Media coverage in Vietnam vs. Iraq, need feedback? (interviews, illegal, drug)

[beenhereandthere]

Talking to someone last night, who was saying that the media coverage of Iraq is hurting the war effort, compared to Vietnam, which was, as far as coverage goes, a lot more secretive than the Iraq war. You did not have the networks (like CNN, etc) on the ground covering the news out of Vietnam back then. I told her how the media has exposed several things out of Iraq (like Blackwater and toture) and she thought that that had no business being reported.
Was this stuff not reported in Vietnam (according to her) since the government had more control of the press back then (which I find hard to believe, knowing how Bush and company have blackmailed and stifiled media coverage, look what they did to Rather)?
I'm 43 and for obvious reasons, did not follow what went on as much as I am following what is happening in Iraq.

[01Snake]

If the technology used today existed during the Vietnam era, you can bet the coverage would be similar to what were are seeing today.

[Rggr]

Originally Posted by beenhereandthere

Talking to someone last night, who was saying that the media coverage of Iraq is hurting the war effort, compared to Vietnam, which was, as far as coverage goes, a lot more secretive than the Iraq war.You did not have the networks (like CNN, etc) on the ground covering the news out of Vietnam back then. I told her how the media has exposed several things out of Iraq (like Blackwater and toture) and she thought that that had no business being reported.

I would not be surprised if more is reported now. We now have reporters embedded with military units and we have camera phones and you tube etc. I don't expect the news to not report things that are done wrong. However, I do have a problem when that's the vast majority of what they report. That allows things like those incidents to be generalized to the rest of our military which I do think hurts the effort. If they're going to report that, I think they should also point out the schools, hospitals, etc. that we build.

Originally Posted by beenhereandthere

Was this stuff not reported in Vietnam (according to her) since the government had more control of the press back then (which I find hard to believe, knowing how Bush and company have blackmailed and stifiled media coverage, look what they did to Rather)?.

Bush has blackmailed and stifled media coverage? They have allowed teh media to be embedded with the military to see what happens! They certainly did not stifle the Abu Grahib stories. If they stifle the media, they do a horrible job because I haven't seen a lot of pro-Bush or pro-military reporting. Look what they did to Rather? They did nothing to Rather. He reported something without due diligence and it backfired on him.

[SeanMc]

Originally Posted by beenhereandthere

Talking to someone last night, who was saying that the media coverage of Iraq is hurting the war effort, compared to Vietnam, which was, as far as coverage goes, a lot more secretive than the Iraq war. You did not have the networks (like CNN, etc) on the ground covering the news out of Vietnam back then. I told her how the media has exposed several things out of Iraq (like Blackwater and toture) and she thought that that had no business being reported.
Was this stuff not reported in Vietnam (according to her) since the government had more control of the press back then (which I find hard to believe, knowing how Bush and company have blackmailed and stifiled media coverage, look what they did to Rather)?
I'm 43 and for obvious reasons, did not follow what went on as much as I am following what is happening in Iraq.

Media coverage in Vietnam was much more secretive than in Iraq?. Surely you must be trolling.

The extensive coverage of the Vietnam war by on the ground reporters that accompanied & reported on the troops everywhere they went -even during firefights- made media history. Frontline soldiers were frequently interviewed in unscripted sessions where they freely voiced their oposition to the war, talked about drug use among the troops and expressed disdain for their leadership. Thanks to the openess of reporting back then, we learned what 'fragging' meant (the shooting of officers by their own men) and how it was becoming a growing worry for military leaders. Casualties were filmed as they were loaded onto helicopters and the wounded were interviewed in their hospital beds. We saw the infamous pictures of napalm-burned Vietnamese woman & children and watched as whole swaths of jungle went up in huge fireballs as the napalm dropped. We quickly learned about My Lai and other massacres our troops committed.
Television brought the whole world images of the fighting 24/7.

The coverage was so extensive in fact that it created the strongest anti-war sentiment this country has ever experienced. Hundreds of thousands even millions of Americans burned their draft-cards, their flags, had sit-ins and smoke-outs. It sparked international outrage and finally to our pulling out. Well, that plus the fact that the North Vietnamese kicked some serious American butt.

Media coverage in Iraq is the complete polar opposite. The dead & wounded are brought back under cover of darkness like criminals with no media ever present. Reporters are 'embedded' (aka in bed with) the troops and can only report what they are allowed to report. NO major media shows images of the carnage nor mayhem of the actual fighting. Soldiers ARE NOT allowed to give candid interviews like in Vietnam and the few interviews we see are carefully scripted from hand-chosen gung-ho soldiers.

And this lack of coverage is even more obscene if one considers that nowadays technology allows anyone to have access to a portable camcorder. We should be seeing MORE COVERAGE than ever compared to previous wars yet government censorship precludes it. Yet we see NOTHING except a few carefully chosen snippets here and there. UNLESS of course you go to Youtube and view PRIVATELY obtained coverage. Why do you think the US government wanted to shut down Al Jazeera?

That's because Bush's war machine learned from the lessons of Vietnam and decided not to repeat its errors. After all how many of you knuckleheads would continue to support this illegal & criminal invasion if you could see daily pictures of kids with the top of their heads blown off or dead women lying in a puddle of blood with their faces ripped-off?. Who would support Bush's War OF Terror if they could actually see what blowing-off someone's legs looks like on LIVE TV?.

Talk about 'secretive'.

[Yeledaf]

During my time in Vietnam (grunt, First Inf Div), we always knew when we came in from an ambush or sweep when something bad had happened to our buddies in base cap or at an NDP (Night Defensive Position): there was nearly always a media presence to report on any American KIAs. If things had gone particularly bad, a female reporter or two (usually from Agence France-Press, sometimes from an American outlet) was on the scene to jimmy up some pathos and try to manipulate a soldier into emoting over the loss of a friend, or saying something cynical about the war (as if combat troops were political commentators, or spent their time debating foreign policy).

How we despised those vultures.

[beenhereandthere]

Originally Posted by SeanMc

Media coverage in Vietnam was much more secretive than in Iraq?. Surely you must be trolling.

The extensive coverage of the Vietnam war by on the ground reporters that accompanied & reported on the troops everywhere they went -even during firefights- made media history. Frontline soldiers were frequently interviewed in unscripted sessions where they freely voiced their oposition to the war, talked about drug use among the troops and expressed disdain for their leadership. Thanks to the openess of reporting back then, we learned what 'fragging' meant (the shooting of officers by their own men) and how it was becoming a growing worry for military leaders. Casualties were filmed as they were loaded onto helicopters and the wounded were interviewed in their hospital beds. We saw the infamous pictures of napalm-burned Vietnamese woman & children and watched as whole swaths of jungle went up in huge fireballs as the napalm dropped. We quickly learned about My Lai and other massacres our troops committed.

The coverage was so extensive in fact that it created the strongest anti-war sentiment this country has ever experienced. Hundreds of thousands even millions of Americans burned their draft-cards, their flags, had sit-ins and smoke-outs. It sparked international outrage and finally to our pulling out. Well, that plus the fact that the North Vietnamese kicked some serious American butt.

Media coverage in Iraq is the complete polar opposite. The dead & wounded are brought back under cover of darkness like criminals with no media ever present. Reporters are 'embedded' (aka in bed with) the troops and can only report what they are allowed to report. NO major media shows images of the carnage nor mayhem of the actual fighting. Soldiers ARE NOT allowed to give candid interviews like in Vietnam and the few interviews we see are carefully scripted from hand-chosen gung-ho soldiers.

And this lack of coverage is even more obscene if one considers that nowadays technology allows anyone to have access to a portable camcorder. We should be seeing MORE COVERAGE than ever compared to previous wars yet government censorship precludes it.

That's because Bush's war machine learned from the lessons of Vietnam and decided not to repeat its errors. After all how many of you knuckleheads would continue to support this illegal & criminal invasion if you could see daily pictures of kids with the top of their heads blown off or dead women lying in a puddle of blood with their faces ripped-off?. Who would support Bush's War OF Terror if they could actually see what blowing-off someone's legs looks like on LIVE TV?.

Talk about 'secretive'.

My friend said it was secretive.
I found it hard to believe and that is why I posted this.

[TnHilltopper]

Changing forms of media (due to technology), changing views and desires of the public, and of course the interjection of profit into news reporting all have a role to play.

I wish the news would show more positive aspects of our presence in Iraq but as the old saying goes, "If it bleeds, it leads". In addition to showing a more well rounded overall reporting of Iraq I also wish the media would show the reality of it as well.

American's have become quite comfortable in watching war as something some kid with a joystick 1000 miles away, guides a bomb down an air shaft. What is never shown is when peoples heads are emptied of their brains and their collapsed skulls ooze brain matter and blood over a city street. Or how the broken bodies that have been mutilated, burned, or just disgraced are strewn over towns, villages, cities and countryside alike, as though they were lawn ornaments. This is the reality of war, and the reality of war is something that about 99% of the population of America has no tangible understanding of.

If our cause to enter into war is just, then the imagery and sounds will be understood to be part of the price of going to war and will be accepted. For me, it is like the 25% interest on a credit card that too few ever consider as part of the price before purchasing. I my self would give the American people a little more credit, as if our leadership were at least up front and honest about the costs and effects of war, as well as the debate to go to war being transparent and credible, then the people would likely support the actions of their leaders, especially if they felt they had a role in it.

This isn't about Bush or Clinton or any single man or group, for me it is a failure of the general population to be better educated, informed, involved, aware, and read to take action if need be. Stop being a spectator and become a participant.

To shield men from the effects of folly is to fill the world full of fools.

[beenhereandthere]

Originally Posted by beenhereandthere
Was this stuff not reported in Vietnam (according to her) since the government had more control of the press back then (which I find hard to believe, knowing how Bush and company have blackmailed and stifiled media coverage, look what they did to Rather)?.

This is from SeanMc:
Bush has blackmailed and stifled media coverage? They have allowed teh media to be embedded with the military to see what happens! They certainly did not stifle the Abu Grahib stories. If they stifle the media, they do a horrible job because I haven't seen a lot of pro-Bush or pro-military reporting. Look what they did to Rather? They did nothing to Rather. He reported something without due diligence and it backfired on him.

Come on dude, seriously? The document, while it was something that could not be verified, did not mean for sure that is was forged.
The contents of it, from SEVERAL accounts, have been proven that Bush was a deseter. He and his gang did not like it and pressured CBS to punish Rather.
From Wiki, pay attention to the last paragraph:
Copies of the documents were obtained by CBS News producer Mary Mapes from Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, a former officer in the Texas Army National Guard (TexARNG). In the report, Dan Rather asserted the documents "were taken from Colonel Killian’s personal files" and that they had been authenticated by experts retained by CBS. The papers, purportedly made by Bush's commander, the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, included criticisms of Bush's service in the Guard during the 1970s.

The authenticity of the documents was challenged within hours on Internet forums and blogs, with questions initially focused on alleged anachronisms in the documents' typography and content soon spreading to the mass media. Although CBS and Rather defended the authenticity and usage of the document for a two-week period, continued scrutiny from independent and rival news organizations and independent analysis of other copies of the documents obtained by USA Today raised questions about the documents' validity and led to a public repudiation on September 20, 2004. Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now – I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question,"[3] and CBS News President Andrew Heyward said, "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."[3][4]

The documents have subsequently never been authenticated, and no originals have been produced for examination. Burkett claims he burned the originals.[5]

Several months later, a CBS-appointed panel detailed criticism of both the initial CBS news segment and CBS' "strident defense" during the aftermath.[6] The findings in the Thornburgh-Boccardi report led to the firing of producer Mary Mapes; several senior news executives were asked to resign, and CBS apologized to viewers. The panel did not specifically consider the question of whether the documents were forgeries but concluded that the producers had failed to authenticate the documents and cited "substantial questions regarding the authenticity of the Killian documents."

This is just one example of how Bush has, if nothing else, intimadated the media, for his own bidding.