It would seem that we have three types of reporters  going here.

The Imbedded: Who report facts (I assume) as and when things kick off, whilst trying to protect the integrity of the units they are with. 8)

The base camp wallas:  Who live on the backs of the various headquarters and have sayings like 'but what I can tell you........' followed by drivel.  Sorry about that Corneilia. :'(

The Kuwait city based experts:  For instance GMTV's John Stapley who I don't believe has managed to leave the roof/interior of the Kuwait Hilton or other 5 star hotel and is very focal on the negative points of anything he can mention.  Which unfortunately is then passed on to the public at large by the blonde bimbo 'Fiona'.  :(

Any comments please on the way the media have been allowed to handle this campaign.  Was this a military or political decision to allow these fools access to immediate information which can be used by all sides to build a clear picture of the battlefield and therefore to be able to react to any given situation.  Do remember that we tutored most of Iraqi Officer Corps in down town Sandhurst. ???

A unit name mentioned gives an awful lot of information away to a military mind. X
The media effort for this war should be renamed 'The Iraqi Intelligence and Propaganda Service'.  I find it disgraceful that the vast majority of 'reporters' are lightening quick to report on any negative aspect of the coalition effort but hang on each and every word of Saddam's propaganda machine.  Accepted, there is propaganda from both sides but the western media appear to be reporting it as fact.  I am so pi**ed off with it, I am starting to watch less and less of it each day.

... and another thing..... do these twits not know ANYTHING about the British military......... every report has loads of glaring errors in it,  not minor mistakes, but HUGE ones.  Shouldn't they research the subject before opening mouth?

I'm off to calm down and get my lunch.


War Hero
The press are always a problem - always have been and always will. They will say almost anything and unless those with the knowledge give them something, then they make things up. It is almost a no win situation.

What we do not want though is TV reporters with the front line units as they have enough to worry about, and there are some things about our profession that TV crews should not see !
For instance GMTV's John Stapley

I read a comment in one of the Red Tops that GMTV should stick to what it is good at, namely tinsel and tits.
They are at it again!

When is a pause not a pause?................ When a gibbering idiot from GMTV makes a report or is that a story or a What???????????


The fcuking media!
Dead right, any slightly negative item like a round miss firing from an SP and there all over it for a half hour.
Iraq firing on its own people.... gets 1 fcuking sentance!

There all soft as $hit, lefty types neway.


What a tosser. ::)

NBC, MSNBC terminate Arnett
March 31 — NBC and MSNBC on Monday said they had terminated their relationship with Peter Arnett after the journalist told state-run Iraqi TV that the U.S.-led coalition’s initial war plan had failed and that reports from Baghdad about civilian casualties had helped antiwar protesters undermine the Bush administration’s strategy.
I think it's a bit unfair to criticise the media for doing what they have always done ... namely look for and publish anything remotely interesting or controversial.  If anyone is surprised by the behaviour of journalists in the situations thay have been placed then they don't know the press.  

Unfortunately that description would seem to apply to the complete eejits running the spam's PR campaign for this barney (and ours, although I suspect that we merely mirror our cousins as Tony likes us to do).  

If the war had lasted the 3 to 4 days predicted by clueless fools in the DoD still fighting GW1 then the strategy of embedding press everywhere to see the glorious US of A kick ass , liberate Iraq, be mobbed by adoring locals, kiss babies etc etc would have paid off handsomely.  

However, as reality intrudes the amount of press coverage becomes counter productive - for instance, given the choice of 30 seconds of news about the Iraqis doung something unpleasant or 10 minutes of video showing a Paladin brewing up in glorious colour the video will always win.  So why have the press there to take the pics in the first place ?

The other problem is that the average american (however decent an individual) has a blind spot when it comes to understanding why most of the world doesn't like his country.  Hence their PR sucks.  

Watching the world go by on the TV I get the definite feeling that the US is losing the PR war big time - not in the US, but everywhere else.  Which is kind of ironic given the much mooted advantage that informarion warfare US style gives them ...

Mr Happy

These days I travel extensively for my civ job and I've got to watch about 40 different news channels in the past week.  Here's a couple of points:

The thing that strikes me most is the sheer awfulness of the US news briefings, either at CENTCOM or at the Pentagon.

Obviously the US has to put out these briefings but the daily drivel that these pricks handout for hours should be cut to a 15 minute statement and 15 minutes of Q&A, not least so that CNN can rerun it neatly between adverts but so that minor issues can't then be seen as important as major issues - as these Q&A's run and run small little important things start cropping up which really focus on some drivel.

The embedded reporters are teh only guys I like to watch as they are the only ones that really are doing what my friends are doing and I think that I can read between their lines as can the familiies and get an idea of what is going on with who I really care about.

Lastly, foreign news companies (old Sov block and some Middle East) show far more graphic images than the average Brit is getting - I'm not sure that this censorship of images of war is going to help anyone - the frontcover of the Torygraph I saw recently pulled no punches and I'd like to see more of this on telly - this campaign is so santised I find it offensive.  It would probably help with the ratings too.


It would help if we took up Iraq's stance on propaganda i.e. make it up, to keep the population happy, we should do the reverse and tell them how much they are losing, instead of watching about the "roadblocks" incidents and all the negativity


Just some information:

Sec Def: Rumsfeld(sp) is the one that chose to invite these reporters to the front of the show.

If it makes you feel any better the reporters are getting much US military information wrong as well.

I feel it was a mistake to allow reporters this close to the sensitive information, as Geroldo Rivera aptly displayed they can not be trusted with the lives of soldiers, your or ours.

Good luck to your boys...
Good to hear from you  US Inf.  

I totally agree with you, one would have thought after the Vietnam saga and the 'Media Farce' there the defence sec would have been a lot wiser and kept the buggers under control.

As for lives the shot of the cnn guy crawling forward to shove a mike under the nose of a marine who was engaging was pathetic and unbelievable.  The marine should have shoved his bayonet were it hurts most, right up the reporters jacksy.

Mr Happy:  Agree with most of your sentiments but can't run with the idea of 'show far more graphic images'.  I don't think the girls back really want to see wee johnny with his bits in shreads.   Its enough to know he did his bit and not how he actually how he went to firing ranges in the sky.

Or is this potentially a new subject???? ::)

Mr Happy

BK, good point, was thinking of the bad guys but of course everyone gets everyone elses pictures now that we have satellite...  So after a brief re-appraisal I agree with you, we don't want pictures of our colleagues on TV at all.

I remember the pictures of was it Simon Western and another guy who lost a leg which got broadcast back in 1981 - they were interviewed afterwards and said how upset they were....

Latest Threads