Originally Posted by Schmedlap
At the risk of quoting out of context. Walter Cronkite, in the days of three channels, incorrectly and devastatingly, reported that the war in Southeast Asia was lost after the Tet Offensive. He spoke too soon with devastating results based on no evidence. The VC and NVA lost the offensive. They won the hearts and minds of the American public thanks to Cronkite himself who should be held accountable for sensationalism that cost the lives of a lot of Americans.
It is almost impossible for America to win a war with today's press without some sort of censorship. I think the government has done a good job keeping the press in the so-called "Green Zone". If these morons ventured out into the streets there is no telling where we would be right now. Same goes for Afghanistan. What has changed a lot since Vietnam, and occurred mostly during the wars in eastern Europe during the 90s, was the real risk of reporters getting killed at a higher rate than Vietnam. The other side really don't care about the war correspondents' well being any longer. Sure, a lot of reporters were killed in Vietnam. Keeping them out of the way and behind a desk, or rather, under a desk, is better than the old days when there were reporters with some courage and lack of backbone to tell the truth opting instead to report based sensationalism. Like the invisible hand of supply and demand in economics leaving the press to fend for themselves in a war zone will take care of a lot of sensationalism that could have a negative effect on the outcome of a conflict. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
Bookmarks