Media coverage vent....

[kdibattista]

I understand that "the race is on" for competing media companies but I feel they are taking it to a whole new (disgusting in my opinion) level. As I was watching the coverage last night on the helicopter crash, I heard three different confirmed reports of the fatalities.

First confirmed report - 12 Americans, 4 British killed
Second confirmed report - 12 British, 4 Americans killed
Third confirmed report - 8 British, 4 Americans killed

These confirmations were all by the same station. Can I ask one simple question? What does confirmed mean anymore? Don't they understand that there are families over here dreading to hear such news - they certainly do not need it made worse by misreporting such information.

Sorry but I just needed to get that out.

 

[JohnTBap]

I agree. They are so eager to be the first to spew their garbage that FACTS have taken a back seat.

 

[Jeafl]

I totally agree. This morning I heard that it was 4 Americans and 6 British that were CONFIRMED dead.

It is a horrible tragedy that even one person has died though.

 

[RUDisney]

I agree with you, too. The other thing that I hate is that every little move is being broadcast. I can't imagine being the mother of a soldier and having to watch the war live on TV. The fact that they are practically giving away the longitude and latitude of the camp locations is deplorable. They're doing more harm than good.

If I can continue my rant, I'd like to add: what is the point of sending the highest paid journalists into harms way? Matt Lauer is in Qatar, David Bloom is in Iraq, and Brian Williams is in Kuwait. I can understand the Qatar and Kuwait a little, but why send a high paid journalist into Iraq with the troops when you can send people who are trying to make a name for themselves? I just don't get it.

CNN was touting that they had the only American journalist still in Baghdad. For what purpose? Shock value and being the first to report?

 

[jamsmom]

CNN just interviewed a wife of a soldier that had been interviewed. She said it was great to hear his voice and to see him to know he was okay.

If I had a relative there, I would be watching non-stop for just a glimpse.

However, I think the news channels need to have a vocabulary quiz on that "confirm" means.

 

[VelvetGloves]

They send the higher paid jounalists for a couple of reasons. To a degree, they have the public's trust. We recognize them and expect that they will be honest with us. I'm not sure how to put the other reason. It's kind of like a comfort thing for anyone over there. If you were stationed over there and saw one of the more popular, higher paid reporters, it may give you a little bit more confidence that what you are doing is being properly represented. Also, it shows that the media stations aren't considering you too unimportant. They've got they're best guys on you. It doesn't really make the war easier, but it may ease it a little.

VelvetGloves

 

[CookieGVB]

I don't get the whole idea behind allowing the news media to say what and where the troops are located. Isn't that making them an easier target??

 

[RUDisney]

Originally posted by VelvetGloves
They send the higher paid jounalists for a couple of reasons. To a degree, they have the public's trust. We recognize them and expect that they will be honest with us. I'm not sure how to put the other reason. It's kind of like a comfort thing for anyone over there. If you were stationed over there and saw one of the more popular, higher paid reporters, it may give you a little bit more confidence that what you are doing is being properly represented. Also, it shows that the media stations aren't considering you too unimportant. They've got they're best guys on you. It doesn't really make the war easier, but it may ease it a little.

That's kind of what I figured would be the case, but think about how the soldiers must feel, too. Here is this $1 million per year journalist that is not there to protect you in any way, but you have to protect his sorry butt. What kind of ruckus would be caused if something happened to a member of the medias' A-team. Daniel Pearl wasn't exactly on the A-team, but emotions about his kidnapping and death are still being felt. (I'm not suggesting that one life is worth more than another and I firmly believe that any deaths as a result of terrorism or the war are completely tragic.)

I just wonder if the real reason is to garner our trust, or if it is just for ratings. Just think about the ratings if an A-list member is hurt or killed.

 

[VelvetGloves]

They use the A-Team journalists to obtain our trust, but it all boils down to ratings. Most people will tune into the journalist they recognize, especially for war coverage. RUDisney, you hit the nail on the head.

VelvetGloves

 

[apagano]

This is the way I look at it as far as sending out the "big names": At least the networks are putting there money where their mouth is. It shows that they respect the military enough to entrust their best people to their care. They're not sending out the scrubs while the big shots hide behind a desk in New York.