4 ms·

Very interesting. I do think it's vitally important to acknowledge the real nature of war, whose best witnesses are those who actually lived through it, the act

Very interesting. I do think it's vitally important to acknowledge the real nature of war, whose best witnesses are those who actually lived through it, the actual reality of it, not generals or politicians conducting the war from the safety of their offices. There's a real question as to whether war ought to be shown in all its gory, butcher's window horror in the media. On the one hand, it's important people realise what war is actually like, on the other, it's easy to get desensitised to this stuff. Personally, I've (regrettably) seen several images which indicate the reality of these things on shock sites, etc., and after a short while was rather desensitised. The images are so horrible that I just couldn't even begin to register the reality of it on any scale the way somebody who has actual experienced it would. I really don't know whether showing these images would really get people to see the utter, utter insanity of war and the cost to these ordinary human beings, or whether people would just get desensitised. It's an important question that ought to be explored.

larskinn 14y ago
I'm quickly desensitized by video footage or images from war, acts of terrorism and the like. It might just be me, but I find that reading about the atrocities of war is much more effectual. So maybe there is a case for more old-fashioned war reporting?
- singular 14y ago
  Indeed, and there is also a question of the dignity of the victims of these events. It might be very distressing indeed for the family of a dead soldier to see his strewn remains appear on television.
siavosh 14y ago
In some countries there's less of a taboo in showing graphic war imagery than the US, and I don't think it's made them wiser. The injustice is when one small segment of your population endures the horror while the rest glorifies and romanticizes it. The extreme solution is if every time we as a country decide to go to ANY war, we conscript across all socio-economic lines. You really can't show or read about the cost of war.
- spindritf 14y ago
  Contrary to the popular belief, it's the middle and upper classes which are overrepresented in the US military, not the poor: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-in-the-us-military-the-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-...
  - ams6110 14y ago
    This report is base on the demographics of 2006-07 enlistees. Go back to the late 1960s (Vietnam era) when you have a draft, and people of means taking college deferments, and I wonder how the numbers would look.
  - mkramlich 14y ago
    Your link is to a page on the Heritage Foundation's website. Heritage is a well-known, right-wing pro-corporate/pro-oil/pro-plutocratic propaganda think tank, funded in part by the Koch brother's oil tycoon family, and started by Coors. A quick trip to their Wikipedia page will give a taste of the sort of high quality human beings they are associated with (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation), such as the Kochs, Reagan, Novak, Kristol, Bennet, Cheney, Boehner, Gingrich, Scaife, and Pat Robertson. And they have partnered with organizations like AEI, the Hoover Institution and the Wall Street Journal. Because Heritage has such a public track record of on-going spin and disinformation I would not trust them for any objective, non-distorted arguments. Furthermore, it's pretty well-known among historians that in wars it is primarily the poor and the working middle-class, who die or suffer predominately, either as soldiers or civilians on the homefront, or as prisoners. The rich and their sons are disproportionately able to avoid harm, and especially in the case of weapons contractors or supply companies, oil suppliers, or banks, are often able to profit handsomely from wars and militarization. This is not controversial and is a repeated pattern going back at least a thousand years or so. Also I looked at their report and it's cherry picked and very carefully worded, with several sloppy arguments, often contradicting themselves in the matter of a few sentences. Typical stuff for them.
    - 14y ago
7952 14y ago
I would rather the journalist's simply described events with a view to the people involved. Describe what it feels like to walk past a bombed out car. Interview the family of the dead. Actual journalism.
- lostlogin 14y ago
  Robert Fisk sprung to mind immediately when you said that. What ever anyone thinks of his politics, he does manage to convey things from a viewpoint at the scene of the event.
chefsurfing 14y ago
> There's a real question as to whether war ought to be shown in all its gory "It is almost impossible to produce antiwar films or documentaries that also present images of battle. It is like trying to condemn pornography while showing erotic love scenes. The prurient fascination with violent death always overpowers the message. War has become part of the modern industrial landscape. Indeed, its tools are often the cutting edge of technology." - from Chris Hedges' "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning" Great speech here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2SaM8RJ30c http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2SaM8RJ30c

larskinn 14y ago

I'm quickly desensitized by video footage or images from war, acts of terrorism and the like. It might just be me, but I find that reading about the atrocities of war is much more effectual. So maybe there is a case for more old-fashioned war reporting?

singular 14y ago
Indeed, and there is also a question of the dignity of the victims of these events. It might be very distressing indeed for the family of a dead soldier to see his strewn remains appear on television.

siavosh 14y ago

In some countries there's less of a taboo in showing graphic war imagery than the US, and I don't think it's made them wiser. The injustice is when one small segment of your population endures the horror while the rest glorifies and romanticizes it. The extreme solution is if every time we as a country decide to go to ANY war, we conscript across all socio-economic lines. You really can't show or read about the cost of war.

spindritf 14y ago
Contrary to the popular belief, it's the middle and upper classes which are overrepresented in the US military, not the poor: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-in-the-us-military-the-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-...
- ams6110 14y ago
  This report is base on the demographics of 2006-07 enlistees. Go back to the late 1960s (Vietnam era) when you have a draft, and people of means taking college deferments, and I wonder how the numbers would look.
- mkramlich 14y ago
  Your link is to a page on the Heritage Foundation's website. Heritage is a well-known, right-wing pro-corporate/pro-oil/pro-plutocratic propaganda think tank, funded in part by the Koch brother's oil tycoon family, and started by Coors. A quick trip to their Wikipedia page will give a taste of the sort of high quality human beings they are associated with (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation), such as the Kochs, Reagan, Novak, Kristol, Bennet, Cheney, Boehner, Gingrich, Scaife, and Pat Robertson. And they have partnered with organizations like AEI, the Hoover Institution and the Wall Street Journal. Because Heritage has such a public track record of on-going spin and disinformation I would not trust them for any objective, non-distorted arguments. Furthermore, it's pretty well-known among historians that in wars it is primarily the poor and the working middle-class, who die or suffer predominately, either as soldiers or civilians on the homefront, or as prisoners. The rich and their sons are disproportionately able to avoid harm, and especially in the case of weapons contractors or supply companies, oil suppliers, or banks, are often able to profit handsomely from wars and militarization. This is not controversial and is a repeated pattern going back at least a thousand years or so. Also I looked at their report and it's cherry picked and very carefully worded, with several sloppy arguments, often contradicting themselves in the matter of a few sentences. Typical stuff for them.
  - 14y ago

7952 14y ago

I would rather the journalist's simply described events with a view to the people involved. Describe what it feels like to walk past a bombed out car. Interview the family of the dead. Actual journalism.

lostlogin 14y ago
Robert Fisk sprung to mind immediately when you said that. What ever anyone thinks of his politics, he does manage to convey things from a viewpoint at the scene of the event.

chefsurfing 14y ago

> There's a real question as to whether war ought to be shown in all its gory "It is almost impossible to produce antiwar films or documentaries that also present images of battle. It is like trying to condemn pornography while showing erotic love scenes. The prurient fascination with violent death always overpowers the message. War has become part of the modern industrial landscape. Indeed, its tools are often the cutting edge of technology." - from Chris Hedges' "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning" Great speech here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2SaM8RJ30c http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2SaM8RJ30c