News media luvvies & war reporting
Gentleman Aviator
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?
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?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: N51:37:39 W1:19:16 Feel free to use as a waypoint.
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting view from the inside
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
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
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Lincs
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
News Media Luvvies & war reporting
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TT, your last sentence says it all really.
The quality of questions in the studio borders on the pathetic. Most of the girls, and mostly on SKY, haven't a clue about what questions to ask the experts (some of whom can hardly be called knowledgeable let alone experts!) get well and truly out of their depth.
Keith Graves on SKY is brilliant, he is factual and doesn't appear to say anything that you cannot trust. Tim Hewitt is another.
Some of the girls in theatre are pitiful to watch. One or two just about manage to be coherent - but a quick course on guns, tanks and aircraft wouldn't go amiss!!
The quality of questions in the studio borders on the pathetic. Most of the girls, and mostly on SKY, haven't a clue about what questions to ask the experts (some of whom can hardly be called knowledgeable let alone experts!) get well and truly out of their depth.
Keith Graves on SKY is brilliant, he is factual and doesn't appear to say anything that you cannot trust. Tim Hewitt is another.
Some of the girls in theatre are pitiful to watch. One or two just about manage to be coherent - but a quick course on guns, tanks and aircraft wouldn't go amiss!!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tir Na n'Og
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sing it preacher
Too Right on all counts Danny. This new "WAR! By CNN!" that is evolving is putting the lads at risk, distressing families at home and making it even more difficult for commanders to meet objectives!
Everytime an aircraft crash is reported or sam sites are reported my mother phones up in glum mood. And I'm not even in theater or in imminent danger of going!!! I can only imagine what my mates mothers are going through. The press need either a conscience or a tight leash (Preferably made with razor wire!)
Everytime an aircraft crash is reported or sam sites are reported my mother phones up in glum mood. And I'm not even in theater or in imminent danger of going!!! I can only imagine what my mates mothers are going through. The press need either a conscience or a tight leash (Preferably made with razor wire!)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I find objectional, and perhaps I am completlywrong in this, I watched a report this morning of Iraqi Irregulars shooting into a crowd of refugee atempting to flee from Basra, the BBC then proceeded to give equal time to Iraqi reports of Aliied troops deliberatly targeting Iraqi civilians elsewhere.
I think the lovies have got their knickers in such a twist about not wanting to appear biased that they have become part of the Iraqi propaganda effort.
When this is all over a special oscar should be awarded for the front man/woman who has asked the most stupid and insipid question of the war, and the one who has asked the same dumb question to the greatest number of people in a 8 hour period.
Will be difficult to decide a winner, bt they will all definatly be strong runnersup.
I think the lovies have got their knickers in such a twist about not wanting to appear biased that they have become part of the Iraqi propaganda effort.
When this is all over a special oscar should be awarded for the front man/woman who has asked the most stupid and insipid question of the war, and the one who has asked the same dumb question to the greatest number of people in a 8 hour period.
Will be difficult to decide a winner, bt they will all definatly be strong runnersup.
Everything is under control.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From today's Washington Post . . .
"For Broadcast Media, Patriotism Pays -- Consultants Tell Radio, TV Clients That Protest Coverage Drives Off Viewers"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Mar27.html
"For Broadcast Media, Patriotism Pays -- Consultants Tell Radio, TV Clients That Protest Coverage Drives Off Viewers"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Mar27.html
