Censorship

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by King_of_the_Burpas, Feb 11, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. There is a very limited view of the world pushed by the media in war zones. You don't want to puke on your fry up when the 6 comes on.

    The footage is usually lots of AK fire in the air - good for pics and sound - and followed by heavily censored pictures of the aftermath of the effects of these weapons on the poor buggers on the receiving end, whenever the militias of any side remember to point them downwards before pulling the trigger.

    MY question is - and no, not a lurking journo - how much of the horror should the media show?

    I say this because I've just watched a militia chap from 'doesn'tmatterwhatfuckinside' say that the poor young boys, and they were boys, they put up in Sarajevo, had no idea what a round or a grenade would do to a human body. They learned the hard way, natch.

    If your average Joe, or Mohammed, knew what modern weapons did to a body, would they be less likely to send people out to fight?

    Too many non-professional soldiers think an AK, 2 thirty rounds mags and a sody pop to keep the sugar up is all you need to get by, until they actually see it.

    I think the media should show the full ****ing monte; Markale, Rwanda or wherever.

    If they don't, the sanitisation of the images invites more young cretins to sign up and pop an AK out of a window, imho.
     
  2. So how would your theory fit with army recruitment?
     
  3. I drew a line between a professional army and the 'other lot'.
     
  4. Didn't read that. Maybe I'm losing my mind again. It sounds like you are suggesting selective non-censorship as a sort of social control deterrent.
     
  5. I think most people have some idea of the realities of war, though obviously they still get a shock when they see a "real" person who's either been killed or seriously injured.

    I'm not sure what showing more on the news would achieve, most people would view it in the same way as they would a film, most people probably wouldn't register that is was real.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Er, no. Possibly a badly worded OP.

    It may have a bearing on professional army training. But even in the training I did, the blood was a paint mark on an actor. Chuck a pint glass of 'blood' across the floor, even though it's 'only an armful' and people have kittens. No serious injury if you plug it.

    But the view we have on the telly of war, imho, is so santized that it bears to relation to reality. My question was how much should the broadcasters show?
     
  7. Are you sure about that?
     
  8. I had this theory that taking POWs/treating enemy wounded, made it all seem so civilised and therefore acceptable...when really you should kill every single fecker who was counted as the enemy and only then would we all realise that it's all a load of B*ll*xs.

    Saw a quote which said something like 'War will cease only when men refuse to fight'....that's just my pinko commie b*stard coming out and although the phrase sounds ok and 'right on', it won't work cos there's always some tw*t who's gonna pi55 you off enough to make you want to kill them.

    We join up/fight cos some of us have the desire and mentality that makes us want to kick some feckers arrse rather than be all calm and collected, and we want to do it with the legal sanction that being in the forces provides.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Yes I understood that - what I was trying to get at is if the objective is to give a proper representation of war, then might this effect army recruitment? Army TV adverts emphasise, variously, the sense of responsibility, belonging and adventure that come with serving. They don't show images of paraplegics who have been struck by IEDs. A proper appreciation of war among the general populace might have a socially detrimental effect. You don't ONLY want to recruit psychotics with a blood lust and bumbling toffs with dull cow eyes and a taste for port.

    It's late, I'm probably just ranting.
     
  10. Aye it's late. But in terms of Army recruitment, they are bound to censor the horribleness in order to get people to sign up. But the civvy broadcasters? Hmmm

    I think, in my humblest opinion, that they cut too much out of the reality.

    Footage from Homs (and I'm not turning this into a Help Syria thread) was redacted to a series of wide shots of rockets/ T72 hits on buildings and close ups of people running out of the ruins with kids sans blood and all their limbs intact.

    The journos who can get away with telling it slightly more like it is are in print, because print doesn't upset your auntie.

    If you're a journalist, you should be able to film what is happening and if the kids are frightened and the parents throw up on their potato waffles, so be it: sorry, that's my view. To **** about censoring reality is NOT what proper journalism is about.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Maybe the journalists are just **** these days?

    It's definitely late and I'm definitely losing it - I just spent 10 minutes searching for recent pictures of Tina Turner's legs, to see how they've aged.
     

  12. It's a tough one but aren't they just the type of men who bring , what would be counted as, success in war or offensive actions?

    After WW1, the whole Country saw, and had to live with, the effects of what 'War' really meant. It spawned a pacifist/Peace at all costs mentality..and rightly so, as this was the decision that any right minded person who saw the sadness and pain of loss and terrible injuries should come too?

    War is disgusting and shitty.

    injured soldiers rowing - Google Search

    WHATS GOING ON /MARVIN GAYE - YouTube
     
  13. My view is that the vast majority of people in the UK will live to a ripe old age, and never once witness a headless body in an RTA or have to recover body parts from a bomb scene/railway track.

    I spent over 20 years as a Soldier and Police Officer, and to be honest wasn't subjected to anything so horrific that I can't get a good nights kip. (Most of my never served civvy mates would have been sectioned by now though)

    So I reckon, that unless you are in the Military or one of the Emergency services, you can grow old gracefully. No need to show graphic images to those that don't need it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Well, George Orwell doesn't give them a clean bill of health in 'The Lion & The Unicorn' - apparently the toffs were the cause of every English military **** up.

    Dunno about the blood-lust loons. Can't imagine it's easy to discipline them.

    I personally like Billy Connolly's assessment of the problem faced by Afghan men:

    "They've only got one book and they never get laid. Parachute in some fire breathing whores and some Agatha Christie novels and the war would be over within a week."
     
  15. Well put it this way, would you have any reservations if your young children (if you have any) were watching in horror the full graphic images of human carnage on the 6 PM news ?

    Some people in society want nothing to do with war, so why force it down their necks?

    Would you like to be tied up and forced to watch BareBack Mountain end to end 24/7 ?

    Graphic images of Warfare can make the innocent mentally unstable, and that is why we have proper protocol in place to control such matters.
     
    • Like Like x 2