I was just going over the reading ("The Television War") for tomorrow's class and was struck by something interesting.
On the one hand, many are upset by the media using live footage from war, but on the other hand a lot of the footage is actually sanitized.
I don't understand why we need this footage broadcasted at all. There are so many negatives: family members wondering if they're watching the death of their loved one, the way you can watch the war and then switch the channel to see what's on MTV? The whole thing is kinda sickening.
I know that people like to know what's going on, but I feel like putting toned down or graphic war footage on TV trivializes events and is not really necessary
I also was struck by this- I was torn because I really do see both sides to the situation. Since Television has become the main form of media- especially when it comes to wanting the visual people do need to know what is going on. However, when it is viewed as a video game or not real life because of the light imagery they show- it does distance and numb the people about the real situation.
ReplyDeletehowever the other side is but the people do need to know what is going on? Shouldn't we know what is happening- especially in today's day when everything can be broadcasted and showed. I feel like there should be a way to combine these two- especially because television is so free and open and knowing what is happening in real war isn't okay to broadcast where children can see it.
But i disagree I thing there needs to be something broadcasted- maybe in a more secure setting like a login on the internet or something- so it becomes the viewers choice and not flaunted for the world to see all the time.
I would agree except that we still have the news story telling us what is going on-- I don't think the footage adds anything extra except maybe as a proof that there actually is a war going on and there are war reporters getting the inside scoop.
ReplyDeleteIf anything, as the article said, the footage actually distracts people from the actual news story.
This is a fascinating point- however seems pretty unrealistic. In today's day you think that the news on Television which is all about imagery would be as persuasive and get the coverage as much without the footage. yea- maybe it does distract people but you think people would appreciate not seeing the imagery.
ReplyDeletethere is something powerful to footage- seeing it is very powerful that i don't think people would give up.
Because the television sets the tone for how the world thinks. It is important that if the media does not display these images and videos of wounded soldiers that they still show the severe heartache of the war and the emotional damage it will cause. Although I agree with both sides, every solider has a family who is constantly watching the news. By putting these videos and images for the whole public, it could be someone’s son who they are watching die. I think that the media can show the world how serious this war is without showing actual footage.
ReplyDeleteI think another element is the social "fear of censorship." Although if you asked people individually, most people would probably agree that this kind of footage is awful and unnecessary, collectively, especially in times of war, people care more about the fact that they have access to this footage and that the media remains the democratic watchdog, than how this would affect the families of the victims. At the end of the day, I think that the perceived "right to know" trumps compassion.
ReplyDelete