CentCom's Choice of Media Information

Central Commands (CentCom) choice of information that they released to the media during the war in Iraq is really in my opinion a tale of two story's.

First of all how CentCom went aound their news briefings was completley astounding. The occassion where the general showed the waiting press the deck of cards which showed the most wanted terrorists in Iraq is an example of this. Only one card was shown! Of course Saddam was going to be the ace of spades, but he isnt the only one. Showing those journalists one card before retreating created unrest. Even when asked to see them placed on the wall they were rejected.

The case of the army entering Baghdad was another similar to this. CentCom released information claiming they had entered the capital days before they actually did. This annoyed the already cranky journalists, who had now broadcast false information.

On the other side of the spectrum though I can see where CentCom was coming from. Looking out for the wellfare of their soldiers has to be priority number one. So this makes sense about the Baghdad controversy. Why would CentCom give details of their mens locations when it would spread the lenght and breath of Iraq and probably into the hands of insurgents. As for the card situation, if those names and photos were released then the named Iraqis would simply flee the country or go into deeper hiding.

Control Room : Media in the Iraq War

In this blog I will attempt to show how the main three media groups in Iraq feel about a journalists role during war time. The 2004 film Control Room serves as my main focal point in this piece. Here are the three groups main points on a wartime journalism and how there three groups conflict with eachother.

• Al Jazeera see themselves as true journalists.
• America needs correct media coverage.
• They are here to educate and enlighten Iraqis.
• Will show violent images to show himan cost.
• The U.S military needs propoganda.
• No media should be targeted.
  

• The military is not in Iraq for the press.
• CentCom will not release new information which could endanger soldiers.
• Believes Al Jazeera to be a biased propoganda using network.
• Against Al Jazeera showing American POW's and dead soldiers.

• American media sees Al Jazeera ruffling feathers, and like it.
• CNN is upset over the level of context in military briefs more truth needed.

Al Jazeera is the largest Arab television channel in the world, broadcasting to over forty million viewers. They are a group which find pride in their selflessness journalistic skills. Throughout the film they seemed to be the most legitimate organization. They try to give a uncompromising view of the war without biased opinions. Individuals think they can regognize the falseness of CentCom's frequent updates, and were especially adament about the toppling of Saddam's statue in Baghdad.

The United States Central Command (CentCom) is the head of American intellegence in Iraq, located just outside of Darfur. Throughout the film CentCom is portrayed as an inadequate source of information. Often giving briefings that leave much to be desired, but this is nessecary so that troops maintain safe positions. Also they feel like the media has betrayed them and frequently berate Al Jazeera and the BBC.

The other media groups in Iraq such as CNN and BBC see Al Jazeeras coverage of the war as revolutionary, noting their eagerness to deliver the full news leaving nothing untouched. These groups are also in dismay with CentCom after numerous lackluster briefs.
In my opinion Al Jazeera were indeed the true medium in this affair, and to a lesser extent the other media groups. When CentCom try to paint them as a bias filled propoganda machine it doesnt fly with me. I mean in one scene you see Donald Rumsfeld commenting on Al Jazeera's propogando techniques, then ten minutes later you see an Iraq army commander condeming their propogand also! If both sides think that Al Jazeera is going against them, then obviously they are showing coverage on both sides of the spectrum. They really were the true journalists.

Television Censorship

The responsibility of television censorship in America is placed squarely under the FCC's control. The FCC stands for the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC is in place to regulate what it sees as indecent material, and will hand out fines if it sees it as necessary.

The FCC however cannot regulate satellite or cable television stations such as HBO. Which is the reason that shows like CSI are allowed to air at early times during the day. Films of all ratings are also playing throughout the day. I came home from class at noon a few weeks ago and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre was playing!

In Ireland television has a watershed hour of nine pm. Before this hour no shows with offensive language or content can be shown, no exceptions. In my opinion this is the best way for television to be regulated as it gives parents a time to know when television becomes suitable and also means that children can browse without coming across indecent content.

In recent times in this country the biggest incident related to television censorship occured at Superbowl XXXVIII's halftime show. During the halftime entertainment Justin Timberlake revealed Janet Jacksons breast in what backstage called a wardrobe malfunction, it is known in the media as nipplegate! This was a live broadcast being viewed by millions of people across the country. This was of course completley distasteful and many children had seen it. The FCC fined CBS over half a million dollars after recieving about five hundred thousand complaints.

Unseen Pictures, Untold Stories.

• In this article from the LA Times the writer seeks to clarify why there is a restriction on violent media from Iraq, and why there is such an atmosphere of tension surrounding the whole situation. This image of a dying soldier called Travis Babbitt which was published in a New Jersey newspaper is the main inspiration for this piece.
  
  
  The main points of this article include:
  
  Only a handful of photographs featuring injured or dying soldiers have been released
• Journalists believe they are delivering an incomplete portrait of the war.
• There are logical reasons for this such as the number of war photographers in Iraq (3-15).
• Controls on war coverage come directly from the Whitehouse.
• No recognizable faces are allowed, family most be notified before publication.
• Some journalists who published violent photos were transferred to a different station.
• These photos hurt morale, aids the enemy and intrude on intimate moments.
• Family of these servicemen do not want to see their own in this situation.
• Soldiers want to be shown as brave not as injured broken men.
• Photos of dead Iraqui's occur more often, there is no restrictions on these photos.

Should this photo be published in the Durango Herald? What sort of effect would it have on the surrounding community? What sort of impact could it have on our town?

In my opinion yes it should have been published. If the correct procedure is followed to the fullest extent then I see no reason why images such as these cannot be published. Seeing pictures of your own countrymen lying dead is not something you want to see I know, but seeing a picture like the one of Travis Babbitt really brings home the reality of the war.

I realise that younger children might see a blood stained man, but they must be told that this is war and it is a bad thing. As for adult people who say they support the war, they cannot be against this type of media. The family's of the dead are understandingly going to be upset, but if they don't want their son published they can deny it themselves.

Lets look at the Vietnam war, the first widely daily televised war in your country. What did these streaming images of both sides in pain do? Ultimately it began anti-war campaigns which brought about an end to that cruel war.

A New Era In Play??? HW1

In this piece by Reed Karaim the reporter is presenting to us some information behind today's raging debate over children and their supposed overuse of electronics. Karaim shows us both points of view making for a very good article. Gloria DeGaetano's theory of electronic preschool teaching tools was most intriguing to me, "that parents need to be particularly wary of videos or electronic games promoted as effective preschool tools". For me it seems completley obvious that a young child of that age should never be placed in front of a screen. Children need to be interacting with the world and its inhabitants to help it grow naturally, I dont find it suprising that many of the children subjected to these programs slowed their language development. I also agree that children over the age of seven should be allowed to use computer games and such, as a video game addict myself! Some games if used correctly can definitley improve your intellegence. Personally I found that using Nintendo's "Brain Training Game" as frustrating as it can be will infact improve your general reasoning techniques, which are so important in todays world.

http://sportsmed.starwave.com/media/box/2002/0601/photo/s_rahman_i.jpg

Was that a result of preschool electronic games or Evander Holyfield?

Nobody knows.