In a media landscape that's so overly saturated with round-the-clock cable news updates and commentary, streaming video coverage, and the latest headlines being pushed to your smart phone, it's amazing that anything of public interest could be left out of the mix.
So, how does a story get swept under the floorboards? More often than not the answer is politics. Take for example the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Under pressure from government propagandists, most media outlets have often shied a way from hard hitting news stories on the brutal realities of war. Sure they'll give you the numbers and pundit-driven policy debate, but when it comes to actual coverage the mainstream media has done a piss-poor job of giving it to us straight.
In a marked shift from its usual lack of gusto, the media can be proud of one of its own. The Associated Press has come under fire recently for releasing a photo of a U.S. Marine in Afghanistan who was fatally wounded in combat. Despite a lot of pressure from government officials, the reporter who took the photo, Julie Jacobson, and the AP have stood their ground.
The picture shows the soldier bleeding from a wound in his leg with his fellow Marines crouched around him offering support. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has begged that the photo not be released, calling it "a matter of common decency," but AP senior managing editor, John Daniszewski, fought back. "We felt that the picture told a story that people needed to see and be aware of."
For most Americans the wars seem very far away. It's difficult to understand the consequences of these wars, and the numbers aren't enough to drive the point home. Ours is an image driven culture, yet we have so little to show for so many casualties. If the Department of Defense is scared that a photo will weaken public support, so be it. I was under the impression that the media's role was to empower the public to make informed decisions, not just give us continuous coverage of celebrity deaths.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree 100% that the media shouldn't keep the horror of war from the public. That's a very good view point that you have there. If the media will keep us well informed over the deaths of celebrities and everything else about them, then they shouldn't hold back when it comes to the war. We are an image culture and the public must face these images even if we don't want to because they are our troops.
ReplyDeleteIf I may, I have a bit of a challenge for you. With the experience you have with U.S. based news organizations (Fox, NBC, CBS, etc.) compare it to the reporting presented from overseas based organizations (BBC or Univision [Latin Based]) and tell me what you think.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I believe why they don't touch much on details from the war is because they want the public to think that the U.S.'s military might is the strongest in the world and if there's one soldier/marine/sailor/airman slain in combat it dampers the faith of people. Then again most of everyone is already fed up with the war. Plus there's also the "faith in the government" ideal that they try to keep untarnished. Great blog btw *two thumbs up
Much like what vegeto247 said, I believe that the media doesn't portray such horrbile pictures of war because they don't want to weaken the American spirit. War is hard enough as it is. Although my heart goes out to those who have lost loved ones in the war, I don't want to publically see images of such horrendous things on the news because I would feel a sense of loss pride. I don't want to see my American soliders dying, yet alone hear about all the casualty deaths because then I would feel as if America were losing the war; this would lead our country into more panic then it already is!
ReplyDelete