From: laird@think.com (Laird Popkin)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: NBC news and Dan Quayle
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:26:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: django.think.com

In article <1992Aug25.150139.15331@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen) writes:
>
>>In article <5970@grus.cs.nps.navy.mil> shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall) writes:
>>Why, then, were there resources enough to provide CNN and other television
>>services with videotape of "smart" bombs going down chimneys into targeted 
>>buildings, videotape of a bridge precisely hit and destroyed, etc.  These
>>images conveyed a carefully chosen image of bombing accuracy, and a sense
>>that the resulting explosions harmed no actual people.
>
>For any who may actually be unaware of the Air Force's methods of
>obtaining videos of this sort, here it is.  They are a direct descendant
>of the gun camera used in WWII fighters.  They were used to confirm
>an enemy AC destruction.  The *only* reason we have video tapes of
>smart bombs and the like is for intelligence use.  They were not added
>to the AC weight and cost merely to provide us with neat evening news
>footage.  

Of course, the military didn't provide any *other* footage to the networks,
of bombs missing, or hitting civilian targets, etc., all of which were
filmed just as carefully as the perfect shots shown on the evening news.
Yes, the military didn't spend much money providing that footage to the
american public, but they did go out of their way to provide a highly
biased mix of imagery for the american public.

If the military were only concerned with the successful completion of their
military objectives, rather then trying to shape public opinion, the rules
under which journalists would have been rather different.  For example,
journalists were not allowed to interview or even *show* injured or upset
american soldiers, or to record most military actions for later reporting.
The military managed to take *weeks* to approve any potentially negative
footage, while getting positive images (e.g. those perfect bomb strikes)
processed and to the press in *hours*.  As much as it is the military's job
to win the war, it is *also* the military's job to help journalists
honestly inform the american people as to the progress of the war and its
results, not to shape public opinion.

I don't have anything against the military -- the people I know in the
military are intelligent, well intentioned, self-sacrificing, and hard
working.  But when the military and government as a whole has lied to the
american people on substantial issues before, during, and after every
war/police action in my lifetime, a certain cynicism develops.

Unfortunately the "lesson" that the military learned from the Vietnam was
wasn't that the government can't fight wars which the people oppose, it was
that the government should manipulate public opinion to create public
support before starting wars.  To that end, they are willing to lie to the
people and its representatives (Congress and journalists), not only
explicitly -- by saying things which are known not to be true -- but
implicitely -- by failing to say things which would generate bad publicity,
or allowing people to see what is going on.
-- 
- Laird Popkin, Thinking Machines

Connection Machine: Massively parallel supercomputer.  Also a cool black
cube with more blinking lights than you can shake a stick at.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh