thoughtprocess

I have put a couple things in contrast that show media helping war as well as disrupting it.

Media talks united states military strategy for the world to hear.
They put themselves in danger thus putting the person who protects them in danger.

on the other hand

They tell the struggle of refugees and provide aid through advertising donations.
They show pictures of the ugliness of war.

Those are just a few of many pros and cons but the real question is does having media outlets in the middle of war help or hinder success of the campaign?

Aunt Spiker

Interest in war has been around since the dawn of man and the first invention of a mass-utelized weapon. Reading things like the Iliad or the Odyssey and you see that entertainment and "education" through violence and warfar has long been a beloved human-passtime.

The media affects some people's views - support or discourage. But they don't alter politics.
If they did have a stronger sway on politics the War in Iraq would have ended years ago and we'd be completely out of the M.E. and waging a war on fashion and twitter.

__________________

thoughtprocess

Yes you are correct it does spark an interest but I wish to go deeper into that.

Media coverage has been stripped away in Iran for a reason and it benefits the government.

Im not suggesting that media wins or loses wars that is no real question yet. Just does it affect it.

Terrorist has used media coverage to great success. They recruit people that way as well as spread their agenda. They even get beheading shown in media outlets in the world.

So they have used media with great success to support their war.

The united states loses credibility through media sources.

In terms of Afghanistan not Iraq because that one allows for to much question.

Of course the reporter on the ground enjoys being with our troops but their reporting comes back home to be challenged by perspective.

Media helps our troops but Im strictly referring to the strategic advantage or disadvantage in regards to the media.

Aunt Spiker

You're right - I was fluffy with my response.

I think with the more focused regard, the weight of the media depends on the side that you're on and, overall, what the media is trying to accomplish.

In the US the media seems to reflect an overall sense that "we should do the RIGHT thing" - but what the "right" thing is differs extremely.
A lot of people, though their "how to do it" might differ - will agree that we should be doing the right thing and they believe in freedoms of speech and press and respect those things accordingly - it's an underlying social value.

In the Middle East, the freedom of press and speech have never been cornerstone social values (as well as other countries where they've seriously cut or curtailed the media's presence and reports). This is because they are trying to control people's views - and they HAVE to take this approach in order to do it because, by and large, they're on the "wrong" side of things.

They're playing the Devil's Advocate - and we're trying to usurp the Devil.
What we don't agree on is how to do it - or the "right" way to do it. Do you usurp the Devil by cutting off his funding and sanctioning him to death or do you just wage war and kill off the Devil and his minions?

When you're the one trying to promote control - or ideas that go against what the people in your country value (like things that are against people's feelings, beliefs, idealogy, freedoms, etc) then the media is a powerful enemy - uniting people who might oppose you.

If you're in more free countries (not just the US) then the media (regardless of your political affiliations) still supports the overall social-prerogative that "we matter" and "our thoughts count" and so forth. Thus, the media in it's nature supports these values - instead of possibly going against them.

So - in the US and like countries, the media can be a friend of the government and not really a threat.

In other areas the media can be a powerful "filter" for opposing views to trickle down through.

__________________

thoughtprocess

You are right the but in this war against terror media coverage can help and hurt the government.(but because of government). The torture issue not only recruited for terrorist but it helped USA take a step back and correct ourselves. I just think in the particular war against terror there are so many complex factors you have to take in account. Past wars for the USA wasnt so global.(excluding WW's)

Grim17

Q: Do the media outlets effect war?

Not directly, but indirectly. The media effects public opinion of a particular war, based on how they choose to present it. Public opinion is what directly effects a war, and that's true for both sides of the conflict.

.