Combat Footage

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Nov, 1 2003 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I've wondered before why we never see footage of the war on TV. I even considered that maybe they didn't have that much. Well, I just saw some on CNN during this program on war veterans and PTSD.

They didn't show very much, it was only footage of dead Iraqis, some Marines shooting a wounded Iraqi laying on the ground and then cheering, and a tank riddling a speeding pickup truck with bullets. The had stories from the soldiers about calling in airstrikes then seeing blown up children, husbands carrying their dead wifes, etc....but no footage. I still thought that it was awfully bold of a news network to even show what they did.

Well, obviously there must be ALOT more footage than that. My question is, do you think we will ever see this footage? Anytime soon? Will then show it on evening news?




posted on Nov, 1 2003 @ 08:17 PM
link   
well flinx,the lemmings wouldn't want to see footage...at least the govt doesn't want them to see it. it may offend thier delicate senses. for some weird reason the public tends to think that combat only happens with the soldiers. think about if fighting came thru your area.some would leave, others would stay...and be in the crossfire or just plain targets. combat is not what the pole-leaz face ( they would like to think it is though)..in combat,'specialy the type in iraq, the enemy is probably anybody not in my uniform...the lemmings don't want to see that. so the govt censors it...think back to somalia...it probably was all taped by the eye-in -the-sky that was giving the troops outdated info...that would be interesting to see....
oh, well..we will just have to keep digging



posted on Nov, 1 2003 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
I've wondered before why we never see footage of the war on TV.


Have you already forgotten just how intense the footage was during the invasion? Weeks of television devoted to on the spot reports from the frontline and beyond.

The invasion ended, all the 'embedded' reporters packed up and went home. That's why you never see much on TV now. And to be honest you'll probably find that some market research group came to the conclusion that to carry on with such high intesnity reiorting would lead to overkill, the public would tire of it and switch channels when it came on - and for once they'd probably be right.

That said, you lot are losing an average of one man a day - lately more - but that doesn't seem to be very important to the media....though I'm guessing it ain't entirely their choice to keep a tight lid on that angle of the tale....



posted on Nov, 1 2003 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SabbyJ
Have you already forgotten just how intense the footage was during the invasion? Weeks of television devoted to on the spot reports from the frontline and beyond.



I don't know, I never really saw anyone being killed....

But what I want to know is, what do they do with all of the combat footage they have, but decided not to show? Where does it go exactly?



posted on Nov, 1 2003 @ 10:40 PM
link   
they should get rid of the embedded reporters. they have no place on the battle field. our soldiers have so much more to worry about than keeping the reporters alive. i would not feel sorry for any reporter who was killed in action.

and oh yeah. i think that ghrilido or what ever the hell his name is that worked for FOX NEWS NET should be shot for treason!



posted on Nov, 1 2003 @ 10:54 PM
link   
As someone whose father was an embedded reporter in the first gulf war, Afghanistan, and this past gulf war I find your remark to be offensive to say the least. Embedded reporters in COMBAT situations have to go through intensive training to get out on the field. This is actually more of an insurance issue, if they have training that makes them less likely to die, that makes the insurance rates the network must pay much lower. Many reporters are also discretely accompanied by a bodygurad, normally an ex-special op soldier or someone with battlefield experience. And if a reporter ever gets in the way of combat in such a way as to endanger a soldier's life, they are sent home, no matter how big a stink their parent company may raise. And lastly, they pick reporters who have experience in this type of thing, my father has covered pretty much every ineternational conflict since the marine barracks bombings in 83. That's twenty years of experience in crisis situations, more than most soldiers. But anyway...

They don't put out much of the combat footage in part to keep the war PR friendly, and in part so American tactics and strategys are not put in jeopardy.

And yes, Geraldo should be beaten about the head with a slab of bacon



posted on Nov, 2 2003 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dreamstone
They don't put out much of the combat footage in part to keep the war PR friendly, and in part so American tactics and strategys are not put in jeopardy.


Ah, an answer from someone who knows. Thank you!





top topics
 
0

log in

join