From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Military censorship of news
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:34:40 GMT


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.news-media 
Subject: Re: Gulf War News Coverage (was: NBC news and Dan Quayle)
Distribution: usa

chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen) writes:


>My argument had to do with the availability of information before, during and
>immediately after the war.  The Pentagon briefings released only the most
>favorable information to the public/media, while preventing reporters from 
>gathering information independently.

>Several postings suggested that this was due to cost constraints; I just wanted
>to show why I think that's a crock.

You are remembering selectively.  I have not said there is any cost or
logistics problem with giving out information that the military already
had.  I was specifically addressing the rather unrealistic view that the
military was obliged to gather information that had no military value
just so the American public could be informed.  That isn't the
military's mission, nor will it ever be.  

As for the selective releasing of unclassified material, that is another
matter entirely.  May I ask why you think the military would be any
different from any other organization, or person for that matter?  I 
think it is pretty basic human nature to want the world to see your 
good side and to hide your bad side if one exists.  I never heard any
briefings that denied that there were bomb misses, and you could 
certainly dig up video tapes that confirmed that.  I have seen an hour 
long video of F-15E bomb strikes and saw numerous misses on it.  

Before you say, "but the military is a public servant and should be
made to give out any negative information it has on itself...", I might
say the same about Congress.  Do you think they would have voluntarily
disclosed the details of the banking scandal if it wasn't pried out
of them?  I could go on, but I think you see my point.  

The press has traditionally been our "watchdog" for things like this,
and you have a legitimate beef about the press not being allowed onto
the battlefield to witness and report on any and all actions.  Just let
me make two points that I believe are pecululiar to a wartime situation.

1.  The battlefield is an extremely dangerous place.  The press's 
involvement in it would be even more dangerous for them as they are
not trained for it.  Their presence would also endanger the lives of
soldiers.  A fighting unit is a very cohesive team and they have been
together for sometimes years, practicing the very thing they are doing.
A reporter would literally be in the way.  To compensate for it, the 
military does have its own journalists and historians to record the
battle.  While this is obviously not a good solution for those who are
wanting a lot of bad news about the military, it is the best that can
be done on a battlefield.

2.  War is a very nasty thing.  It is something I think we would all
like to avoid, but most reasonable people understand that at times it
is unavoidable (that is not to imply that pacifists are
unreasonable...).  Regardless of your view of war's necessity, once we
are engaged in one, our prime motivation should be to win it quickly,
and with the least loss of life on our side.  If Vietnam taught us
anything, it was that showing pictures of the carnage of war on the 
television at dinner time did nothing to really get meaningful
information out--it just showed the American people how terrible war is.
Since we know that already, what's the point?  Showing pictures of dead
bodies and blown out cities does nothing to inform the public about
how the war is going.  It only serves as a basis for arguing against
war in general.  It stirs up feelings of guilt and loathing in the
public and generally makes the military's job much harder.  If that is
your agenda, then so be it.  I'm sure all this plays a big role in
whether or not to let the press in.  Censorship?  Quite.  Is censorship
ever justified?  I think so, when it serves our best interests as a 
country.  

The above is, of course, raw flame bait.  Nothing sugar-coated about it,
and *all* my own opinions. 

And yes, Rick, I would salute my Commander in Chief if he were to walk
by.  But I haven't been to any Hitler youth meetings for several months
now.


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available: Software Engineer or MIS. MSCE, 1 year C++, Unix Experience
	   Highly motivated, keeps political opinions at home!
	             Seattle area, only.  513-233-4502

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh