, which they are funding.
In my opinion, there is no such thing. War being the complex multifaceted operation that it is involves so many different audiences. The military's PR department can only do what it can to control sentiments so that these sentiments are contributory to a victory.
http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC090907-0000047/The-photo-thats-caused-a-stir
AP decided to publish a photo of a fatally wounded young Marine lying crumpled in the mud, his vulnerable face visible to the camera.
The United States Defence Secretary did not want the press to release it. Neither did the family of the deceased solder in the photo.
After lengthy internal discussions, AP concluded that the photo was a part of the war they needed to convey.
I don't really think there's an ethical way to report war. But I opine that AP has gone over the board with the photo. Surely the public doesn't need a photo to know the 'reality' of war, as if the photo is THE reality in the first place; it is merely a (re)presentation of the reality. It seems that AP has subscribed to the fallacy of affective corporeality (to borrow a term from Theatre Studies), that further 'performance' of the war is required to affectively engage the readers.
I don't need to see a photo to know how cruel or brutal war is! There are enough blockbusters on war around. And I have a mind should I require images.
But then again, some people don't usually use their minds, and so they made an (ass) out of (u) and (me) that the military is supposed to be gentlemanly.
What is wrong with these people?