Should the media be allowed in a combat zone?

[Politically_Incorrect12]

You can make the argument from both sides, but ultimately do you think it's a wise decision to allow the media as much access as it currently has in combat zones?

[billisonboard]

Jul 11, 2011 9:01:19 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

You can make the argument from both sides, but ultimately do you think it's a wise decision to allow the media as much access as it currently has in combat zones?

I think it is important to accurately pen down exactly how "much access" they currently have before we decide if it is the right amount or not. For example, how much access was there for the "embedded" reporters in the Iraq invasion?

[privateinvestor]

Should the media be allowed in a combat zone?


Yes & they have been.....however they have to abide by the orders given by those in charge of the said combat zone or fire zone. I got to know some of the media and they for the most part do very good work and have helped with the wounded on occasions..

In our long history we have had some awesome reporters who were under fire and wounded and/or killed, ie. Ernie Pyle in WW2 in Europe and in Okinawa Japan..David Douglas Duncan in Korea and a list too long to mention in the Dam Nam...

[djAdvocate]

Jul 11, 2011 9:01:19 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

You can make the argument from both sides, but ultimately do you think it's a wise decision to allow the media as much access as it currently has in combat zones?

i think imbedding is the worst thing to happen to war journalism in US history. it ensures that the reporting will only come from one perspective.

[handyman2]

There has been media in the combat zones since there were news papers. Why the concern now?

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

Yes.

[Deleted]

Should the media be allowed in a combat zone?

Maybe so.

But don't you think it's unfair that the enemy gets to shoot them & we don't?

[billisonboard]

Jul 11, 2011 10:23:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 11, 2011 9:01:19 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

You can make the argument from both sides, but ultimately do you think it's a wise decision to allow the media as much access as it currently has in combat zones?

i think imbedding is the worst thing to happen to war journalism in US history. it ensures that the reporting will only come from one perspective.

Agreed. Maybe they shouldn't be "allowed" because if the government "allows" them to be there, the government then as the power to "disallow" them when/if the government decides it is inconvenient for them to be at some given place/time.

[ed1066]

I think it's interesting that the "journalists" who embed in the war zone go around unarmed. That wasn't the case in Vietnam IIRC, where the reporters were often required to carry a weapon and even had t participate in firefights and evacuations on occasion. But at any rate, I feel if they are stupid enough to go into a war zone against a savage enemy unarmed hoping they won't die, let 'em go for it...maybe those who are married and have families will think twice (I know I would)...

[djAdvocate]

Jul 11, 2011 12:16:19 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 11, 2011 10:23:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think imbedding is the worst thing to happen to war journalism in US history. it ensures that the reporting will only come from one perspective.

Agreed. Maybe they shouldn't be "allowed" because if the government "allows" them to be there, the government then as the power to "disallow" them when/if the government decides it is inconvenient for them to be at some given place/time.

precisely. it also pretty much guarantees that the government will get the news coverage it expects. Goebbles could not have designed a better system.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 11, 2011 12:44:13 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

I think it's interesting that the "journalists" who embed in the war zone go around unarmed. That wasn't the case in Vietnam IIRC, where the reporters were often required to carry a weapon and even had t participate in firefights and evacuations on occasion. But at any rate, I feel if they are stupid enough to go into a war zone against a savage enemy unarmed hoping they won't die, let 'em go for it...maybe those who are married and have families will think twice (I know I would)...

ed- war coverage is something almost all journalists want to do, no matter the risk. in fact, you will see them taking INSANE risks to get the story, because it is considered "heroic". it is, in short, the plumb job in journalism. most reporters would kill for it.

[deziloooooo]

I have no problem with it, and as one said, I have seen them involved, moving ammo, helping getting wounded on medivac, passing out supplies, water, and very occasionally, actually taking part if needed..usually in crew served..but involved..

[privateinvestor]

I liked all the media that I got to know when on active duty, but I can NOT say the same about the two poltiicians I got to meet Bob Dornan, and Pat Schroeder one Republican and one Democrat so my disdain is fair and balanced.....

[djAdvocate]

ps- the answer is yes to your question- they SHOULD be allowed in the combat zone. just not imbedded, in the interests of journalism.

[privateinvestor]

Jul 11, 2011 13:18:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

ps- the answer is yes to your question- they SHOULD be allowed in the combat zone. just not embedded.

Embedded worked out OK during Desert Storm and what little I know about embeds in Iraq and the Afghan there has not been any issues..

I know the guys in the Afghan all liked Laura Logan when she was embedded with them...note I said embedded and not in bed with them..