There's a lot of heat and nose about news reporting on wars today, much of it based on shooting the messenger, and often in denial of the the repeated demonstration that neither the state nor the military can, or should, be charged with reporting on their own wars.
Much is made of modern wars being covered 24/7/365 and bringing the pictures into the living room. Certainly there's been growth through the twentieth century of shocking data, but it's only kept pace with an increasing hardening of public reception.
It is interesting to note that Martin Bell, a (
IMHO respected and good quality) reporter has written an interesting piece on one of the first 'modern' war reporters WH Russell of The Times (London) covering the Crimea - one of Britain's least glorious efforts. Similar changes in reporting and the developments of the modern reactions we are told are 'new' date back to the American Civil War.
The article's worth reading, for a unique insight of then and now.
http://www.historytoday.com/MainArticle ... d=30251141
(You may need to register & log in, but the article is free reading. Contains big words, is not polarised to political wings, non US, does not contain 'Liberal' 'Neo-Con', 'Republican' or 'Democrat' or 'Peanut Butter & Jelly'. Requires neurones to operate, not compatible with prejudice, Best viewed with an open mind. You have been warned.)
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
