AMERICAN TRAITORS

Chief · 08-16-2006, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I do not think the military should have the right to control the media but they should have the right to control what the media reports based on the military. The press does not have the right to give out secret information that could risk the lives of soldiers such as positions and operations. For the most part this is not allowed the military only lets the press know what they want them to know.

Yes this is what I meant. I just didn't word it right. I meant that the media should answer to the military about what military information to disclose. sorry about the miss understanding.

Erich · 08-16-2006, 02:01 PM

simple

go back to WW2 days and limit the media

essentially keep them well away from any combat zone. first hand reporting is not always the best and we have seen how it has been tainted since 9-11 with our own US version of reporting. Remember the present days news media makes the news, it does not report it. And that is for ALL US news lines, TV or paper

evangilder · 08-16-2006, 02:02 PM

Amen brother!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-16-2006, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief

Yes this is what I meant. I just didn't word it right. I meant that the media should answer to the military about what military information to disclose. sorry about the miss understanding.

No problem that is what I thought you meant.

kiwimac · 08-17-2006, 07:01 AM

Disagree completely,

A free press, printing stuff others don't want is one of the cornerstones of western-style democracies. It is especially important because it keeps politicians in fear of doing something wrong because it might be printed in the papers / reported on the TV etc.

Kiwimac

Chief · 08-17-2006, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiwimac

Disagree completely,

A free press, printing stuff others don't want is one of the cornerstones of western-style democracies. It is especially important because it keeps politicians in fear of doing something wrong because it might be printed in the papers / reported on the TV etc.

Kiwimac

In certain situations yes I agree. But, the person who doesn't want this information out to the public is the military. Albeit, there are somethings the military does keep not so legitimate things that need to be brought into the public spotlight. But, more times than not there is a very good reason why they don't want this information released. Such as this latest terror attempt foiled in england. Airport officials in the US explained to the media how they could identify shoe bombs. This wouldn't discourage the terrorists from doing what they do. they'll just find another way to make a bomb that is hard to detect.

Erich · 08-17-2006, 02:15 PM

disagree if you want Kiwi but after seeing imbeds placed in Nam with a bullet hole in their forehead it kinda disheartens a chap real fast. does the public need to know what is going on first hand ? .......... and I go back and this is very true, how much can we trust our worlds media to get the story right........we can't and it has been proven over and over again, 1st hand even at the moment in the mid-east. There has been so much B.S. written and published about the IDF blowing away innocents it's

ing, doctored pics whcih have been shown on this very site...........you get the drift.

fair and balanced ............ I wish !

timshatz · 08-17-2006, 03:46 PM

Also, the free press is akin to the drunk looking for his keys under the street light when he dropped them somewhere else. He does it there because the light is better. The press are not threatened by the US Government due to constitutional protections while Terrorist have a nasty habit of hacking the heads off anybody they view as a threat. Further, the press are under no real obligation to report the truth, they are there to make money selling papers or selling air time. Journalistic ethics is a nice idea but takes a far distant seat to making a buck.

A case in point, the NYT has reported on several occasions of US operations to catch terrorist. In all cases the operations were considered "secret" to some extent. Some may've tread the line of legality a little closely. Others were definitely not illegal. Yet all were reported. Meanwhile, the attempts to access information about terrorist groups by news services substantially ended with the death of Daniel Pearl. American news organizations report the US Government operations almost at will while terrorist activities and cells rarely (if ever) show up in primary source material at the same organizations.

I believe the reason for this is simple. Al Quida and other Terrorist groups will kill a reporter that hits them with the spotlight while the same reporters can hide behind the Constitution with no real fear of being harmed because of the report. Contrary to being harmed, many of them get the Pulitzer!

plan_D · 08-20-2006, 12:59 AM

The Press revealed the positions of Royal Navy vessels to the Argentine planners during the Falklands War. This cost British lives that didn't need to be wasted. BBC were providing the intelligence that the Argentinians couldn't, in fact, get themselves.

Free Press should not be so free in the battlefield.

Chief · 08-20-2006, 10:58 AM

Actually do you think because they're not actually on american soil we can argue they are not liable to the right of free speech? I mean they play the game of technicalities everyday right?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-22-2006, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiwimac

Disagree completely,

A free press, printing stuff others don't want is one of the cornerstones of western-style democracies. It is especially important because it keeps politicians in fear of doing something wrong because it might be printed in the papers / reported on the TV etc.

Kiwimac

Disagree. The press does not have the right to put soldiers lives at risk by giving away positions and plans. Maybe I feel this way because I am a soldier and had my life and the lives of my comrads put at risk by the press.

FLYBOYJ · 08-22-2006, 11:12 AM

A few years ago when fighting broke out in Sri Lanka, a friend of mine was in a Navy C-130 Reserve Squadron (VR-55) flying in medical supplies, he was the loadmaster. Both the AP and BBC reported they were there. When they left rebels shot the hell out of the aircraft, I think he said they counted 50 holes.

He said if he ever ran in to a reporter from the BBC or AP, be it male or female, he was going to walk up and cold-c0ck them.

redcoat · 08-22-2006, 06:29 PM

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.-Samuel Johnson.

pbfoot · 08-22-2006, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

A few years ago when fighting broke out in Sri Lanka, a friend of mine was in a Navy C-130 Reserve Squadron (VR-55) flying in medical supplies, he was the loadmaster. Both the AP and BBC reported they were there. When they left rebels shot the hell out of the aircraft, I think he said they counted 50 holes. He said if he ever ran in to a reporter from the BBC or AP, be it male or female, he was going to walk up and cold-c0ck them.

Its kinda hard to be stealthy in a 130 I would think the 130 would be quite visible in the air or on the ground but after saying that in a combat role or situation it should be against the law to report on going ons but the US screwed that up when they did the tour of Cambodia and Laos in the 70s

FLYBOYJ · 08-22-2006, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Its kinda hard to be stealthy in a 130 I would think the 130 would be quite visible in the air or on the ground but after saying that in a combat role or situation it should be against the law to report on going ons but the US screwed that up when they did the tour of Cambodia and Laos in the 70s

It's one thing to go into an area covertly like was done in Cambodia and Laos, it's another when you're on a legitimate military mission (flying humanitarian supplies) and have aircrews put at risk just for a news story...