Interesting Question
From Thomas R. Schwieterman's Letter to the Editor of DDN:Glut of information won't help war effort
Vietnam was the first televised war in the mid-'60s and early '70s. For 10 years, night after night, the war was brought into our living rooms with film of combat, bombing raids and graphic pictures of our wounded soldiers. Civilians were caught up in it also.
Did we then, and do we now, need this much information imbedded in our brains?
We have become armchair quarterbacks. Americans are very opinionated and have developed strong beliefs.
Have we commercialized war for profit for our news reports? Night after night, we get satellite feeds so we can get a more personal look at our war on terrorists.
During WWII, with no TV, only radio and newsreels in movie theaters provided communication between America and Europe. A handful of combat photographers brought back photos and silent movies to remind us of the horrors of war.
There were no riots and marches in Washington. Where were the liberals, the doves, the left-wingers and the protesters?
America was undivided — "all for one and one for all."
America may never win another war on the battlefield again, because of the war at home between Americans and our sanity, as war is continually brought forth in such a graphic and tragic manner.
Sometimes what we really don't know doesn't harm us. In fact, it may help us.
Thomas R. Schwieterman
Dayton
Matt's Chat
Interesting question...let's debate in the Comments Section... Personally, I don't think it is the amount of "information" we are getting, but rather the quality and quantity "analysis" that goes along with it.Mark's Remarks
It is not necessarily the amount of information, but the kinds of information we are getting. When things were peaceful all over Iraq, including Fallujah, what did we hear? "another (as in 1) soldier died today...." in (name your type of terrorist attack here). We heard next to nothing about the hundreds of schools being rebuilt, about the work to help distribute food and resources to Iraqis. Now, we hear only about Fallujah and Najaf. What about the North of Iraq, where things are going better, except when Syrians send terrorists over the border. What about other communities, where things are peaceful and the Iraqis are docile and simply waiting for us to hand over power and quit occupying their country. Where is that coverage? It doesn't exist, because it would not help liberals. You see, when you are part of Big Media aka the Partisan Press(tm) you can control through editing board which stories see the light of day. That is how they control perception. There are a few times when they have to report positives, but mostly they will do anything to confirm their own elitist asperations and ideas. Thank goodness for alternative sources, where we can see the facts and make our own decisions, not have them spoonfed to us in a distilled way from libs like Rather(not watch), Jennings, and Co.
Although, the writer makes a great point. Some of what the Partisan Press is doing would violate the standards of coverage set in WWII by their own god, FDR. Isn't reporting some of the details and showing all these protestings giving aid and comfort to the enemy? FDR and his generation thought so....Something to think about, that is, if the Partisan Press ever thinks.
