News Media's Sheer Stupidity

[Zoomie]

I've been watch the war pretty much a lot of the day since it's started. When I watch, the embedded news people always say that they don't want to give away their positions, which is good because we don't want an ambush set for our troops. But the news anchors always press for too much and sometimes get the location. Like last night as an example:
They asked an embedded news reporter not to give his position away, but they'd like to know if he had crossed a river, if so, when? :cantbeli: Another example is when a news anchor stated the reporter's position outright before they talked to him.:bash: I have a feeling that these slip ups may cost us sometime soon, but hopefully that doesn't happen.

[Vance]

Thats why I watch CNN. They are good about that stuff.

[Kitsune]

This can also be deliberately placed false informations... p-)

[Zoomie]

Vance- well they are on the website, and most of the time on the air.


kitsune- Ya, when they refer to the B-52 as the B-2 and the F-117 as the B-17. rofl I laughed how dumb they can be some times.

[OzMan]

And even the people at foxnews screw it up sometimes. Rita Cosby was talking about cruise missiles and said that they could be launched from F-117s. I watch msnbc because they report a lot faster than the other guys. But this is definitely history in the making, with all of this embedded press. My parents were telling me that watching the people go over the border into Iraq was the same feeling as watching the men walk on the moon.

[papabear]

Does anyone think that this will be standard practice in the future?

Personally, I think that if we were engaged in conventional warfare with a more evenly-matched opponent, a lot of this gifts to the press would be held back. And it seems unlikely that this sort of practice will be followed next time American military forces become involved in unconventional warfare, where stealth and surprise are the rules of the game, even more so than in conventional warfare. (We don't and probably won't see any footage coming out from the Philippines, for example.)

[SFontaine]

CNN seems to be doing a bang up job of the war coverage.

[Angus]

I'd have to agree. CNN so far seems to be doing the best job so far in terms of overall quality. They seem to have a good 2 or 3x as many reporters out there with the good divisions. The quality of their maps is far better I think. Also, when the Shock n' Awe started they had some of, if not the only, non-arab tv footage. When the 7th Cav was rolling across the desert they had a good 3 hours of uninterrupted footage of that, and last night with the Marines destroying tanks (and getting shot at with RPGs) they had excellent footage. A couple hours later they had full quality footage of TOWs launched from hummers, AT4s, MKII grenade launchers, and **** getting blown up. Bravo!

And lastly, CNN seems to lack all the cheesey ranting commentators *cough*fox*cough* who let the macho-man **** get out of hand and sound like a total cliche.

[GearGod]

"Ya, when they refer to the B-52 as the B-2"

Ever heard of the B-2 Spirit? ----> http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/B_2_Spirit.html

[Silverado]

But this is definitely history in the making, with all of this embedded press....

Err not really, ask your Grandad about a wee lil conflict that went by the name of WWII, twas here that this principle of journos riding along with the troops was first pioneered. The only difference is that these days thanks to vid phones and satelite comms you can see it in real time (more or less).

[Ratamacue]

I think the live, real-time coverage is what he's talking about.

[OzMan]

In fact it was.

[Angus]

Perhaps I'm alone on this one but the real-time live coverage isn't impressing me that much. It's great and all, I like that when it's on you can expect to hear uncensored reports complete with "oh ****, incoming!", but in terms of quality of footage it's be pretty bad (understatement). In the end I'm much more interested in the high quality slow-time footage that they upload about an hour or two after it happens.

Like the Marine incidents last night with the tanks. Sure, I was glued to my tv for an hour at 3am while Martin Savidge scurried around without a helmet dodging secondary tank and APC ammo explosions, but the footage his cameraman Scotty delivered 2 hours later was far better. I guess that it's good to have both, but damn they really need to work on getting better webcams! Try something from Logitech maybe.

;)

[SFontaine]

They're using handheld videophones

[Sulph8]

You know what they should have, military cameramen and reporters. That way, they won't have to be protected like civilians and also they can be trained on what kind of details they can and cant give out. Also if they were military then they could stay closer to the action and not have to run away all the time. Just a thought...

[Zoomie]

adambalhetchet- Yes, I do know that the B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber exists, I've actually seen it in person. What I was referring to was when a reporter was showing footage of the B-52 and he referred to it as the B-2.