This week MountainRunner gave a local talk on the information age and referred to the new factor 'transparency of the battlefield'. I know there are several, if not many threads, on transparency, but the phrase "struck a cord".

Access to the skirmish or battlefield is not universal.

Compare the openess documented here by Outlaw09 on the war in the Ukraine, which is mainly open source generated by non-state sources and of course the combabatants themselves recording events. Then there is the very limited information on the LRA in the jungles of central Africa, an almost unseen, let alone recorded combatant.

What is different now? Recording is so much easier, if you have a mobile phone with a camera and to my surprise still the ability to forward this footage beyond the combat zone. Is everyone a potential reporter? Have a peek at this reflective article by a reporter on their role:https://medium.com/@Storyful/the-jou...s-749344c7a45a

In the West media access to the battlefield - assuming it is for now a fixed concept and fact - has been variable. Few expat journalists in either Afghanistan or Iraq appear to have ventured far from their "safe houses", 'minders' and Western armies.

MountainRunner made the point that one big difference was not access, nor information gathering, it was the speed of transmission and IMHO the possibility it grabs attention.

Anyway that's all for now from my "armchair".