Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fox News Panel Discusses Media Coverage of Iraq War Versus World War II
http://newsbusters.org/ ^ | December 22, 2006 | Noel Sheppard

Posted on 12/22/2006 4:49:54 PM PST by lowbridge

Fox News Panel Discusses Media Coverage of Iraq War Versus World War II

Posted by Noel Sheppard on December 22, 2006 - 17:33.

An absolutely extraordinary discussion occurred on Thursday’s “Special Report” about the role of the media in wartime, and what the change in press coverage in the past sixty years means for the nation. In order to set the table, host Brit Hume first showed a clip of a Clear Glass Productions satirical film about how today’s media would have covered World War II (hysterical trailer of the film available here, video of Special Report segment here, hat tip to NB member Blonde):

ANNOUNCER: According to Pentagon sources, this now brings the official total of Americans killed overseas to 250,000. Congresswoman and House leader Ancy Lagosi took time out from her reelection campaign to mark the occasion.

REP ANCY LAGOSI: 250,000 of our finest coming home in wooden boxes, for what? To support a lie. What has Germany and Italy got to do with Pearl Harbor?

CROWD: Nothing!

LAGOSI: That's right, nothing.

CROWD: Roosevelt lied, millions died. Roosevelt lied, millions died.

Once the clip was over, Hume began:

And that is a brief excerpt from a new satirical video that's out called, This is DNN. And it is filled with sepia toned scenes from an old, what purports to be an old newsreel of modern style coverage of World War II. Back with our panel to pose the question. Well, is that a realistic picture of what it might have been like if today's politics and today's news media coverage had prevailed in World War II?

As a marvelous discussion ensued, it needs no elaboration on my part, and will be presented unedited and without further interruption. However, as you read it, consider the significance of what Fortune magazine’s Nina Easton said at the end of the segment.

KONDRACKE: Well, clearly, you know, every battle, if it had been transmitted in live and in color back to the United States it would have been horrific...

HUME: What about even in sepia tones like that when you don't have all the battles, but you have the newsreel footage?

KONDRACKE: Look, there's no question about whether its harder to run a war nowadays than back then it was back then when you had censorship and generally the country was supporting it. But the idea that Iraq is the same as World War II is just not right.

We were attacked at Pearl Harbor. We were attacked. And Hitler, four days later declared war on the United States after he had overrun Europe and everybody -- or most people in the country, by the way, Congresswoman Lagosi would have been a Republican in those days, the isolationists were mainly Republicans not Democrats, as they are now.

So, you could, you know, there were people around who say "ah, Roosevelt maneuvered us into this war, he put an oil embargo on the Japanese and force them." but the fact is that we were attacked. In this case, in the case of Iraq, this was a war of choice. This was a preemptive war that we decided that we were going to wage and, you know, I think, you know, I hope we win, but the fact -- and it was popular in the beginning. But the fact is that it has not been successful and the president is suffering for it.

BARNES: Mort, I appreciate the distinction you made between Iraq and World War II, but that wasn't the question and that wasn't the point.

KONDRACKE: I answered the question too.

BARNES: No you didn't, really.

KONDRACKE: Yeah, I did.

BARNES: You didn't even touch on the question. The question is what would what would today's media have been like covering World War II? For example, I think it would have been brutal. I think -- I mean, think of the six weeks when American troops were stuck in Normandy just off the beach and they couldn't break out.

HUME: Not to mention the hideous bloodshed of Normandy Invasion itself -- the landing.

BARNES: Right. Which was a great miscalculation. All the bombing that was done by the naval ships and the Air Force -- Army planes that had bombed the Germans on the Omaha Beach, didn't clear them out at all, didn't have any effect and so on. I'm sure there would have been -- the press would have jumped on that.

Think of the whole North Africa campaign which was almost a disaster from beginning to end in World War II. Think of the airborne jump on Sicily when hundreds of soldiers got blown out to sea and drowned and so on. The press would have been merciless and it wasn't, as it turned out in World War II.

HUME: What do you think -- Nina.

EASTON: That's absolutely true and hundreds of thousands people died. And Vietnam 58,000, Korea 54,000. Yeah, it would have been very difficult to fight those wars. But I also say -- I say now, so what? I mean the point -- your point -- going back to Mort's point, so what?

HUME: Well, the question that it raises is whether those standards were the right standards to apply or -- which would, I think, it can be argued, have crippled the American war effort or are the standards of today the right ones to apply.

EASTON: That's, in some ways, besides the point. Because -- there is a reality today that a president...

HUME: So, you don't want to answer the question or what?

EASTON: No. There's a reality that the president has to factor in today when you ask the American public to go to war, you need to realize and understand what...

HUME: What the news media can do, right?

EASTON: .the role of casualties and the media is not -- it's no longer a question of the media in Iraq.

To elaborate, here’s what seems to be the most cautionary point which was made by Easton: “There's a reality that the president has to factor in today when you ask the American public to go to war, you need to realize and understand what...the role of casualties and the media is not -- it's no longer a question of the media in Iraq.”

Does this suggest that the media have gotten so powerful that a president has to consider how they will report things when he or she enacts a foreign policy decision? If that is the case, when did the media become a part of the American government structure to be able to impact such pivotal decisions by the executive branch, and is this something that can be tolerated during a time of war? If not, what can be done about it?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bias; iraq; mediabias; msm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 last
To: Valin

Yes, I obsess on this stuff too. :-) My Leftist friends sometimes ask for "the other side". I don't always know if it works, but I have convinced a few that "global warming" is a political issue, not a scientific one.

Small steps - but every one helps.


41 posted on 12/22/2006 7:00:04 PM PST by speekinout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: JohnLongIsland

Well .. I refuse to let the media or the liberals/leftists off the hook. You can constantly bombard the public with propaganda and you will then get the response you want.

Hitler did it. They're just following suit.


42 posted on 12/22/2006 7:09:48 PM PST by CyberAnt (Drive-By Media: Fake news, fake documents, fake polls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

I absolutely love this question, and have been a proponent of media based battles for a long time. It is my opinion that the american people love to see and hear about victory. They can tolorate a defeat every once in a while, but will get behind any troop action if they see an overwhelming victory now and again.

Take Falujah, over whelming use of power, and I am sure quite a few civilian causualties, but we won. The public was in full support, and cheered the action. Another case was Najaf, the troops were pinned down, yet used the fire power at hand defeated the enemy and won the battle.

This whole war was lost when the civilian contractors were ambushed, burned alive, then hung from the bridge. At that moment we had the full support of the population to go after whoever did this, and we, as a nation did nothing. we ran an investigation, we "looked into it", but we did nothing.

If Bush wants to save Iraq, then he needs to fight the battle. Take back Iraq town by town, city by city, battle by battle. Otherwise continue to, "exit gracefully" towards defeat.


43 posted on 12/22/2006 7:51:27 PM PST by snodog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chuck Dent
I think letting the Dems take control might turn out to be a good thing. Now that they're in charge, it's they who are essentially responsible for victory. That's why we're seeing movement about increasing troop strength.

The real telling sign is if we revise the rules of engagement. If our guys get a green-light, we might actually still win this thing.

Well I am glad I'm not the only one thinking along those lines. They wanted control, now they have it. Let's see what they can do with it.

Have you noticed that all of a sudden troop increases have begun to be shot down, as more troops equals more causualties. Crazy JFK talking again.

If the prez or even Tony Snow is freeping, kill the bad guys day and night, all day everyday, and the American people will support this war!!Get our men and women into combat where we have the advantage over the insurgents. Take the fight right to them, quit reacting to the road side bombs, take over the roads and kill anything that gets close to them. Fight the damn war already!

I know I am tired of hearing this soldier or that soldier was killed today in a roadside bomb attack.

I want to hear, ...and after the attack the US marines swept in to the town and after a heated gun battle with insurgents, killed and captured ### insurgents, and placed the town under a strict curfew, and will continue operations inplace until the violence ceases.

44 posted on 12/22/2006 8:17:04 PM PST by snodog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
Here's a real a war correspondent.

Ernie Pyle, WWII.

45 posted on 12/22/2006 8:22:37 PM PST by Wiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snodog

I gather that the troops would rather the Iraqis take the country back, town by town. But they need reinforcements. Frustrating no to be able to hold the ground you take.


46 posted on 12/22/2006 8:30:30 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank

Great reply Frank! Hope you get on more talk shows!


47 posted on 12/22/2006 9:46:01 PM PST by Blind Eye Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

They were glorious times indeed. The media was patriotic, Hollywood was patriotic. Better prople back then. They were the greatest generation. God help us today.


48 posted on 12/23/2006 3:30:44 AM PST by pallmallman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
I gather that the troops would rather the Iraqis take the country back, town by town. But they need reinforcements. Frustrating no to be able to hold the ground you take.Of course the troops would rather have the Iraqis fight all battles, but we kinda started this war. Don't you think we should also win it?
49 posted on 01/05/2007 9:36:51 PM PST by snodog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: snodog

I think we have no choice but to do that, if we wish to maintain a beachhead in the Middle East. I think we cannot confront the Iranians unless we do have a beachhead, or at least the equivalent of the Berlin brigade to serve as a tripwire.


50 posted on 01/06/2007 5:52:10 AM PST by RobbyS ( CHI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson