PDA

View Full Version : Would today's Media have stopped WW2 ??



MB_Avro_UK
03-13-2007, 03:15 PM
Hi all,

This is a subject that interests me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Today's media has in my opinion a direct influence upon the activities of both Governmental policy and Military actions.

Had such media access been available in WW2, what would have been the outcome?

Has the Global Media today had an influence upon Military and Political events?

Of course, this is one of those dreaded 'what if' threads but maybe worthy of discussion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

tjaika1910
03-13-2007, 03:26 PM
Impossible question.

A question could be frased to:

Can todays media prevent a new global WWIII, nukes aside?

ARE we in fact in a WWIV counting the cold war as number III?

nickdanger3
03-13-2007, 03:31 PM
If media reports could not at least sway public opinion to such a degree that elected leaders would be unable politically to push for war in Iraq, you think they could stop WWII?

Um. No.

He11, with Fox News around in 1939, the U.S. probably would've begun a "preventive" war against Nazi Germany http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
03-13-2007, 03:43 PM
Actually Hitler was the first one, that mastered the medias for his own purpose. Considering the witch-hunt against the communists in the 60s/70s, which was massively supported by the mass-media and even the most recent wars, like the complete thing in Iraq that was completely based on lies presented by media in a way it sounded like proof and people learning history from hollywood-movies, how it influences our thoughts and believes and the picture we think is truth, well, we can actually be glad we didn't have such media in WW2.

slappedsilly
03-13-2007, 03:57 PM
The media in WW2 were embedded with troops. They stayed alive with the troops and died with the troops. For some reason they liked the troops.
Today any president who allows non-embedded media into a war zone, does so at the peril of our national security.
I guess that makes both sides idiots doesn't it.

Bearcat99
03-13-2007, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by tjaika1910:
Impossible question.
A question could be frased to:
Can todays media prevent a new global WWIII, nukes aside?
ARE we in fact in a WWIV counting the cold war as number III?

I agree....


Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Actually Hitler was the first one, that mastered the medias for his own purpose. Considering the witch-hunt against the communists in the 60s/70s, which was massively supported by the mass-media and even the most recent wars, like the complete thing in Iraq that was completely based on lies presented by media in a way it sounded like proof and people learning history from hollywood-movies, how it influences our thoughts and believes and the picture we think is truth, well, we can actually be glad we didn't have such media in WW2.

While I agree with you 90% on that statement...
You are treading a thin fence with that one.. be careful.... I'm just sayin.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Having said that.... So much of that answer is relative... Hitler/Goebels' use of media was instrumental in teaching future generations how to exploit the media.... People are more savvy in some ways than they were today.. but the uses and effects of propaganda have grown with the times as well.. (No pun intended) so again it is all relative. I think in some ways the media as it exists is a hindrance... "The peoples right to know" should be secondary to security.. but then when you have people who put their own or their class' interests above those of the nation.. and I am not talking just in the U.S. either because that is happening EVERYWHERE... if you don't think so then you are kidding yourself... that opens up another ball of wax. Often when I think of the world's leaders I think of Isaiah 1:21-25.

JSG72
03-13-2007, 04:06 PM
I think that because of Todays media.

We can Now see through our Ellected leaders ambitions. And Indeed wars could be stopped!

Lets face it though. Those Slinky Pinky Polititians try every trick in the book to try and coerse the Public into dealing with problems that will divert from their ambitions.

Ahem.... Global warming? It would be because of the Polish and Norwegians French and British that German Citizens Are coming down with Hooping cough getting greenfly or something or other.

Anything to start a WAR. (Apparantly it's good for the Economy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

Capt.LoneRanger
03-13-2007, 04:11 PM
Well, I'm surely not here to condem anybody or start politics. I merely said, what allready was confirmed, that the initial "proof" was... an error, but by the media, it was sold as proof. As to what degree this was influenced by the politics, well, that's a completely different story.

NekoReaperman
03-13-2007, 04:12 PM
You say that like there was no such thing as investigative journalism pre-watergate...

Chris0382
03-13-2007, 04:25 PM
Depends on which side the a particular media corps sympathizes with and what can make their pockets fatter.

As far in WW2 the NY Times denied radiation poisoning for Hiroshima victims as the army told the reporters what to say on their trip to Japan.

The NY Times denied reports of the Holocaust and when uncovered by Russia and actual pictures provide, the NY Times and America dispelled it as Russian propaganda and pushed back to page 8.

The media actually may cause a war (yellow journalism is still rampant) as they are always serving someones own interest and are vying for popularity ratings and money.

MB_Avro_UK
03-13-2007, 04:34 PM
Hi all,

Just a couple of thoughts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

If CNN or Sky, with their worldwide broadcast ability had been in Nanking when the Japanese committed unspeakable atrocities against the Chinese in 1937, would Japan have dared to attack the US at Pearl Harbor in 1941?

When the Nazis attacked Poland in September 1939,would the presence of CNN or Sky have exposed the fake reasons for the Nazi attack? And if so, would WW2 have been averted?

The reason I ask is that CNN and Sky are everywhere today and without doubt have Political influence.I'm not saying that this is good or bad.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Bearcat99
03-13-2007, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Well, I'm surely not here to condem anybody or start politics. I merely said, what allready was confirmed, that the initial "proof" was... an error, but by the media, it was sold as proof. As to what degree this was influenced by the politics, well, that's a completely different story.

Yeas and thats a whole different ball of wax.. If the press was an independent impartial reporter of the facts to the best of their knowledge it would be one thing.... but it isn't.

JSG72
03-13-2007, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

Just a couple of thoughts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

If CNN or Sky, with their worldwide broadcast ability had been in Nanking when the Japanese committed unspeakable atrocities against the Chinese in 1937, would Japan have dared to attack the US at Pearl Harbor in 1941?

When the Nazis attacked Poland in September 1939,would the presence of CNN or Sky have exposed the fake reasons for the Nazi attack? And if so, would WW2 have been averted?

The reason I ask is that CNN and Sky are everywhere today and without doubt have Political influence.I'm not saying that this is good or bad.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Sooo! It would appear that what you are saying.

Is a move of Political leadership from the elected government to the upper echelons of the "Impartial Press".

Sorry. MB but the Nowadays media should include us. Not just Business News Stations.
But then again It would require one of us to be in charge and so we go round in circles. Untill one of us becomes a despot and with enough propaganda we can lay down the Law and we are back to Scary leaders again

Bo_Nidle
03-13-2007, 05:05 PM
I can't speak for any other nations media but the UK newsteams of today are a far cry from what they once were. The only thing we tend to see here is the "opinion" of a particular reporter. If something courageous or effective is carried out then it is given very grudging coverage or more often than not not covered at all. In general they are misinformed and sometimes downright ignorant but at the sametime VERY arrogant. BBC tends towards non-coverage unless given the go-ahead by the government (the controlling influences of the BBC tend towards the left nowadays).Sky news is a little more informative but occassionally the ignorance of their "anchors" is laughable.

I have seen some "what if" programmes put out by the above as if they were reporting WW2 as a current event and they really do report with the benefit of hindsight, through "rose coloured glasses" as it were. They obviously still like to think of themselves as reporters of the facts rather than purveyors of their own opinions.

If they had applied the same tone to their news reporting then? We would have surrendered after Dunkirk.They would have looked for blame and gone after the people they deemed responsible with the same fervour as they do today if a mistake is made.

In the Battle of Britain they would have relayed the casualty figures for the RAF with great detail while giving lipservice to the enemy losses. An incident of friendly fire would take centre stage with no mention of effects of RAF action on the enemy.

Dieppe would be a heaven sent opportunity to look earnestly to camera and give the requisite "nodding shot" during interviews.By this time they would be seriously questioning the wisdom of allied efforts and saying things like "With no progress in sight it appears the time to talk about settlement is long overdue".

The landings at Omaha would have been portrayed as a crushing defeat rather than a triumph against desperate odds.

Arnhem would have given them an orgasm!

I have no doubt that if the present day UK media were covering WW2 we would all be speaking German with Japanese as the main language class taught in schools.

In the first Gulf war the BBC earned the title of the "Bagdad Broadcast Company" which says it all!

Apparently we are at war in Afganistan and Iraq?! Someone ought to tell the UK media. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

JSG72
03-13-2007, 05:10 PM
CNN and SKY don't question Government decisions.
They merely Report on events as they happen.

They go along reporting "After the Event."

It is up to us what decisions should be made. Unfortuanately due to the withholding of information. We nor the press are able to influence events.
That are in the interests of "National Security" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

zoinks_
03-13-2007, 05:16 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e170/zoinks_/fox_news_libby1.jpg

Doug_Thompson
03-13-2007, 05:18 PM
Well, as a card-carrying member of the media, I assure you that today's media could not have stopped WWII or anything else.

As already noted, look at the horrible job done with the run-up to Iraq. The chief White House reporter for the New York Times, no less, was a lapdog for the administration. She peddled everything they told her because she wanted "acess." She wanted to be an "insider." Nobody in the Washington Press Corps had the nerve to ask hard questions, especially after Collin Powell cashed in his credibility.

It's all a severe embarrassment. The press as an institution completely failed.

I write a column for my newspaper, and opposed the war before it started " on strategic grounds, not moral ones. As I wrote, I'm all for war. I'm also all for finishing the one we were in " in Afghanistan. I won't rehash all the other arguments I made before this diversion into Iraq started. My point is this: If a middle-aged political reporter in Arkansas could see this was a mistake and give reasons for it, where was our mighty press corps?

The average reporter does't know the difference between a mortar and a howitzer. Neither does his editor. As you can probably tell by now, this ignorance of history and basic knowledge of military fundamentals is one of my biggest frustrations.

tigertalon
03-13-2007, 05:24 PM
IMO, todays media would make it even easier for nazi masterminds to persuade even larger percentage of pupulation about "iminent danger" from the east and about the necessity of starting the (dare I say "preemtive") war with Soviet Union.

DrHerb
03-13-2007, 05:27 PM
The media is a form of propaganda, pure and simple

JSG72
03-13-2007, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
I can't speak for any other nations media but the UK newsteams of today are a far cry from what they once were. The only thing we tend to see here is the "opinion" of a particular reporter. If something courageous or effective is carried out then it is given very grudging coverage or more often than not not covered at all. In general they are misinformed and sometimes downright ignorant but at the sametime VERY arrogant. BBC tends towards non-coverage unless given the go-ahead by the government (the controlling influences of the BBC tend towards the left nowadays).Sky news is a little more informative but occassionally the ignorance of their "anchors" is laughable.

I have seen some "what if" programmes put out by the above as if they were reporting WW2 as a current event and they really do report with the benefit of hindsight, through "rose coloured glasses" as it were. They obviously still like to think of themselves as reporters of the facts rather than purveyors of their own opinions.

If they had applied the same tone to their news reporting then? We would have surrendered after Dunkirk.They would have looked for blame and gone after the people they deemed responsible with the same fervour as they do today if a mistake is made.

In the Battle of Britain they would have relayed the casualty figures for the RAF with great detail while giving lipservice to the enemy losses. An incident of friendly fire would take centre stage with no mention of effects of RAF action on the enemy.

Dieppe would be a heaven sent opportunity to look earnestly to camera and give the requisite "nodding shot" during interviews.By this time they would be seriously questioning the wisdom of allied efforts and saying things like "With no progress in sight it appears the time to talk about settlement is long overdue".

The landings at Omaha would have been portrayed as a crushing defeat rather than a triumph against desperate odds.

Arnhem would have given them an orgasm!

I have no doubt that if the present day UK media were covering WW2 we would all be speaking German with Japanese as the main language class taught in schools.

In the first Gulf war the BBC earned the title of the "Bagdad Broadcast Company" which says it all!

Apparently we are at war in Afganistan and Iraq?! Someone ought to tell the UK media. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Spot on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

But being a resident of the UK. and being brought up with our "Secret Society" Governments over the past fifty years.

Why then does it bother me that with all that
Apparantly negative American media coverage.

WE are still Fighting/Policeing these nations?

bhunter2112
03-13-2007, 05:46 PM
If todays media was around during WW2 you would be speaking German or gassed until dead. Their hatred of Bush puts us all in danger.

During WW2 some of our current media folks would be in jail for leaks. And some elected officials would be on trial for treason (anyone remember what that word means?) Murtha ?

JSG72
03-13-2007, 06:00 PM
Remember to always "Follow the Leader".

That's what yous voted them in for. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

'Tis Funny how all the answers are coming from an "Allied" point of view?

It is asif Germany and Japan were still to make do with their WW2 media.

While the Allies have the benefit of CNN/Sky?FOX?

Give us a break posters? You/We. Do not rule the Earth YET!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

MB_Avro_UK
03-13-2007, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
I can't speak for any other nations media but the UK newsteams of today are a far cry from what they once were. The only thing we tend to see here is the "opinion" of a particular reporter. If something courageous or effective is carried out then it is given very grudging coverage or more often than not not covered at all. In general they are misinformed and sometimes downright ignorant but at the sametime VERY arrogant. BBC tends towards non-coverage unless given the go-ahead by the government (the controlling influences of the BBC tend towards the left nowadays).Sky news is a little more informative but occassionally the ignorance of their "anchors" is laughable.

I have seen some "what if" programmes put out by the above as if they were reporting WW2 as a current event and they really do report with the benefit of hindsight, through "rose coloured glasses" as it were. They obviously still like to think of themselves as reporters of the facts rather than purveyors of their own opinions.

If they had applied the same tone to their news reporting then? We would have surrendered after Dunkirk.They would have looked for blame and gone after the people they deemed responsible with the same fervour as they do today if a mistake is made.

In the Battle of Britain they would have relayed the casualty figures for the RAF with great detail while giving lipservice to the enemy losses. An incident of friendly fire would take centre stage with no mention of effects of RAF action on the enemy.

Dieppe would be a heaven sent opportunity to look earnestly to camera and give the requisite "nodding shot" during interviews.By this time they would be seriously questioning the wisdom of allied efforts and saying things like "With no progress in sight it appears the time to talk about settlement is long overdue".

The landings at Omaha would have been portrayed as a crushing defeat rather than a triumph against desperate odds.

Arnhem would have given them an orgasm!

I have no doubt that if the present day UK media were covering WW2 we would all be speaking German with Japanese as the main language class taught in schools.

In the first Gulf war the BBC earned the title of the "Bagdad Broadcast Company" which says it all!

Apparently we are at war in Afganistan and Iraq?! Someone ought to tell the UK media. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Fork-N-spoon
03-13-2007, 06:11 PM
I would venture a guess that people from 1930-1940 were no different than people are today. Frankly, I'm amazed at how primative modern man thinks his not so distant relatives were... It's much like teenage boys that think their 40 year old fathers are stupid and over the hill.

Now then, I'm trying to ease computers out of my life. Good bye.

JSG72
03-13-2007, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
I can't speak for any other nations media but the UK newsteams of today are a far cry from what they once were. The only thing we tend to see here is the "opinion" of a particular reporter. If something courageous or effective is carried out then it is given very grudging coverage or more often than not not covered at all. In general they are misinformed and sometimes downright ignorant but at the sametime VERY arrogant. BBC tends towards non-coverage unless given the go-ahead by the government (the controlling influences of the BBC tend towards the left nowadays).Sky news is a little more informative but occassionally the ignorance of their "anchors" is laughable.

I have seen some "what if" programmes put out by the above as if they were reporting WW2 as a current event and they really do report with the benefit of hindsight, through "rose coloured glasses" as it were. They obviously still like to think of themselves as reporters of the facts rather than purveyors of their own opinions.

If they had applied the same tone to their news reporting then? We would have surrendered after Dunkirk.They would have looked for blame and gone after the people they deemed responsible with the same fervour as they do today if a mistake is made.

In the Battle of Britain they would have relayed the casualty figures for the RAF with great detail while giving lipservice to the enemy losses. An incident of friendly fire would take centre stage with no mention of effects of RAF action on the enemy.

Dieppe would be a heaven sent opportunity to look earnestly to camera and give the requisite "nodding shot" during interviews.By this time they would be seriously questioning the wisdom of allied efforts and saying things like "With no progress in sight it appears the time to talk about settlement is long overdue".

The landings at Omaha would have been portrayed as a crushing defeat rather than a triumph against desperate odds.

Arnhem would have given them an orgasm!

I have no doubt that if the present day UK media were covering WW2 we would all be speaking German with Japanese as the main language class taught in schools.

In the first Gulf war the BBC earned the title of the "Bagdad Broadcast Company" which says it all!

Apparently we are at war in Afganistan and Iraq?! Someone ought to tell the UK media. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are not taking this seriously MB. Are you?

CNN/SKY are Global!! The Germans and Japanese/Bulgarians/Hungarians/Finnish/Rumanians/Italians ET Al.
Would also receive these "News Buletins".
And would serve them to make their own minds up.

Of course you approve of this point.

But purely from an Allied slant!!! Jeez!!!

To say that we have Gobal news coverage and yet the Axis have still got Government controlled Newspapers/letters/postcards.

Well!!!! Whats the point?

It would appear that you are making assumptions that "The Axis" would be made up of countries that we have made war with over the past 50 yrs. IE. Countries that do not have a National media coverage and would rely on subjects ignorance to carry out their bidding.

I had said http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif to BO. because. Yes in his eyes this is what would happen in a WW2 Scenario as History tells us.

I thought the point of this thread was How things may have panned out if we all had Global Media coverage?

waffen-79
03-13-2007, 07:59 PM
Would today's Media have stopped WW2??

Nah, back then the most important goverments had something called BALLS.

They would've kick the whine out of the reporters and journalist and I'm talking about the Free/Democratic nations


Originally posted by tjaika1910:
Impossible question.

A question could be frased to:

Can todays media prevent a new global WWIII, nukes aside?


Perhaps, they would influence the duration of the conflict; but prevent it? nah.

NUKES? come on don't be silly, Convensional warfare + Surgical Strikes FTW, those nukes were a waste of resources, only good thing is the energy research, but as a weapon? hardly a good choise

How many nukes were used in ANY conflict apart for those on Japan?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...exactly

tigertalon
03-13-2007, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
How many nukes were used in ANY conflict apart for those on Japan?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...exactly

That's exactly their purpose. They were not built to be used.

Huxley_S
03-13-2007, 08:44 PM
The media would not have stopped WWII.

The internet would have buzzed with images of concentration camps and mass graves.

The mainstream media in Germany would have been filled with athletic looking Nazis sporting snazzy uniforms and bigging up just how great Germany really was. They would have questioned the patriotism of anyone who disagreed.

The mainstream media in the US would have rolled out pundits disputing that there was anything happening, questioning the patriotism of those choosing to join the war early and then flipping round in 1944 and glorifying every bloody battle.

The British mainstream media would have earnest looking types telling everyone how grave the situation was.

The French would have people on saying Sacre Bleu a lot.

The Russians, 24 hour a day bear wrestling.

The thing to remember is that Nazi Germany started WWII and they were lead by a genius who believed in concepts like racial purity and Aryan supremacy and was prepared to do *anything* to achieve his vision.

As recent events have proved... you can't fool all the people all the time. But you can fool most of them long enough to do a lot of misguided and awful sh*t, if you feel suitably inclined.

GIAP.Shura
03-14-2007, 04:41 AM
No offence intended to the OP but I think the question is loaded and not specific enough. Those with a militaristic pro-war bent believe that the media are a bunch of left-wing liberal namby pambies who are poisoning the minds of the public against the fight for national security. On the other hand, those with an anti-war bent believe that the media are nothing more than a bunch of lapdogs scrounging at the table of their governmental masters for whatever scraps they deign to throw them. The majority of responses to this question (hehe, except for "this question is unanswerable" of course) will be made in this context.

Journalists are faced by two distinct pressures, they need access to information and their copy needs to sell papers. To access information they require either connections on the inside or some way of getting inside. For their copy to sell papers, it needs to satisfy the tastes of its target audience. I don't think these two pressures are any different now than they were in the 1930's. I do think that the increase in demand for journalism in a very short time frame, especially 24/7 journalism, means that the majority of journalists either rely purely on governmental press releases or human interest aspects, which results in news which is very low on both actual content and analysis. Investigative journalism is certainly going to seem to be opinion when you are only given a two hour deadline before going on air.

I think that the mainstream media only has an effect on public policy in so much as government alters the presentation of policy to make it pallatable to the media. I don't think the media in any way determines policy. I do think that government has become more astute at dealing with the media and the influence of government on the media is marked.

For all those saying that certain journalists are threatening national security or that their actions are treasonous should consider the implications of these statements:

Link 1. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/09/wrussia09.xml)
Link 2. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,1327791,00.html)

It should be remembered that 1984 was published just after the war and is at least as much about Britain as it is about Communist Russia.

Chris0382
03-14-2007, 06:09 AM
"Give us a break posters? You/We. Do not rule the Earth YET!!!"

How dare you say that JSG72!!!!!

According to the blond girl in my history class a while back she thought the whole world was America.

"Isn't everything and everywhere America !! She asked in a very puzzled look."

A true story from Maloney High School here in Meriden, CT

What made her think that? I ask myself today.

p-11.cAce
03-14-2007, 06:34 AM
If todays media was around during WW2 you would be speaking German or gassed until dead. Their hatred of Bush puts us all in danger.

During WW2 some of our current media folks would be in jail for leaks. And some elected officials would be on trial for treason (anyone remember what that word means?) Murtha ?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Thanks for starting my day off with a good laugh!

BOA_Allmenroder
03-14-2007, 07:08 AM
Media would have no effect. Why, because every word printed, every picture shown, was subject to government censorship.

So, if WW2 declared war rules were in effect today, you'd see nothing the various governments wouldn't want you to see.

Internet? Quashed; Cell Pictures, banned; etc etc etc.

Oh, some things might leak out, but they'd be few and far between.

Pirschjaeger
03-14-2007, 07:12 AM
Why would the news be any different today?

Think about it. Their job is to get what sells, not the whole story they claim they get. Just think about the old news chunks you've seen from WW2. How much suffering did it show compared to the rest of the content. By showing the extent of the suffering the public might bring the war to an end pre-maturely. 10,000 unemployed journalists.

Where were all the stories about the Jews before the war's end? The only group that didn't know about it was the general public and the majority of soldiers. Of course when the war was over the Jewish plight became a big story but not while there were battles going on.

Look at today. Do a little research into the bombings in Iraq. Do you really think it's all about Sunnis vs Shiites or vice versa? I'll give you a hint. Google "Iraqi Christians" and start from there. If the details were reported the war might end sooner due to public outrage.

Nothing has changed. Money still rules.

MEGILE
03-14-2007, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by bhunter2112:
If todays media was around during WW2 you would be speaking German or gassed until dead. Their hatred of Bush puts us all in danger.


LOL

2 funny

gregpeters
03-14-2007, 07:23 AM
REgarding post by Bo_Nidle:
Bo, spot on.
your summary of the UK media sure rings true here. Sections of the Aussie media are also as you describe - while others veer to the opposite lunacy (the shock jock/tabloid type.) There's bugger all in our media can manage a moderate, centrist view of anything - but I guess that just wouldnt be newsworthy. They all love "opinion", though, and telling us public what "we have a right to know" [by which they mean: "what THEY decide we have a right to know". And who the hell are they to do that?]

With regard to your Dieppe scenario, etc, you could add another. A propos the "war on terror", here's today's media item on The Blitz, as the bombs rained down:
"Declaring war on Hitler has made us less safe, not more! Peace Now !! The people demand Peace in our Time! [cut to video of weeping London mother in bomb rubble: "I blame Mr Churchill myself!"]

maybe today's media could have stopped WW2 - our side of it, that is. The Axis media surely wouldnt have stopped their side-the pen being rather less mighty than the sword.
Reminds me - there's a good recent book review by Clive James, touches on these matters.

PFflyer
03-14-2007, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
Well, as a card-carrying member of the media, I assure you that today's media could not have stopped WWII or anything else.

As already noted, look at the horrible job done with the run-up to Iraq. The chief White House reporter for the New York Times, no less, was a lapdog for the administration. She peddled everything they told her because she wanted "acess." She wanted to be an "insider." Nobody in the Washington Press Corps had the nerve to ask hard questions, especially after Collin Powell cashed in his credibility.

It's all a severe embarrassment. The press as an institution completely failed.

I write a column for my newspaper, and opposed the war before it started " on strategic grounds, not moral ones. As I wrote, I'm all for war. I'm also all for finishing the one we were in " in Afghanistan. I won't rehash all the other arguments I made before this diversion into Iraq started. My point is this: If a middle-aged political reporter in Arkansas could see this was a mistake and give reasons for it, where was our mighty press corps?

The average reporter does't know the difference between a mortar and a howitzer. Neither does his editor. As you can probably tell by now, this ignorance of history and basic knowledge of military fundamentals is one of my biggest frustrations.

I agree with those who say the media would not have made a difference at all. Hitler wanted to go to war, and nothing was going to stop him. He used the media to coerce half the german public into supporting him and his party, and to make the german public think that they were actually defending themselves by going to war, exactly as the present administration in the USA did with the media to it's citizens.

Media does not make poeple more aware of reality, it merely makes them dependent on it for all thier information, and keeps them more IGNORANT of their world.

horseback
03-14-2007, 12:12 PM
I worked as a bank teller for a couple of years right after I got out of school, and my branch was right around the corner from the local newspaper's headquarters. I cashed checks and conversed with the reporters (they were almost always ready to chat- a key part of a reporter's skills is getting people to talk, but the other side of that coin is a tendency to talk too much oneself), and I came away with the distinct impression that most of them were at least as opinionated as anyone on these boards, and I found that I could soon predict the 'slant' of bylined articles by the author's name.

Mostly it was a matter of how far leftward the slant was.

The simple fact of the matter is that the ability to 'tell a story' is more important than the facts the story conveys; the intent is to engage the viewer, listener or reader's attention, gain repeat viewing, listening, or reading resulting in higher ratings or subscriptions which will hopefully result in higher advertising revenues.

I suspect that since 'feelings' are a more important component of storytelling than facts that a more liberal and touchy-feely person is likely to be drawn into the fields of journalism; if sufficiently attractive, some might aspire to TV news (does anyone remember Barbara Walters' occasional forays into TV drama shows during the late sixties?) instead of a more demanding acting job. Certainly, since the early seventies, the media have become increasingly less concerned with facts than with feelings, and in the United States, far more uniformly liberal and rigidly PC (and I consider 'Politically Correct' to be an active verb, in the tradition of the old Stalinist self criticism sessions).

As it stands now, the "news" media in the United States are largely the information arm of one party, and it is not the party I consider primarily concerned with the wellbeing and safety of the United States and its citizens. On the plus side, they can go overseas and still hang out with European reporters.

cheers

horseback

M_Gunz
03-14-2007, 12:41 PM
Yeah, the 'liberal media' that plays scripted stories made directly to US admin specs budgeted
by millions a year in tax money as if they are real news..... $100+k to say what you are told
to by the executive branch made standup to look like live news and more money to air it.
Oh right, it's only liberals if they say the wrong thing otherwise it is hard working patriots.

Back in the 30's when Hitler could have been headed off there was enough press playing the
"he's not so bad" and "appeasement" lines including in Europe that there was no uproar.
That's what happened. In the US there was two sides and guess who sold more papers? Look
at the stance of the GOP right up to Dec 7th 1941 to know what voice was loudest, Wendell
Wilkie at the helm and Charles Lindberg doing the Sieg Heil at Nazi banners IN the USA and
drumming up support to join on the side of Germany but everyone makes little mistakes.

You could go back even pre-WWI and look at W. R. Hearst's contributions to starting the
Spanish-American War. Would that have happened without yellow journalism? Prolly not!

On the other end I do have to agree that the left enders are nuts when they complained
that the US going into Iraq with such overwhelming power "wasn't fair". Hey idiots, it's
NOT a baseball game!

p-11.cAce
03-14-2007, 01:42 PM
Yeah, the 'liberal media' that plays scripted stories made directly to US admin specs budgeted
by millions a year in tax money as if they are real news..... $100+k to say what you are told
to by the executive branch made standup to look like live news and more money to air it.
Oh right, it's only liberals if they say the wrong thing otherwise it is hard working patriots.

Yeah..patriots like Jeff Gannon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon) & Matt Sanchez (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/cpacs-gay-porn-star-hono_b_42842.html)

staticline1
03-14-2007, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
I can't speak for any other nations media but the UK newsteams of today are a far cry from what they once were. The only thing we tend to see here is the "opinion" of a particular reporter. If something courageous or effective is carried out then it is given very grudging coverage or more often than not not covered at all. In general they are misinformed and sometimes downright ignorant but at the sametime VERY arrogant. BBC tends towards non-coverage unless given the go-ahead by the government (the controlling influences of the BBC tend towards the left nowadays).Sky news is a little more informative but occassionally the ignorance of their "anchors" is laughable.

I have seen some "what if" programmes put out by the above as if they were reporting WW2 as a current event and they really do report with the benefit of hindsight, through "rose coloured glasses" as it were. They obviously still like to think of themselves as reporters of the facts rather than purveyors of their own opinions.

If they had applied the same tone to their news reporting then? We would have surrendered after Dunkirk.They would have looked for blame and gone after the people they deemed responsible with the same fervour as they do today if a mistake is made.

In the Battle of Britain they would have relayed the casualty figures for the RAF with great detail while giving lipservice to the enemy losses. An incident of friendly fire would take centre stage with no mention of effects of RAF action on the enemy.

Dieppe would be a heaven sent opportunity to look earnestly to camera and give the requisite "nodding shot" during interviews.By this time they would be seriously questioning the wisdom of allied efforts and saying things like "With no progress in sight it appears the time to talk about settlement is long overdue".

The landings at Omaha would have been portrayed as a crushing defeat rather than a triumph against desperate odds.

Arnhem would have given them an orgasm!

I have no doubt that if the present day UK media were covering WW2 we would all be speaking German with Japanese as the main language class taught in schools.

In the first Gulf war the BBC earned the title of the "Bagdad Broadcast Company" which says it all!

Apparently we are at war in Afganistan and Iraq?! Someone ought to tell the UK media. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

JG14_Josf
03-14-2007, 06:10 PM
Not quite THE answer but it will do from my point of view (http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt266.html)

drose01
03-14-2007, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
I can't speak for any other nations media but the UK newsteams of today are a far cry from what they once were. The only thing we tend to see here is the "opinion" of a particular reporter. If something courageous or effective is carried out then it is given very grudging coverage or more often than not not covered at all. In general they are misinformed and sometimes downright ignorant but at the sametime VERY arrogant. BBC tends towards non-coverage unless given the go-ahead by the government (the controlling influences of the BBC tend towards the left nowadays).Sky news is a little more informative but occassionally the ignorance of their "anchors" is laughable.

I have seen some "what if" programmes put out by the above as if they were reporting WW2 as a current event and they really do report with the benefit of hindsight, through "rose coloured glasses" as it were. They obviously still like to think of themselves as reporters of the facts rather than purveyors of their own opinions.

If they had applied the same tone to their news reporting then? We would have surrendered after Dunkirk.They would have looked for blame and gone after the people they deemed responsible with the same fervour as they do today if a mistake is made.

In the Battle of Britain they would have relayed the casualty figures for the RAF with great detail while giving lipservice to the enemy losses. An incident of friendly fire would take centre stage with no mention of effects of RAF action on the enemy.

Dieppe would be a heaven sent opportunity to look earnestly to camera and give the requisite "nodding shot" during interviews.By this time they would be seriously questioning the wisdom of allied efforts and saying things like "With no progress in sight it appears the time to talk about settlement is long overdue".

The landings at Omaha would have been portrayed as a crushing defeat rather than a triumph against desperate odds.

Arnhem would have given them an orgasm!

I have no doubt that if the present day UK media were covering WW2 we would all be speaking German with Japanese as the main language class taught in schools.

In the first Gulf war the BBC earned the title of the "Bagdad Broadcast Company" which says it all!

Apparently we are at war in Afganistan and Iraq?! Someone ought to tell the UK media. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
agree 100%. unfortunately.

KraljMatjaz
03-15-2007, 06:01 AM
i agree with Dave VonKleist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIoaWxkoZ04) 100%. worth seeing.

mynameisroland
03-15-2007, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

This is a subject that interests me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Today's media has in my opinion a direct influence upon the activities of both Governmental policy and Military actions.

Had such media access been available in WW2, what would have been the outcome?

Has the Global Media today had an influence upon Military and Political events?

Of course, this is one of those dreaded 'what if' threads but maybe worthy of discussion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

The media actually encouraged Britains entry to Iraq remember?

Just because they now take a hypocritical stance doenst mean that they always held the moral high ground. The media by inlarge will always follow politics and not the other way around. All it takes is for a Churchillian or a Thatcherian style speech in the House of Commons for the public to be pro war. The press, especially the tabloids jump on board and only once it goes pear shaped do they begin to undermine and deconstruct the events.

Huxley_S
03-15-2007, 12:34 PM
I have no doubt that if the present day UK media were covering WW2 we would all be speaking German with Japanese as the main language class taught in schools.

Apparently we are at war in Afganistan and Iraq?! Someone ought to tell the UK media.

The Nazis had absolute, total control over their media and took the art of propaganda and deception to a whole new level.

They lost.

Go figure.

If you are concerned about the unfavourable media coverage of the Iraq war or the Vietnam war for that matter, it says more about the nature of those endeavours than it does about the media.

The war in Afghanistan receives more favourable coverage, mainly because it has international support, makes some kind of sense and has a high chance of success with the proper resources.

leitmotiv
03-15-2007, 01:54 PM
Hitler and Goebbels played to the uneasiness the British felt about the draconian provisions of the Verseilles Treaty, and French action in the Saar. I suspect the same dynamic which was in play in the '30's would occur again. The British were pacifistic (look at the infamous Oxford Union declaration in which the signatories refused to ever fight for Britain in a war), and disinclined to go to war. It took the naked aggression of the occupation of the rest of Czechoslovokia in the winter of '39 to convince most of the British Hitler had to be stopped. One could possibly argue the British were even more pacifistic in the '30's than they are today because of the proximity to WWI.

MB_Avro_UK
03-15-2007, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Hitler and Goebbels played to the uneasiness the British felt about the draconian provisions of the Verseilles Treaty, and French action in the Saar. I suspect the same dynamic which was in play in the '30's would occur again. The British were pacifistic (look at the infamous Oxford Union declaration in which the signatories refused to ever fight for Britain in a war), and disinclined to go to war. It took the naked aggression of the occupation of the rest of Czechoslovokia in the winter of '39 to convince most of the British Hitler had to be stopped. One could possibly argue the British were even more pacifistic in the '30's than they are today because of the proximity to WWI.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

leitmotiv
03-15-2007, 04:11 PM
There sure weren't any parades when war was declared in 1939---in Britain or Germany. And, everybody in London spooked because the air raid sirens immediately came on right after Chamberlain read the declaration of war---due to an Avro Anson having its IFF off, I think!

MB_Avro_UK
03-15-2007, 04:22 PM
lol Leitmotiv http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

It had to be an AVRO Anson... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Best Regards,
MB_AVRO.

leitmotiv
03-15-2007, 04:58 PM
Ha---cheers!

Pirschjaeger
03-15-2007, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have no doubt that if the present day UK media were covering WW2 we would all be speaking German with Japanese as the main language class taught in schools.

Apparently we are at war in Afganistan and Iraq?! Someone ought to tell the UK media.

The Nazis had absolute, total control over their media and took the art of propaganda and deception to a whole new level.

They lost.

Go figure.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They acheived their goals; Sway the public in their favor.

They won.