Wednesday, April 2, 2003

Recent Media Coverage of the Iraqi War

It is amusing and annoying to watch how the all the various media channels are trying to take advantage of the war on Iraq to boost their ratings and advertising dollars. Amusing because they cover far too many segments and minor incidences that in the greater picture don't mean much... "2 U.S. soliders hit by friendly-fire", "19 dead...", profiles of Iraqi military weapons, and so on. I don't mind reading about it on the web, but to occupy major TV time is another thing. Which leads to my annoyance of news reporters constantly interrupting the NCAA basketball tournment with trivial stories and updates that really aren't that news worthy.

With a "few set backs" and the U.S. military "downplaying the greater resistance" is also amusing to me because how long did the media expect the war to last? It's a war, people! It wasn't going to last weeks. It was going to be months. And not all, but many of the Iraqi military should be expected to fight until the death. I didn't picture all of them raising a white flag and surrendering. Maybe the major news bureaus expected this, but are just simply trying to add to the drama. In comparison, I wonder how these same news heads would have covered the Civil War, WWII, or any of the other major wars. With so many casualties and mishaps, all we would get is war news if the same technology and approach was present during those prior wars.

With this discussion, I am not stating the lives of those lost so far are less important or not important, but to report on such minor situations in the greater picture of any war is silly and irresponsible. They do not need to create an emotional roller coaster ride for the general public that is unhealthy and unnecessary. Each reporter should just create his/her own personal blog and post all these minor incidences that should be expected in a war and stopping cutting into the air time of the NCAA tourney.

No comments: