>Simple, American (and presumably British) forces could die if sensitive data is revealed either >intentionally or inadvertantly by journalists. These restrictions have been imposed in every war >in the last century.
Ah, if only it were that simple...
Most journalists that I know would never post info that endanger troops in the field, i.e. troop movements or locations that are not readily known to enemy forces. I think the big issue is that the military and powers that be have learned from Vietnam that honest reporting from the field can influence public opinion at home. There was a lot of bad stuff that went down during the first Gulf War, and most of it ws not reported in the mainstream US media. I don't recall even hearing about the "Road of Death" until quite a bit after the war, and then it was from foreign news sources. To put it bluntly, the government does not want pictures of American troops in body bags splashed over the front pages for fear of what it could do to our war effort. The only thing that the military wants published is "War begins, smart bombs dropped, Hussein defeated, no civilian casualties reported, a good time was had by all..."
Don't get me wrong, I don't like pictures of American soldiers in body bags. To be exact, I don't like pictures of ANYONE in body bags. But whether are not I like them, they ARE part of the baggage that comes with war, and when the government tries to censor that reportage we all suffer.
To get an idea of what I'm talking about, go The Digital Journalist @
http://dirkhalstead.org and look up the exhibit called "Requiem". It is about the photogs who were killed doing their duty during Vietnam, and while the images are not pretty, they are part of our history, and they played a large part in influencing public opinion (and rightly so). Also check out Peter Turnley's gallery
"The Unseen Gulf War" to get an idea of what was kept from the American public...
P
Linear Mode
