Quote:
Originally posted by Colin@Apr 1 2003, 05:54 AM
I've noticed that the "military analysts" that say the most negative, sensationalist things get the most play.
|
but thats news i think. all news is like that all over the world. you can look at any newspaper headline on any day anywhere in the world and see that. i think its equally true everywhere. without sensationalism, there is not going to be much interest. if it was not made to be colorful, it would just be a monotone stream of facts and figures and it would be like reading a trigonometry equation.
i have not really noticed that with the analysts as much as i have with journalists trying to characterize the situation (with no expertise) and double guess the enemy and speculate on whats really happening. it seems to me at times to be no more beneficial or accurate than to just have them come in after the fact and report on what happened.
but i think that without Journalists, Kosovo provides a good example of what you are left with... just pictures of bombed buildings in Belgrade and an accidentally bombed bus of civilians. information warfare is a real part of the equation and these regimes built and hold their power based largely on their ability to use information and propaganda effectively to sway public opinion. i think that was a big backlash for NATO in terms of how the media was used by Milosovich and Co... and not by NATO. All NATO could do was say "well, you will just have to take our word for it" and they made a lot of claims that they could not and never really did substantiate i.e. mass graves, mass executions, massive losses to the Serb military etc.