<!--quoteo(post=1768290:date=Apr 22 2010, 09:04 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Apr 22 2010, 09:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768290"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ah, well in that case I would have thought any publicity would do that.
Unless you just post transcripts of the video, any publicity is going to be 'oh man these guys are totally innocent of anything and the military is obviously trying to kill everyone'.
The internet is hardly known for being reasonable and caring about accuracy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They titled the video 'Civilian Murder' and edited out the parts that showed the weapons being carried to make them look like civilians then made a bunch of unrealistic views of the situation and explained what small blurs on the screen were. They posted the long version too, but people will watch the short one first and be tainted before watching the long one, and they know that.
No, the stuff they added to it and edited out made it sensational, not just the posting of the video itself.
<!--quoteo(post=1768308:date=Apr 22 2010, 06:07 PM:name=snooggums)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snooggums @ Apr 22 2010, 06:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768308"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They titled the video 'Civilian Murder' and edited out the parts that showed the weapons being carried to make them look like civilians then made a bunch of unrealistic views of the situation and explained what small blurs on the screen were. They posted the long version too, but people will watch the short one first and be tainted before watching the long one, and they know that.
No, the stuff they added to it and edited out made it sensational, not just the posting of the video itself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's what I mean, if you do anything other than just post the video and provide a transcript of what occurs in it, you're going to be posting something with a lot of bias, and it's unlikely that anybody is going to take the side of the military on wikileaks, and so it's going to be complaining about shooting people.
As I said, any publicity will be highly skewed against the military.
<!--quoteo(post=1768442:date=Apr 23 2010, 03:33 PM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (juice @ Apr 23 2010, 03:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768442"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Maybe if there wasn't such a media blackout on the wars, we wouldn't have to rely on 3rd party sources which might have "bias".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This has been the most publicized war ever. One could also say if reporters were not allowed to wonder around a war zone without a military escort this would have never have happened.
That_Annoying_KidSire of TitlesJoin Date: 2003-03-01Member: 14175Members, Constellation
edited April 2010
wikileaks stated goal is to safely be able to leak stuff that would remain hidden so it can be examined by professionals. The fact that they present something after injecting it with spin makes me leery...
<!--quoteo(post=1768442:date=Apr 23 2010, 08:33 PM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (juice @ Apr 23 2010, 08:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768442"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Maybe if there wasn't such a media blackout on the wars, we wouldn't have to rely on 3rd party sources which might have "bias".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think I would be particularly inclined to let reporters broadcast my every action and movement in a warzone if I was a soldier. It might just result in the enemy watching it and killing me because they now know everything about me.
<!--quoteo(post=1768517:date=Apr 24 2010, 10:43 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Apr 24 2010, 10:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768517"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think I would be particularly inclined to let reporters broadcast my every action and movement in a warzone if I was a soldier. It might just result in the enemy watching it and killing me because they now know everything about me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And yet this is exactly what is done to this day.
I believe juice means "blackout" in the sense of lack of objective coverage, or coverage of things that actually matter, which is a fair point. I remember polls saying 80% of Americans actually think they're *winning* the war in Iraq based on their news outlets.
<!--quoteo(post=1768530:date=Apr 24 2010, 10:34 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Apr 24 2010, 10:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768530"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And yet this is exactly what is done to this day.
I believe juice means "blackout" in the sense of lack of objective coverage, or coverage of things that actually matter, which is a fair point. I remember polls saying 80% of Americans actually think they're *winning* the war in Iraq based on their news outlets.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Er, I don't know anywhere that has a comprehensive video documentation of most miltiary activities in iraq in close to real-time. That sort of information is what most militaries pay billions of dollars to acquire. There's pictures of people standing around as well as things that are hard to hide such as kilometer-square military bases but they don't publicise everything, and most of it isn't done in any detail.
I would also suggest that 'winning' is inaccurate considering it was 'won' years ago, what is happening now is more of an occupation, which happens after you win, although it's probably the most benevolent occupation that's happened recently.
<!--quoteo(post=1768544:date=Apr 24 2010, 03:45 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Apr 24 2010, 03:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768544"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Er, I don't know anywhere that has a comprehensive video documentation of most miltiary activities in iraq in close to real-time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This will not apply outside of US. Inside of the US, however, the media fervour surrounding the war with glee of action-packed patriotic coverage through embedded reporters and direct military line feeds would be nigh impossible to miss.
<!--quoteo(post=1768544:date=Apr 24 2010, 03:45 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Apr 24 2010, 03:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768544"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would also suggest that 'winning' is inaccurate considering it was 'won' years ago, what is happening now is more of an occupation, which happens after you win, although it's probably the most benevolent occupation that's happened recently.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Missing the point by a mile there.
Unless america has several dozen 24 hour TV channels all showing nothing but constant video feeds from iraq along with explanations and diagrams of everything the military does as it does it I really don't think it's giving the kind of coverage you're suggesting. Iraq is a big place with many thousands of soldiers in it, and you don't have many thousands of soldiers in a place just to sit around doing nothing, news coverage does not accurately represent what occurs there, because you would not have the time to show it all and the military would not permit it for very good reasons.
<!--quoteo(post=1768612:date=Apr 25 2010, 01:03 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Apr 25 2010, 01:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768612"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Unless america has several dozen 24 hour TV channels all showing nothing but constant video feeds from iraq along with explanations and diagrams of everything the military does as it does it I really don't think it's giving the kind of coverage you're suggesting.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually that's about close. I don't know if it's true today, but it definitely was like that post-9/11. It's not technical coverage if you're suggesting that for some reason (?), but it is live and on-scene one.
Or, back to the original point: it's stupid, but that's how it is. Just like how during Vietnam military rules of engagement and strategic moves were... Were actually broadcast directly to the enemy instead. Plus national television too I think.
Granted, it starts making a bit more sense once you remember that war is a profit venture. Iraqi one has been rather gloves-off shameless about it if anything.
Comments
Unless you just post transcripts of the video, any publicity is going to be 'oh man these guys are totally innocent of anything and the military is obviously trying to kill everyone'.
The internet is hardly known for being reasonable and caring about accuracy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They titled the video 'Civilian Murder' and edited out the parts that showed the weapons being carried to make them look like civilians then made a bunch of unrealistic views of the situation and explained what small blurs on the screen were. They posted the long version too, but people will watch the short one first and be tainted before watching the long one, and they know that.
No, the stuff they added to it and edited out made it sensational, not just the posting of the video itself.
No, the stuff they added to it and edited out made it sensational, not just the posting of the video itself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's what I mean, if you do anything other than just post the video and provide a transcript of what occurs in it, you're going to be posting something with a lot of bias, and it's unlikely that anybody is going to take the side of the military on wikileaks, and so it's going to be complaining about shooting people.
As I said, any publicity will be highly skewed against the military.
This has been the most publicized war ever.
One could also say if reporters were not allowed to wonder around a war zone without a military escort this would have never have happened.
I don't think I would be particularly inclined to let reporters broadcast my every action and movement in a warzone if I was a soldier. It might just result in the enemy watching it and killing me because they now know everything about me.
And yet this is exactly what is done to this day.
I believe juice means "blackout" in the sense of lack of objective coverage, or coverage of things that actually matter, which is a fair point. I remember polls saying 80% of Americans actually think they're *winning* the war in Iraq based on their news outlets.
I believe juice means "blackout" in the sense of lack of objective coverage, or coverage of things that actually matter, which is a fair point. I remember polls saying 80% of Americans actually think they're *winning* the war in Iraq based on their news outlets.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Er, I don't know anywhere that has a comprehensive video documentation of most miltiary activities in iraq in close to real-time. That sort of information is what most militaries pay billions of dollars to acquire. There's pictures of people standing around as well as things that are hard to hide such as kilometer-square military bases but they don't publicise everything, and most of it isn't done in any detail.
I would also suggest that 'winning' is inaccurate considering it was 'won' years ago, what is happening now is more of an occupation, which happens after you win, although it's probably the most benevolent occupation that's happened recently.
This will not apply outside of US. Inside of the US, however, the media fervour surrounding the war with glee of action-packed patriotic coverage through embedded reporters and direct military line feeds would be nigh impossible to miss.
<!--quoteo(post=1768544:date=Apr 24 2010, 03:45 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Apr 24 2010, 03:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768544"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would also suggest that 'winning' is inaccurate considering it was 'won' years ago, what is happening now is more of an occupation, which happens after you win, although it's probably the most benevolent occupation that's happened recently.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Missing the point by a mile there.
What is the point?
Actually that's about close. I don't know if it's true today, but it definitely was like that post-9/11. It's not technical coverage if you're suggesting that for some reason (?), but it is live and on-scene one.
Or, back to the original point: it's stupid, but that's how it is. Just like how during Vietnam military rules of engagement and strategic moves were... Were actually broadcast directly to the enemy instead. Plus national television too I think.
Granted, it starts making a bit more sense once you remember that war is a profit venture. Iraqi one has been rather gloves-off shameless about it if anything.