Joe the Plumber: ‘I think media should be abolished’ from reporting on war

[Five-0]

You guys are saying the press shouldn't be able to do this and that. Who can tell them not to but the government?

No, I'm saying they should do their due diligence. (Much like you I might add.) Bottom line, they should not be afforded any special treatment in/during a military operation. A war zone is just that, a war zone. Our troops should be using thier resources to win the fight, not protecting some member of the press. Who can tell them what not to report? US!!! The consumers of the story. As I said, the public is voting with their choice and their buying power. See the slipping numbers of the main stream print and broadcast media.

Misinformation and biased reporting does no one justice. Not the public, and as I have mentioned not the media outlet(s) themselves.

[countybear]

You guys are saying the press shouldn't be able to do this and that. Who can tell them not to but the government?

Not to sound like a 'tinfoil' fashion model, but I'd say that the mainstream media is already largely in the pockets of (at least the liberal factions) of our government. Who else could have propelled (via hype) a veritably unknown junior senator into the DNC nomination and in fact, the Presidency of the United States?

The message of the left was fostered, espoused, polished, and conveyed by the media, (with chills running up their leg, no less).

While your argument is certainly well-recieved about state control of the media, I believe that in our current condition, the media's pining over liberalism (and its purveyors) equates much to the mainstream media being merely a left-wing propaganda machine already.

Embedding as war correspondents has taken place over the course of most of the 20th Century, true, but only in more modern times (with the advancing technology of communications) has there been greater opportunity for the media to endanger military operations in planning and in progress. This aspect only, for the sake of national security and the safety of the force assets themselves, I believe should be disallowed.

[Retdetsgt]

No, I'm saying they should do their due diligence. (Much like you I might add.) Bottom line, they should not be afforded any special treatment in/during a military operation. A war zone is just that, a war zone. Our troops should be using thier resources to win the fight, not protecting some member of the press. Who can tell them what not to report? US!!! The consumers of the story. As I said, the public is voting with their choice and their buying power. See the slipping numbers of the main stream print and broadcast media.

I agree totally and completely with that. Which is why I rarely watch any news and get mine from the Internet. I can pick and choose here. I do get a daily paper, but it takes me 1.5 minutes to read everything except the comics. It takes me twice that long to read those. And of course, I do the crossword puzzle to fight off dementia....

[Xiphos]

I do the crossword puzzle to fight off dementia....

Not working.

[Retdetsgt]

While your argument is certainly well-recieved about state control of the media, I believe that in our current condition, the media's pining over liberalism (and its purveyors) equates much to the mainstream media being merely a left-wing propaganda machine already.

Embedding as war correspondents has taken place over the course of most of the 20th Century, true, but only in more modern times (with the advancing technology of communications) has there been greater opportunity for the media to endanger military operations in planning and in progress. This aspect only, for the sake of national security and the safety of the force assets themselves, I believe should be disallowed.

I have no disagreement with that first statement. I'm not defending the media by any stretch in the way they report. But I do defend their right to do that. I dislike their reporting as much as anyone, but the alternative of gagging them is unacceptable to me.

As far as I know, embedding has stopped, has it not? But again, the most damage I think is done by the people sitting in NY and Washington, not the ones in Iraq.

[Retdetsgt]

Not working.

Never too early to start.....

[countybear]

I have no disagreement with that first statement. I'm not defending the media by any stretch in the way they report. But I do defend their right to do that. I dislike their reporting as much as anyone, but the alternative of gagging them is unacceptable to me.

As far as I know, embedding has stopped, has it not? But again, the most damage I think is done by the people sitting in NY and Washington, not the ones in Iraq.

Agreed.

I believe that the 'embedding' has stopped to a great extent, but I believe that's more due to the fact that nothing really 'sensational' (in the eyes of the media) is happening over there (since the surge). I believe they shun reporting truth, especially when it disproves their opinions. The mainstream media (as mouthpieces of the left) went into frenzy mode against the 2007 troop surge, and they were (again) proven very wrong in their doomsday predictions.

In my own opinion, I believe what has and is happening over there is sensational, in that for the first time in history, a viable democratic form of government is being embraced by a previously totalitarian Islamic state. That, given the history and social background of the region, is incredible and monumental.

Not to the mainstream media, however, it doesn't warrant near the coverage that Brad and Angelina 'dissing' Ryan Seacrest does.

[Retdetsgt]

In my own opinion, I believe what has and is happening over there is sensational, in that for the first time in history, a viable democratic form of government is being embraced by an Islamic state. That, given the history and social background of the region, is incredible and monumental.

We'll see. I still having a little difficulty believing that a society 30 years out of the Bronze Age can handle democracy. The proof will be what happens when we pull out and we are going to have to at some point. We can't occupy the country forever no matter who's in charge. But a lot of people here who have served there know a hell of a lot more than I do about that.

The primary problem is that there are no other democracies in the region and it's a threat to not only the Islamic government of Iran, but the kingdoms and sheikdoms of the other countries. I doubt any of them really want it to work. I suspect Saudia Arabia as well as the others will do what they can to undermine it as soon as they get the chance.

[countybear]

We'll see. I still having a little difficulty believing that a society 30 years out of the Bronze Age can handle democracy. The proof will be what happens when we pull out and we are going to have to at some point. We can't occupy the country forever no matter who's in charge. But a lot of people here who have served there know a hell of a lot more than I do about that.

The primary problem is that there are no other democracies in the region and it's a threat to not only the Islamic government of Iran, but the kingdoms and sheikdoms of the other countries. I doubt any of them really want it to work. I suspect Saudia Arabia as well as the others will do what they can to undermine it as soon as they get the chance.

My eyes (and the eyes of the world) are on Iran to see what they have in store for the region, (which is the primary reason I believe that a quick drawdown is folly). However, I agree with you that Jordan, Libya, and Syria are likely contenders in the undermining game.

The Saudi's have (at least) a financial interest in supporting the American endeavor.

[Retdetsgt]

The best thing that could happen for us would be a strong military dictatorship that's Islamic, but friendly to the West.

[Five-0]

And to think you thought we wanted to stomp on freedom.

[Retdetsgt]

And to think you thought we wanted to stomp on freedom.

It's the truth. I really don't think a democracy will hold up over there. It would be nice, but I democracies in underdeveloped countries haven't worked as a rule. Besides, even with their democracy, I doubt they have that much free press as it is.

I'd love to see a democracy happen, but the other alternative is an Islamic Republic like Iran. Given a dictatorship or that, which would you prefer?

We're one of the few countries with an absolutely free press. Even UK and Canada have some restrictions on what the press can report.

[MacLean]

Except for this

Rhino was being sarcastic, and you still are not reading what we are typing.

Nobody *here* wants to restrict the press.

What we want to do is stop giving them special treatment or access.

Cooperate and report what I tell you to?

That is nothing like what I said.

[Five-0]

It's the truth. I really don't think a democracy will hold up over there. It would be nice, but I democracies in underdeveloped countries haven't worked as a rule. Besides, even with their democracy, I doubt they have that much free press as it is.

I'd love to see a democracy happen, but the other alternative is an Islamic Republic like Iran. Given a dictatorship or that, which would you prefer?

We're one of the few countries with an absolutely free press. Even UK and Canada have some restrictions on what the press can report.

I know, but that softball was begging to be hit out of the park.

[Retdetsgt]

Rhino was being sarcastic, and you still are not reading what we are typing.

Nobody *here* wants to restrict the press.

What we want to do is stop giving them special treatment or access.

Really? Looked to me like he was serious. But he can speak for himself.

What special treatment? We've had war correspondents since the Civil War. By special treatment, you mean the access reporters have historically had? The problem people now have is what they are reporting, isn't it? Today's reporters have no more access than the reporters in every war. If you change the rules because you don't like the content, that looks like restricting to me.

[Retdetsgt]

I know, but that softball was begging to be hit out of the park.

It was....

[Five-0]

It is not the access that has changed. It is the speed at which information can be broadcast (ie realtime). Geraldo broadcast planned movements before they were made in Iraq. That could have ended badly. Hell, showing stealth bombers taking off state side gives any enemy a time table to plan for their arrival over target. Live pictures from an area can give the enemy infomation on troop positions. That is a problem.

[Retdetsgt]

I was in Vietnam. The press didn't do a damn thing to support the troops. But they also held the government's feet to the fire on the way it was being fought and they were right. If they'd sang the company song, the public would have been led to believe we were supporting a free, democratic government and that wasn't true. If they'd believed our "body count" stats, we'd have wiped out half the population. And our government in power during most of it was one of the most liberal in our history, LBJ and his Great Society.

I wish they'd been more like Ernie Pyle and others who cared about the troops, but they weren't. But they did expose a lot of stuff that needed to be exposed. Like the sorry micromanagement by Harvard grads with MBA's. Don't kid yourselves, Vietnam was a debacle in every way. The government, down to the providence chiefs were all crooked. The VC consisted mostly of S. Vietnamese people, not Northerners. Frankly, I suspect that after all was said and done, Vietnam is probably better off now than it was before. From what I get from other Vets who have gone back there, that's right.

I keep saying, I'm not a fan of the press, but they hit a homerun just often enough that I don't want them messed with.

[Retdetsgt]

It is not the access that has changed. It is the speed at which information can be broadcast (ie realtime). Geraldo broadcast planned movements before they were made in Iraq. That could have ended badly. Hell, showing stealth bombers taking off state side gives any enemy a time table to plan for their arrival over target. Live pictures from an area can give the enemy infomation on troop positions. That is a problem.

I don't see that as the only complaint here though. What I've been reading is people don't like the negative press about the war and the liberal press in general. Mostly the latter. It's the attitude of the press that seems to give people here the most heartburn. You yourself said:

Having a free press is one thing. The press is free here. They just choose to bow and slant to the very party that wants the "Fairness Doctrine". I think you have misinterpreted the statements here.

Reports on the war? Yes
Reports constantly telling us we are in a quagmire, when in fact we are winning? NO.
Buying into the progaganda readily provided by terrorist? NO.

Weren't stealth bombers only used in the initial attack? I don't recall seeing any footage of that. I watched the news a lot during that first few weeks and don't recall anything like that.

I don't disagree that reporting should be held up to not endanger an operation. The public has a right to know, but not a right to know this minute. But if they want to print negative press about the war, so be it.

[MacLean]

What special treatment? We've had war correspondents since the Civil War. By special treatment, you mean the access reporters have historically had? The problem people now have is what they are reporting, isn't it? Today's reporters have no more access than the reporters in every war. If you change the rules because you don't like the content, that looks like restricting to me.

Sir, I respect your service in Vietnam - my father served during the same crisis.

Now I would request that you take a look at my generations service, which happens in an era where news and intelligence are the same thing and travel around the world at the speed of light.

A reporter in Afghanistan right now could feed intelligence about troop positions to Osama bin Laden *LIVE* on CNN.

You are either not getting my point intentionally, or the failure is mine. If that is the case, I will put my entire opinion in four concise sentences.

1. I do not wish to restrict the press.

2. I do not wish to make it easy for the press.

3. I wish the press all the best of luck in obtaining whatever they wish to report on.

4. If the press wishes to report on combat, they do so at their own risk.