News media luvvies & war reporting [Archive]

Danny

19th Mar 2003, 14:18

I wonder if I just saw someone pulling the plug on Sky News a few minutes ago. I tend to flick between all the 24 hour news channels (BBC24, Sky News, CNN, ITN24 and occasionally Fox News :yuk: ) and the frenzied packaging of their news now that war is going ahead is becoming increasingly irritating.

All morning Sky have been giving us live pictures from Fairford and bases in Kuwait with their resident 'waepons' analyst explaining what was being loaded on the various a/c. The B52s at Fairford were being focused on and the analyst was pointing out that the bombers have now been fitted with their underwing weapons dispensers and that they were probably going to be loaded with ALCMs when the signal to Sky News was cut abruptly.

Now, I know that it is speculation by the resident 'experts' (we all know how often the media get it right :rolleyes: ) but giving away every element of what our forces are doing in preparation for the upcoming fight would appear to me to be extremely insensitive and giving vital information to the Iraqis which could affect our own forces. The live broadcasts from Kuwait were showing what armaments our Tornados were carrying on that particualr mission.

Do any of you who are following this crisis think that the news luvvies with their incessant urge to be framed with an appropriate backdrop of sandy wastes, military hardware or their own fetishes of wearing military garb, are just taking things a bit too far. I have visions of the backroom producers and directors of these media circuses masturbating themselves into a frenzy with all the crappy videolink input they are getting. You can imagine them climaxing every few minutes as one of their junior reporters sends back a 'package' with more pictures of jet fighters or tanks and wondering how many times they will be able to show it.

Why do the 'anchors' feel the need to bring us the main nightly 'terrestial TV' news from Kuwait City? They are only anchoring the news and the backdrop can be painted behind them anyway.

So, back to my point, are our news media luvvies being irresponsible by allowing the enemy to see live reports showing what ordanance our aircraft are carrying, giving them information that may be of use to them? Historical reports after any action are fine but live pictures, focussed on the ordanance for a particular mission would seem to me to be plain stupidity.

Abbeville

19th Mar 2003, 14:45

A poll perhaps Master?

Man-on-the-fence

19th Mar 2003, 15:22

Danny mein herr

Those of us on the fence are in total agreement, the old saying "careless talk costs lives" is as true now as it was then and the constatnt anchoring of bullitins from places like Baghdad is pointless in the extreme.

That said a few bombs falling on the McDonald's (Trevor not Ronald) and Bashir's of this world would be comically ironic methinks.

TC27

19th Mar 2003, 15:31

true, thought the RAF seemed quite keen to show off its Storm Shadow missiles.

Vizsla

19th Mar 2003, 15:36

News media luvvies & war reporting
I wonder if I just saw someone pulling the plug on Sky News a few minutes ago. I tend to flick between all the 24 hour news channels (BBC24, Sky News, CNN, ITN24 and occasionally Fox News ) and the frenzied packaging of their news now that war is going ahead is becoming increasingly irritating.

You must be very bored and should watch out for RSI and or DVT
The Sat. Uplink went down - or as we say the "bird crashed"

Now, I know that it is speculation by the resident 'experts' (we all know how often the media get it right ) but giving away every element of what our forces are doing in preparation for the upcoming fight would appear to me to be extremely insensitive and giving vital information to the Iraqis which could affect our own forces. The live broadcasts from Kuwait were showing what armaments our Tornados were carrying on that particualr mission.

The MOD Press officers are very careful that they place crews in camera positions where no "secrets" will be compromised.
In the up coming Gulf War the MOD have been keen to have the news crews "inbedded" in Army/Navy/RAF units so they are under direct control as to what they can access. A crew is onboard the Ark Royal for instance. The MOD do not want any Wild Cards roaming the region with "videophones"

Do any of you who are following this crisis think that the news luvvies with their incessant urge to be framed with an appropriate backdrop of sandy wastes, military hardware or their own fetishes of wearing military garb, are just taking things a bit too far. I have visions of the backroom producers and directors of these media circuses masturbating themselves into a frenzy with all the crappy videolink input they are getting. You can imagine them climaxing every few minutes as one of their junior reporters sends back a 'package' with more pictures of jet fighters or tanks and wondering how many times they will be able to show it.

All the News organisations are investing millions of dollars & pounds setting up in the Gulf and want their moneysworth.
Dispite what you think there is a large viewing audience.

Why do the 'anchors' feel the need to bring us the main nightly 'terrestial TV' news from Kuwait City? They are only anchoring the news and the backdrop can be painted behind them anyway.

You might be able to fly a 737 but what do you know about CK
and matt. There is a difference from being an "anchor" and "reporter" - If there is a load of misinformed crap spoken by reporters its because they need to fill the allotted slot time or access the the "bird" - if they have no hard info, they have to invent "The danger is speculating about stuff you cant see"

So, back to my point, are our news media luvvies being irresponsible by allowing the enemy to see live reports showing what ordanance our aircraft are carrying, giving them information that may be of use to them? Historical reports after any action are fine but live pictures, focussed on the ordanance for a particular mission would seem to me to be plain stupidity.

The Media "luvies" have all been through intensive training against gas attacks etc. they have it no better than the troops.
As in other areas of the forum discussions e.g. Bagram etc.
Its better to have someone around to spot what the good and bad guys are up to, the "lovies" serve a good purpose of restaint in front of live cameras....

tony draper

19th Mar 2003, 15:48

Yeh I saw that myself and was a bit supprised, the guy was describing what was loaded on each Pylon as the GR4'sTaxied past, we now know that apparently Storm Shadow cruise missiles and Raptor Recon pods have been deployed.
(whatever they are):confused:
Chaps will hardly be able to move for media luuvies in savil row flack jackets and gucci desert boots anyway.

john du'pruyting

19th Mar 2003, 19:04

I suspect that the mil planners are quite happy to let the world (and by implication the Iraqis), see the 'rolling stock' just as long as they keep the timetable and precise destinations a secret.

fobotcso

19th Mar 2003, 19:18

And Sally Taylor, who's a bit of a favourite on BBC South TV News, was beside herself with excitement as this evening she invited her colleague in Kuwait to give us a briefing on "Troops' Deployment"! (Her words, not mine)

He didn't, of course.

SOPS

19th Mar 2003, 19:18

CNN has just show footage of Tomcats and F18s, announcing that "this was secret film of F 117 Stealth Bombers about to go into action" (quote). I really hope that all concerned in the US, and I mean ALL CONCERENED really know what they are doing.

Regards to all SOPS

Danny

19th Mar 2003, 20:25

Is there an echo in here? Vizsla, no need to paraphrase everything I wrote. Most of us can follow a reply if you take care to phrase it sensibly. Sorry if I touched a raw nerve. You must be in the industry then. :hmm:

I may not know much about CK and matt but I do know that when I see a news anchor linking all the stories from Kuwait City, I still can't figure out why he or she has to be at that location instead of in their regular studio.

With reference to "having to invent something", it's nice to have it confirmed by someone who appears to be in the industry that our cynicism is well founded! :rolleyes:

In my past, when I was a soldier and saw real action, I remember one time when we took out a series of trenches and almost shot the journalists who had been 'attached' to the terrorists we were attacking. They were French and soiled themselves quite badly. Not surprising because we gave their positions a 10 minute, continuous artillery shower with 155mm HE before we went in to mop up. They were very lucky and sensibly cowered in the deepest bunker throughout the operation. At least they got to report what it was like on the receiving end of an anti terrorist operation.

We all know how sensible Press Officers and the MOD can be don't we? If they place a camera crew and a reporter transmitting 'LIVE' and give a commentary about what every bit of hardware is that is dangling off the Tornados as they taxi past on their way to a sortie, then I am sure that the Iraqi intelligence services are likely to use that information. They may not know for sure which location exactly is being reported from but they don't have to do too much sussing out. Together with with their own informers or electronic intelligence they have the ability to prepare their defences appropriately.

I know that there is some mileage in showing the size of the forces ready to be unleashed against the Iraqis but the detail that the reporters were going into on 'LIVE' transmissions about the armament on the Tornados did make me feel uncomfortable.

Of course, with all the security we as pilots go through 'just in case we are compromised' doesn't apply to some of the technicians in the news factories. I mean, no one could be holding hostage the family of someone who does know where the reports are being transmitted from, could they?

Finally, why would I get DVT or RSI because I have the TV on while I'm PPRuNeing? :rolleyes:

Send Clowns

19th Mar 2003, 20:39

At least in their ignorance it is difficult for them to reveal important information ...

BOAC

19th Mar 2003, 20:46

With the unfortunate adjunct:-

"At least in their ignorance it is easy for them to reveal important information ..."

bootscooter

19th Mar 2003, 20:49

I'm with you all the way Danny, but maybe for reasons in addition to yours. This "instant replay" war coverage, while certainly being good for ratings, has far reaching personal consequences.
If an RAF aircraft was caught on camera getting a SAM up the chuff on landing, who would decide if that footage could be used? Some overpaid luvvie pontificating on the consequences of war, and instead of the CO and the Padre on the doorstep, Mrs Bootscooter SEEs my demise! nice. Hypothetical of course...touches wood....crosses fingers...rubs rabbits foot etc.....

Jackonicko

19th Mar 2003, 21:17

The media can only film what the Press Officers and Media Ops put them in front of.

The mass TV media can usually only give the detail they've been spoon fed. If the Sky bloke said "Ooh look, Storm Shadow" it will be because someone fed him the info, not because he knows what one looks like.

What journos like these are fed is often disinformation.

I didn't see the Sky Broadcast today when Storm Shadow was described, but those I spoke to who did see it saw only Raptor. I know that an interim Storm Shadow capability was the subject of a UOR, but am less convinced that it has resulted in deployable in-theatre weapons, just yet.

If I were an Iraqi planner I wouldn't want to guarantee to my Lords and masters that the RAF didn't have Storm Shadow in the Gulf now, however, and the Sky broadcast might have sowed further doubt in my mind, and might further complicate my bosses' problems in organising the defences.

However, if I were controlling media ops I would insist on no live broadcasts of missions outbound, just as a sensible precaution.

Bootscooter.
In a war MoD has enormous power to decide what goes out and what doesn't, even when the media isn't relying on MoD facilities to transmit material home. Besides, nothing can touch you with that rabbit's foot. (An interesting experiment that, did it come before Dolly the Sheep or after?)

solotk

19th Mar 2003, 21:24

Last reply edited for being too maudlin.

Come back safe blokes

But why is saddam not in a frenzy of preparation in Baghdad? Where are the troops?

bootscooter

19th Mar 2003, 21:59

Jacko, having never crossed swords with you before, please go easy on me....I tend to stay away from the controversial. However, as you yourself said, "If the Sky bloke said "Ooh look, Storm Shadow" it will be because someone fed him the info".

Also, when we lost an Albert a couple of years ago ( time does fly, so it's probably more like 4) I was flying in the area. Mrs B caught a news snippet that an Albert had gone down, and had that confirmed on Ceefax. Sitting up half the night with worry, she noted that the item had been "pulled" by midnight. She went to bed eventually knowing that the knock on the door would wake her, if she ever got to sleep.

IF a TV crew had been in position at that field, how many times would it have been shown before it was "pulled". In these dys of internet, yo can't keep things secret. Just look at the AZIZ story today.......around the world in minutes!

Cheers, Boots

Danny

20th Mar 2003, 00:02

Jacko, the pictures were being fed 'LIVE' into the studio in the UK and the resident 'expert' was giving a running commentary on what he believed was hanging underneath the Tornados. The MoD may have given the media a prime location to 'frame' their background but the commentator was sitting snug in the studio giving his 'expert' opinion on what the weaponry on the a/c taxying past on the way to the runway. I doubt that the MoD man on the spot had any idea what commentary was accompanying the live pictures.

Yes it may be misinformation or even disinformation but I wouldn't trust most reporters as far as I could throw them. I'm not saying that they would willingly give away something that may be useful to the enemy but I certainly wouldn't put it past some of them to inadvertantly do so in their rush to get their scoop on air before the competition. (Visions of the producer awaiting his or her next orgasmic mpeg from the videophone! :yuk: )

Jackonicko

20th Mar 2003, 00:13

Danny, hadn't realised that. Though the point remains that someone decided that what was going on was suitable to be filmed, and by an organisation that would be putting the resulting pix out 'live'.

However, small matters like what should be militarily sensitive matter much less to the civil servants who actually run service PR than what might be politically embarrassing. Hopefully, though, someone in the field decided that this footage (eg this mission) was OK to go out live.

Clearly Sky's in-studio expert can't tell a Raptor from a Storm Shadow, though.....

Booter,
The media is not easily controllable in peacetime, but in wartime the Forces can appeal to their sense of patriotism (ineffective) and threaten to cut off access for future opportunities (more effective) in order to exercise control. Any news organisation which broadcast footage of a Tornado crashing in flames on Ali Al Salem would almost certainly find it hard to get further footage of coalition forces in action.

osbo

20th Mar 2003, 00:18

Danny,

I'm interested in this element to your post:

"In my past, when I was a soldier and saw real action, I remember one time when we took out a series of trenches and almost shot the journalists who had been 'attached' to the terrorists we were attacking. They were French and soiled themselves quite badly. Not surprising because we gave their positions a 10 minute, continuous artillery shower with 155mm HE before we went in to mop up. They were very lucky and sensibly cowered in the deepest bunker throughout the operation. At least they got to report what it was like on the receiving end of an anti terrorist operation. "

I can't remember too many events prior to your joining the flying communtity where such an action might have been carried out by ordinary British Soldiers against terrorists. Care to expand on your comments?

BarryMonday

20th Mar 2003, 03:46

If you check through the archives of PPRuNe you will see that Danny was in the Israeli Defence Force for a number of years and took part in operations against terrorists.

Put the word Israel into the search function and all will be revealed.

Ranger One

20th Mar 2003, 04:31

Whilst Danny has a point, the most interesting reporting I've seen so far was the unintentional 3-minute live feed that BBC World broadcast, of Bush having his hair done, practicing his speech etc. with people running around, immediately prior to his announcement that action was underway... he obviously didn't realise the camera was on! It ran for around three minutes before someone at the White House presumably yelled for the feed to be cut...

There was no sound... wonder if anyone taped it, could we get a lip-reader working on it... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

R1

BlueWolf

20th Mar 2003, 07:11

Ahh, the old "unintentional broadcast" trick....yeah, I bet they never knew the camera was on.

I am, however, a little puzzled as to how it is that information considered sensitive to a military op could make it past the broadcast censors?
Unless, of course, there was some advantage perceived in allowing such information to be diseminated.

Even in the dark ages, before the internet and instant global communications, dodgy reporting got pulled after a single "inadvertant" broadcast (like the ultimately unsuccessful Tornado mission during the early stages of the Falklands unpleasantness - think they were still calling them MRCAs at that stage).

Many reporters assigned to conflict stories couldn't tell a hand grenade from an aircraft carrier. Last time Fiji had a coup, footage here showing Fijian soldiers carrying M-14s, M16s and even M-1s, referred to "AK 47 assault rifles".
Columns of APCs and trucks are invariably reported as "tanks".

Let these folk record whatever stories they like, and then broadcast the sound to the Iraqis without the pictures. That'll really confuse them!

I'm not including you in the above, Jacko.

Maxflyer

20th Mar 2003, 09:15

I remember on a previous occasion, how Brian Hanrahan, "counted them all out and counted them all back again"! Seems to me that Joe Public was quite happy with this level of reporting without the need to know the pilot's inside leg measurement, blah, balh, blah.

I find the BBC is a broadsheet worth watching (even with a Kuwaiti backdrop), whereas watching Sky is like a reading a tabloid.

Let's just hope all our people on active service return safely and that they know we (the general public) are all behind them.

Tim

sprucemoose

20th Mar 2003, 09:22

Morning Jacko,

If the resident Sky 'expert' was who I think it was, of course he wouldn't know a Storm Shadow from a RAPTOR, would he? Auntie Beeb also made the same mistake last night, but if the people taking the pictures don't ask or aren't told, then mistakes will happen. Ultimately though, no harm done - the possibility that we do have Storm Shadow there is a good psychological card to have, surely?

I agree with Danny that media excitement can go too far, but if you don't want live images of hmms and aaahs being loaded at Fairford then don't let camera crews anywhere near the perimeter!

Boy_From_Brazil

20th Mar 2003, 09:58

Storm Shadow is partially a French Project (Matra), lets hope the ECM's aren't already in Iraqi hands!

I hope my paranoia isn't showing.......

osbo

20th Mar 2003, 10:20

Cheers, BarryMonday

Did just that - did you see how many results come up!! I'll happily take your word for it! A side of our leader I would never have guessed.

Be careful what you post Danny, don't want you ending up as Mr Vanunu's roommate!

Cheers,

O

DamienB

20th Mar 2003, 10:31

Go on then, I'll bite. What Tornado mission to the Falklands was this?

rivetjoint

20th Mar 2003, 10:52

You mean you don't know :)
It didn't go too well.... :)

Zoom

20th Mar 2003, 11:08

It won't hurt for Saddam to see what's going to poke him in the eye.

My media beef from GW1 was the half-hourly (I was able to watch a lot of TV!) casualty reports that just churned out the same info without qualifying it particularly well. An example was 'The RAF has lost another Tornado...'; by the end of Day 2 I had calculated that we had lost about 96 of them!!

Let's just hope that this sort of event won't have to be reported at all.

Jackonicko

20th Mar 2003, 11:22

OK Sprucey, I'll bite. Who was the aforementioned Sky specialist who you wouldn't have expected to tell Raptor from Sky Shadow?

Paul B???

BlueWolf

20th Mar 2003, 11:26

Damien, it was reported thusly, and only once, on Radio New Zealand News, who were taking their feed from the BBC;

Bear in mind that this was twenty plus years ago, and my memory is perhaps understandably rusty.

The story was that the RAF had attempted to use "Panavia MRCA" combat aircraft to carry out bombing raids on the runway at Port Stanley. They were to have been air-refuelled from Ascenscion, if memory serve correct; but some difficuly occured downstream from that and the mission was aborted.

I heard it but once, but to be sure, I heard it.

It wasn't a proposed mission, it was a mission which had been underway and which was called off part way through.

Only calling it like I heard it and remember it.

MarkD

20th Mar 2003, 13:10

comments from a mate via text message watching the coverage in Oz

"Quote of the day:
(presenter) 'what message was the US sending today?'
(US ret. general) 'there is only one message a man can get when you hit him with 36 cruise missiles and 4 bunker busters' "

"wait, a better one:
(woman presenter) 'Geoff I know the sirens behind you mean you have only 9 seconds to put on your gas mask but before you do can you tell us...' "

"NBC presenter and 2 retired generals on how technology can accurately track the republican guard. Then they couldnt figure out how to pull up Baghdad on a touch screen"

solotk

20th Mar 2003, 14:21

Like the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporations "General" who was having a bad day using the digital battle demonstration gizmo.

Still the babeness of the anchor girl made up for it. Are all the Lebanese women that gorgeous?

Oh,, and some confusion still over whether we knew about the Cruises or not. At early doors this AM , British High Command were reporeted as saying "What attack"? lol

sprucemoose

20th Mar 2003, 14:50

Jacko,

I believe it was a certain son of a famous father, with a flair for wearing desert boots at all times. PB should be preparing to come back from a hot and sandy exhibition, so that's more quality punditry to follow.

Oi waiter, saucer of milk!

L J R

20th Mar 2003, 18:50

Newer forget that most gun running compaies actually want press coverage of their goods. Anyone remember GW I news footage saw lots of the same mil kit, weapon etc, being put in the CNN spotlight - partially to sell more stuff.

As for the mung beans on TV that profess to be experts in the modern military field. They have a use in the misinformation war and can be an ally if properly moulded.

It is always humourous when the anchor person is startled at modern technology.

.

QDMQDMQDM

20th Mar 2003, 23:24

Any news organisation which broadcast footage of a Tornado crashing in flames on Ali Al Salem would almost certainly find it hard to get further footage of coalition forces in action.

Truth, as they say, is the first casualty of war. I'm in favour of taking Saddam Hussein out of the equation in the way we are doing. However, I find it worrying that we are fed such sanitised, propaganda images of war: grainy images of smart bombs destroying only bunkers with mythical enemy soldiers inside them.

It's strange how things have turned full circle. In the first world war, the awful reality of the trenches was kept far away from home because they didn't think the public could stomach it.

In the second, there were also a lot of idealised, romantic images in films with Leslie Howard and such like, although documentaries like John Huston's 'The Battle for San Pietro' were getting pretty gritty. (So gritty the Americans wouldn't show it.)

Moving to Vietnam, the US public was able to watch little Johnny get his head blown off in glorious technicolor on the news every night and public opinion didn't last long in favour of that war. The Brits learnt about news management from that, so there were no graphic images of the Falklands, nor were there of the first Gulf War and there won't be of this one, so war once again looks like a clean business, characterised by 'surgical strikes' and such like.

We're more or less back to the situation of news management of the first world war, which I don't think is a good thing.

QDM

anytimebaby

21st Mar 2003, 00:10

Methinks the next war will be somewhat like the Superbowl in USA. With precision strikes being interspersed with Coca-Cola commercials, GBU-28s painted in MGD colours and Witney Houston singing halfway through for morale.

I be Budweiser would come up with a cracker!

Memetic

21st Mar 2003, 00:18

... you could not even see the F 117's!

Impressive!

Memetic

21st Mar 2003, 00:42

Having just sat infront of BBC News 24 for the last 2 hours it seems to me that the message that is being delivered by carefully placing journalists around (Embedding in units etc.) and constant talking about, "When is the shaock and awe attack comming?" could well be aimed at Iraqi military high ups with access to western media, i.e. "Look at all this hardware, it has your name on it, do you really want to see it up close?"

Alternatively it could be that the heavy stuff is already raining down out of sight of the civilian population of Iraq and hence out of sight of the Bagdad based Journos and is only going to be allowed to be covered retrospectively by embbedded journalists.

Afterall the aim is to put the fear on the troops so they will surrender and leave the civilians feeling that we are doing this for them, exposing the civilians to too much high explosive would not leave them with much residual warm feeling for thier liberators.

To all of you out there, good luck, I hope you see more surrenders than fire fights.

DamienB

21st Mar 2003, 07:26

QDM - "there were no graphic images of the Falklands" - beg to disagree. Burned soldiers off the Galahad, the chap with his lower leg blown off and skin hanging off in tatters, dead Argies scattered around their trenches... saw it all back then. In 1982 they were some of the most shocking images ever seen on British TV.

gijoe

21st Mar 2003, 08:30

How about this one?

AM(Retd) Tim Garden on breakfast this morning not knowing that the soldiers to which 2 Iraqi soldiers ( might have been civilians) were surrendering were British....This despite the English accents, depsite the British webbing, despite the British pattern DPM, despite the famed SA80 in the hands of the soldiers..etc

Experts? My TV licence has to pay for this.

G:confused:

Jackonicko

21st Mar 2003, 11:21

What do you expect from a Canberra pilot?

Beeayeate

21st Mar 2003, 11:27

Anytime said

"With precision strikes being interspersed with Coca-Cola commercials, GBU-28s painted in MGD colours"

Maybe even a bit closer to the troops. Read somewhere that the RAF commander will prob sanction nose-art (no bare boobs though) but has flatly turned down an offer from a tabloid to have its name on the nose of a kite.

scroggs

21st Mar 2003, 11:43

BlueWolf sorry mate, but it didn't happen. Either your memory, NZ radio or the BBC was misled or misleading, but no Tornadoes of any variety took part in any operations on or south of Ascension in the 1982 Falklands conflict.

Yes, I was there.

Unwell_Raptor

21st Mar 2003, 12:03

You aren't right about the Falklands, Damien. Sure there are graphic images in the files now but for over three weeks no pictures were allowed out. The only satcom kit belonged to the Royal Navy, and live pictures were out.

The footage that you describe was released a long time after the event.

All we had was a weird civil servant with a voice like the speaking clock giving press statements.

Ian McDonald, I think his name was.

Beeayeate

21st Mar 2003, 12:10

Jacko wrote

"What do you expect from a Canberra pilot?"

Pretty much what is expected of todays Cranberrie pilots, go in, do a job, get back if you can.

Tertius primus erit.

. . .also CO of a Vulcan squadron among other things.

interestedparty

21st Mar 2003, 13:55

According to chatter in the local, "The Pig Slaughter's Knife" - (Ch. Latour & rough Ciders of renown our speciality), there were waves of Iraqi bombers over London last night and "them city folk" didn't get any sleep at all.
Rumour also has it that C....e B...r and her friend C....e are locked in the B...r Bunker with a VHS of "The Fist, The Whole Fist & Nothing But The Fist"* and a vast supply of medical lubricants. Talk about panic buying!
For my own part I am confident the brave allied journos will beat the living s..t out of the Iraqi journos purely because the latter won't be able to decipher what they squiggled whilst under attack.
Delighted to see that Sir T....r MacRasta is braving the arduous conditions of the Kuwait Hyatt Hotel, and the brave butch bitches from every channel are looking very fetching in their camouflage. Expect the first fashion show with battle effects very soon.
Also a new series, "Gardening in Desert Conditions", anchored by C.....e (this sand makes my nipples sore) D.....k.
Still it's all good fun if you don't weaken.

* This film actually exists, and is suitable material for a thesis, a stag or hen night.

ORAC

21st Mar 2003, 15:28

http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/images/story/jpgs/216764.jpg

Pegasus#

21st Mar 2003, 15:32

I really am not sure we should be getting too upset about the luvvies themselves: they only take what is given to them by the uniformed (and sometimes un-uniformed) people who talk to the press. This article on Reuters I think is a shocking breach of Opsec. The comments on Basra really upset me, as does the idea that any serviceman could behave like this. By contrast, the B52 stuff is headline grabbing, but they could work the flight times out for themselves form watching the TV this morning. I suppose it could be psyops, but I fear not

LONDON, March 21 (Reuters) - British troops aim to seize control of the southern Iraqi city of Basra during Friday night, a UK military source said.
"One of the key aims tonight is to get hold of Basra," the source told Reuters.
He added that UK troops were preparing to take humanitarian aid into Iraq within 48 hours. "The idea is to sweep through a place then support it."
U.S. B-52 bombers which took off from an air base in England on Friday morning were due to hit Iraq within an hour as part of a "big blast", he added.
((Reporting by Lyndsay Griffiths; [email protected] +44 207 5428022))
Friday, 21 March 2003 16:00:43
RTRS [nL21329780]

Vizsla

21st Mar 2003, 16:01

Not much time left before the money runs out.

See www.broadcastnow.com

UK News broadcasters are only on a limited budget to keep their experts on location.

QDMQDMQDM

21st Mar 2003, 20:17

Everybody likes to slag off the 'news media luvvies', but how would you actually like your war reporting?

These people are professionals doing a job which is to provide what the population wants to see / hear / read. It may appear fatuous to you, but if it sells newspapers or keeps the viewing ratings up that's what counts. If the 'news media luvvies' started reporting the war in a way which satisfied the whinging ppruners they probably wouldn't stay in their jobs for long.

It's easy to snipe, it's much less easy to specify how it should be done differently.

QDM

(And I'm not a news media luvvie, just a country GP who likes a bit of an argument now and again.)

Jackonicko

21st Mar 2003, 22:09

It's easy to under-estimate the tabloid/TV/radio audience, and to assume that the general interest 'man in the street' is interested only in colour and flavour and doesn't want detail, intelligent observation or analysis.

I think that such a view is arrogant and unjustified. You can strike a balance between entertaining, educating and informing the audience, but not unless you employ journalists who can both communicate and understand what they are talking about.

Those who should be condemned are the editors who think that any half-trained reporter can do an adequate job on defence stories. They wouldn't dream of letting these muppets lose on covering important issues, like education, parliament, party conferences or economics.

But I'm not complaining, because the inadequacy of these people makes a lot of work for journos like me, and Iraqi Freedom will be great for my bank balance (and hopefully over before the new tax year!).

Scud-U-Like

22nd Mar 2003, 08:16

Well, we're always banging-on about being forgotten by the public. Enjoy the limelight!

Lol - like the cartoon, ORAC.

Pontius Navigator

22nd Mar 2003, 20:54

Having done the course, the Media Ops guys try to control the camera view but as you well know, **** happens.

Ever seen the real zoom capability on the TV Cams. Awesome.

Now a 'J' Bloke!!

24th Mar 2003, 09:31

Hi Gang;

Too close to the front for my liking. I saw a bit of Sky action (inaction really) yesterday morning....and the drivel that was spouted in the long gaps between action was terrible.

Just my 2P..

Regards..SFS:bored:

Vortex what...ouch!

24th Mar 2003, 10:33

Is it just me or do others get the impression the coalition are losing the propaganda war?

Why are they always reacting to Iraqi statements instead of being proactive? What they need and soon is a charismatic spokesperson that can give decent briefings in a timely fashion instead of denying everything then having it shown on Iraqi TV 15 minutes later.

Digitalis

24th Mar 2003, 15:52

The problem with the 24/7 reporting is that each event is dissected in real time by non-experts. Pauses in action are interpreted as problems, and mistakes are made, some of which are amusing, some tragic in their ignorance and the offence they cause. Part of the problem is that many of the studio anchors were not involved in earlier wars and have no idea what to expect. They seem to be surprised that it's not as intense (from their point of view) as a computer game, and their frustration at the conflicting information they receive - live and on-air - is obvious.

Surely an hourly 10-minute summary of the latest events would allow some editing of available VT, with a little time for facts and ethics to be checked and the broadcast analysis to be planned before it actually goes out. As I remember, this was pretty much the profile during GW1 and the Falklands, and the overall impressions of the press (or rather TV) coverage was much better than it is this time.

Notably, the broadsheet newspapers in UK, who have the luxury of time to check sources and facts, are doing a very good job indeed. The TV networks are attempting to commentate, as in a sports event, rather than inform.

S76Heavy

24th Mar 2003, 18:18

I agree, there is an overexposure. Not only does it give too many opportunities for stupid comments just to be "on air", it can also adversely affect the troops in doing what they are supposed to do, and that is to win the war at minimum cost.

I personally don't feel the need to watch every movement of the troops. I would be quite happy with decent summaries, and since we're not allowed to see everything for tactical and strategic reasons anyway, it would not matter a bit. It would, however, enable the victims (both sides) to retain some of their dignity that is now too often stripped by poking a microphone and a camera in someone's face or by graphically showing the events where people get killed and maimed.
Those shots should be shelved until they are required for documentary use after the war, not broadcast in real-time.

War is hell, not a video game. Get it over with quickly.

Andu

24th Mar 2003, 20:55

Would someone either give the BBC's Hilary Anderson ('embedded' (!!!!) with the Brit HQ in Kuwait) a happy pill or put her out of her misery? The way she reports, it's almost as if he willing the Brits to fail.

TomPierce

24th Mar 2003, 21:13

It is time. No, essential. That some of these pratish reporters are sent packing. There are too many of them there and they interfere with ops anyway. A bloody nuisance as they have always been.

Select just two or three and get rid of the rest. They don't know a breech from a mussel anyway - ! And the idiot reporter on Sky who said that he was shocked and dismayed with the bombs and the artillery, and the effect it was having on the civvies. What the hell did he expect.

Bring back Brian Hanrahan, the ONLY sensible war reporter since Stanley Maxted.

teeteringhead

25th Mar 2003, 09:21

Just a thought on "media numpties", which maybe Jacko or some other sensible journo (did you like that Jacko?) could comment on.

We know that there is lots of "highly paid help" with military experience in UK studios - all the Gardens and Cordingleys etc. But I wonder if there is any place for "lowly paid help", recently serving JOs, two-and-a-halfs or WOs, who would at least know the differences between SA80/AK 47, tank/AFV, F14/F18 or whatever.

Or is it just not worth the (small?) investment to get a degree of accuracy that not many would appreciate? Didn't Churchill serve as a (young civilian) war correspondent in the Boer War having recent left the cavalry? So why not now? Doesn't the new technology make the job easier for the unskilled?

Man-on-the-fence

25th Mar 2003, 10:20

Sorry for the cut and paste but I have just found this on the BBC News website. It has a chilling ring of truth about it.

War reporters face new challenges

By Allan Little
BBC world affairs correspondent in Kuwait city

The conflict with Iraq has changed the face of war reporting with an unprecedented number of journalists in the battle zones.

I am standing in the lobby of an international hotel in Kuwait city.

It is just after dark. A US army major is talking urgently into a mobile phone to a journalist who has got lost in southern Iraq.

"These voices you can hear," the major is saying. "Are they English or Arabic? Arabic.

This feeling that so far we are all inescapably part of someone's war effort is unsettling

"Then lie flat on the ground. Do not move.
"Switch off your mobile phone because if it rings it will give away your position. Stay there all night.

"When you hear American forces arrive wave something white and put your hands up.

"Now", he adds ominously, "is there any message you would like me to pass on to your next of kin while you still can?"

Who is the hapless, terrified hack who has phoned the US army press office in Kuwait in desperation, unable to move and now fearing for his life?

He has run across the Iraqi border and headed blindly into the battlefield and has run up against units of the Iraqi army.

How has he got himself into this position? Is he still there this morning? Has he survived the night?

'Reality TV show'

There are too many of us here. There are 2,000 reporters accredited with the US military.

Of those 500 are embedded with the coalition forces and they are telling the story of this war - graphically, dramatically, instantly and sometimes live, commentating on battles as they unfold, and before the outcome is known.

It is astonishing and unprecedented. It changes everything about what we do.

An old friend rang me this morning. He is working as a cameraman with one of the American networks.

I have worked with him in dangerous places before - Rwanda, Zaire, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe - and he is a calm and fearless man of careful judgement.

He has seen a lot. I trust his judgement.

"I'm desperately worried Allan" he says.

"None of the team I'm working with here has ever been to a war before and they want to cross the border and go wandering into the battlefield.

"You should hear them talking about this war. They think it's a reality TV show".

Reporting tactics

Information is part of the war effort.

The Coalition War plan demands that by the time US tanks reach the gates of Baghdad, the Iraqi regime will know - because they will have seen it on satellite television - that their authority has collapsed everywhere else in the country.

What we report - and the way we report it - is therefore a key part of the military campaign.

The military have a term for it. They call it "Information Operational Effect".

This is all new to me.

In 1991 I was on the other side. I was with the Iraqis.

For me it wasn't Desert Storm, it was the Mother of All Battles.

We cannot escape the fact the Iraqis wanted us there - allowed us to be there - because they thought we would be useful to them.

It was their version of "Information Operational Effect".

Tribute paid

Some of my good friends are embedded with the US and UK military.

He was a generous and thoughtful colleague, and a welcome friend in any bad place
Allan Little on ITN reporter Terry Lloyd

They are doing what seems to me to be a brilliant job. They are keeping cool, distanced, serious. It is not - emphatically not - a reality TV show to them.

Nor is it to those on the other side.

One or two of my good friends are in Baghdad. I know what it is like for them there.

I pray for their safety. I admire what they are doing beyond measure.

But this feeling that so far we are all inescapably part of someone's war effort is unsettling.

And it is this - and not the neophyte adrenaline rush excitement of those who think of this war as reality TV - that is driving good people across the border in search of voices and experiences that are not policed by either side's military spin doctors.

The news that an ITN crew was lost in southern Iraq came as a sobering reality check to the mood that has sometimes prevailed here.

Terry Lloyd was one of Britain's most experienced television journalists.

In Bosnia where I worked opposite him, he was a generous and thoughtful colleague and a welcome friend in any bad place.

I saw him the other day and he greeted me with warmth and we punched each other's local phone numbers into our Kuwaiti mobiles promising to get together to talk about how to proceed. I had hoped we still would.

Story from BBC NEWS:

Link to BBC News Story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/2880949.stm)

Captain Kirk

25th Mar 2003, 13:36

QDM – to answer your question I would like to see the REPORTING, as distinct from ignorant SPECULATION.

I am tired of hearing reports of ‘stiff resistance holding up the allied advance’ every time a journo panics upon hearing some random small arms fire and sees our troops pause to assess the situation professionally. No doubt it would make for better viewing if our troops just waded in – it must be very frustrating that we engage the enemy on our terms with minimum casualties. No doubt there IS stiff resistance in places and I will believe a professional soldiers assessment but what frame of reference do the vast majority of the journalists have? (Recognizing that a very few are seasoned war reporters).

Digitalis and S76Heavy are spot on with their comments. I may have professional insight but I suspect that many of the wider civilian population are far more discerning than they are given credit for.

In sum – REPORT and preserve us from inane and counter productive speculation.

Wiley

25th Mar 2003, 16:39

I can’t help but wonder how the various Allied invasions of Europe in WW2 would have fared under this much immediate media scrutiny. (If I hear ‘fierce resistance’ from on of Danny’s ‘luvvies’ once more I’ll *** scream!) For example, the Allied landings at both Anzio and the earlier landing at Salerno were both utter clusterf**ks, and on a huge scale, if in totally different ways.

Salerno was a bloodbath – the landings were fiercely (God, there’s that word again) opposed, and the Allied losses were enormous. At Anzio, the landings were unopposed – some scouts groups actually got into the suburbs of Rome on Day One, for there were no German forces anywhere near the landings – but the American general, mindful of the bloodbath at Salerno, had everyone sit pat on the beachhead until the artillery landed. The Germans promptly rushed troops in and threw up a very effective defensive line between the beach and Rome using impressed labour… and the rest, as they say, is history. (This was, almost to the letter, an exact repetition of the fateful mistake Sir Francis Stopford made at Sulva Bay in Gallipoli in the August 1915 landings that were designed to break the deadlock at Helles and ANZAC. Anyone who saw the movie ‘Gallipoli’ might remember that the Australian Light Horsemen who literally threw their lives away in the hopeless diversionary frontal assaults at the Nek – attacks designed to cover the Sulva landings to their immediate north – could see the English troops sitting on the beach brewing tea and not exploiting the empty, undefended ground inland from the beachhead.)

A little earlier than the disasters of Salerno and Anzio, during the first day of the landings on Sicily, one of the biggest (at least biggest admitted) ‘blue-on-blues’ of the war occurred, when, in a planning mistake that defies belief, the huge C47 fleet carrying the paratroopers who were to precede the amphibious landings were routed overhead the invasion fleet. You can picture the scene: a couple of thousand excitable young sailors sitting at their AA guns see very large fleet of low flying aircraft approaching the fleet… It only took one to open fire and then rest promptly followed suit. Someone with a better memory than mine might post the figures, but I seem to remember that the losses the American paratroops suffered overflying the fleet were so horrendous that the survivors who made it to the DZs were almost ineffective as a fighting force.

The Normandy landings – at least on Omaha Beach – were the same, as were the weeks immediately after the landings for the British and Canadians in the debacle of Caen. But in all cases, be it by good luck, better logistics, or perhaps the incredible bravery of the men who fought those battles, they eventually won the day. I don’t believe they could have done so if they’d had Hilary Anderson’s grandmother sending defeatist reports back to the home front as her granddaughter is currently doing from British HQ in Kuwait.

I think ‘blue-on-blues’ - (I refuse to use the oxymoronic term ‘friendly fire’) - have accounted for something between 20 and 30% of casualties in warfare since the American Civil War at least. We all bitch and moan about the journos’ ignorance of all things Aviation. I believe the same could be said of their ignorance of History – at least military history, hence all their ‘shock! horror!’ reactions to the everyday nastiness of war.

I agree with Captain Kirk – REPORT, reporters; don’t endlessly SPECULATE, particularly when you haven’t got a clue what you’re speculating about.

Jackonicko

28th Mar 2003, 08:47

Teetering Head,

Yes. Of course there should be a place for such 'help'.

But it's hard enough to get News producers to use the likes of me, even when they've paid for my time. They don't know enough to ask the right questions, they're often too arrogant to ask what the right questions are, they have a contempt for their audience which makes them pitch everything at a very generalised, 'lowest common denominator' level, and many are more in sympathy with the entertainment value of news than with its potential to educate and inform.

I have usually been used to mouth stupid, inane 'soundbites' and if I don't provide one, they'll edit the tape til they've got one. Any analysis is not required or valued, and accuracy doesn't seem to matter.

These are people who use the word 'plane' or 'warplane' in preference to aircraft or aeroplane, and not just to provide some variety or to avoid repetition.

Perhaps I shouldn't be too harsh. As someone whose primary area of expertise is aviation, I can see the shortcomings in their coverage of military aviation, while Army chaps and specialised journos will detect shortcomings in that area, and Navy experts will be aware of shortcomings there. It's quite difficult to have a real in-depth and broad-based knowledge of all three areas, and there are a few journos (the R4 defence bloke, Mick Smith of the DTel, etc.) who do a remarkably respectable job - when they are not constrained by their generalist editors.

The worry is that there are many journos whose knowledge and understanding is so poor that they make mistakes about tanks, guns, ships, etc. that even I can pick out. (The mis-identification of Brit troops and equipment as being American, the total lack of understanding of what particular bits of kit do, the failure to understand the limitations of weapons systems, etc.)

I said before that the news organisations often "under-estimate the tabloid/TV/radio audience, and assume that the general interest 'man in the street' is interested only in colour and flavour and doesn't want detail, intelligent observation or analysis."

I think that journalists could and should strike a balance between entertaining, educating and informing the audience, and news organisations should employ journalists who can communicate but who can also understand what they are talking about. They should also employ just the kind of help that you suggest.

Insisting on a delay between filming/interviews/etc. and transmission, and preventing live feeds would be militarily helpful, and would also encourage news organisations to do more sensible analysis, and to take the time to check for accuracy and to avoid silly mistakes.

But it ain't gonna happen.

Captain Kirk

28th Mar 2003, 14:31

Jacko,

Can you not bring this thread to the attention of some influential media sources - Wiley's historical perspective is very powerful.

tony draper

28th Mar 2003, 15:11

I think the military must be regreting the emmbeded journalist idea, dosen't matter what the quality of the direct reporting , its the studio that is ******ing it up.
The flick from one report to another before the guy on the spot has a chance to finish his report most of the time, to me this has just increased the noise to signal not not helped it.
We seemed to get a far better picture of what was actually going on with the daily news call run by the military during GW1.
If the idea was for the military to be able to control the info coming out al la Falklands conflict with this tactic, it has failed dismaly.

Toddington Ted

28th Mar 2003, 17:15

Having undertaken media ops tasks in the comfort of PJHQ UK during some previous altercations (Desert Fox in 98 and Kosovo 99) I'm now (rather late in my Service career) experiencing the job at the theatre end so to speak. I too have followed the media progress of this conflict with considerable interest (just as well really as that's what I'm supposed to do!) and I have been very interested in the behaviour of the "enbeds". To some extent, I have to rely on other sources since where we are, the host nation is not too keen on too much media attention, hence no enbeds with us and not likely. Generally though, the UK journalists I've dealt with by phone have been very supportive but are desperately anxious to report the "human side" of events. This is not at all surprising as, after 7 days of watching B-52 bombers at rest at Fairford, the public soon loses interest in machines, preferring the fascination of humanity. I have also witnessed and heard some extremely amusing tales regarding the media whilst I have been out here in the sand pit (some of which have come from PPRUNE threads - keep up the good morale work folks!) but I guess I must wait until I'm back home before I can repeat them. The majority of the media really do not have the in-depth knowledge to report military matters to the accuracy we might like but you can rest assured that we do try to do our best out here to ensure they get the facts and the message without compromising personal and family security. I agree that it is often the TV studio that fouls things up once stuff is on air.