Just a wondering, really.

Do you think the media is a positive aspect in the institution of war and military?
In one aspect, it helps to uncover and even deter terrible consquences of war, on every side. The Good, the Bad, the oppressive, the liberators, all commit attrocities in war. Liberators can be just as bad as the enemy, in many circumstances. The Vietnam War was the first true example of how much the media can affect war. But is this always a good thing? Perhaps it's better if the public is left in the dark. I'm sure some here would argue that very point in the current Iraq War. "Sure, shit happens, but what's the point of getting everyone worked up in to a frenzy about it? War is hell."

Lemme hear ya flames.

The media's main problem is its tendency to focus strictly on the negative.

The problem is that the media is biased. The story is generally skewed depending on the country of origin of the reporter.

That leads us to the question of whether objectivity is achievable by human beings.

it's not, and it's sure as hell not by the human beings in charge of most media outlets

The media reports what sells.

A successfull raid on an enemy position is boring, but a soldier shooting an unarmed injured insurgent gets people's attention.

In day to day life, sex sells. In war, it's atrocities that do the selling.

'it's atrocities that do the selling'

- But, what with it being an atrocity, is that necessarily a bad thing?

On the plus side, media attention really highlights just how nasty war is, hopefully reducing the desire to get into wars in the first place.

On the negative side, it can work against you *during* a war by providing intelligence and political/propaganda support to the enemy thereby actually lengthening the duration of the conflict once it has started.

I prefer media involvement, but heavily censored during the conflict. All the nasty details can come out later and still provide education without directly hindering the effort.

A free media is a double edged sword, but better to have it than be without it. However, the media needs to bother less with reporting what people think and whose view is gaining popularity, and deal more with who is bullshitting and who is breaking the rules.

One thing has stuck with me since Communications 101, media is a gatekeeper. They funnel to the public what they want the public to know. It's powerful, hell no it's not subjective, and perhaps the worst thing of all.....one man can slant it to his liking in order to increase the number of sales it produces.

The FCC is a joke, I think we are beyond being able to receive non-tainted/slanted news. Unfortunately I have no solution or suggestions for how to remedy the problem so I just don't watch, listen, or read mainstream sources......I wish more people wouldn't believe everything they hear on the news!

My personal favorite is to flip on any Baltimore news channel and listen to the weathermen. I live less than 50miles North in PA and we have similar weather....anyway....the weathermen in Baltimore will turn a flurry into a blizzard!!! or a rainstorm into a flood and the people there will BELIEVE THEM!!!. After the forecast you see shots of people at grocery stores, and long lines....all perfectly timed....it is really the funniest damn thing on TV...but also sad b/c the idiots down there believe it.

sorry for the sidetrack....did I mention I hate the media?

A free media...
Doesn't exist. It would require it to be out of money bounds, which is, in our current society, completely impossible.
/sarcasm on. People doing something for free? Hehe. /sacarsm off