Quote:
Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
To me there is one major indentifiable factor in the change in public support for war over the last 100 years. Anyone guess?
The Media. Period.
Think about it. What is the primary (for many ONLY) source of news about their world?
Ok, so if you agree that the media is likely the #1 factor in how people perceive a situation whether it be a war, a hurricane or a Presidential election, then you must ask yourself if there has been a change in media coverage of war over the last 100 years.
Take a look at those old movie trailers from WWII. See a difference between that and the CBS Evening News today?
For right or wrong, the media filtered what it showed to the American people back in WWII. It strived to show the American soldier as brave and strong. It showed battles we won. It showed soldiers in good spirits. It had images like lightning bolts and hammers to show US strength. Basically, it was propaganda. But it kept the homefront strong and the supplies coming.
Today the media does the opposite. It strives to show the bloodiest footage it can get away with. It focuses on the negatives, the roadside bombs, the beheadings, the tapes from al Qaeda, the troops who are unhappy. Essentially it has become almost a propaganda machine for the terrorists.
I'm not saying one way is right and the other wrong, I'm just saying that the change in the media since WWII is the primary reason for the poor support for every war since. IMHO of course.
|
The media has been the strongest proponent of going to war over the last 100 years. From the Pulitzer's support of the War with Spain to the Hearst's support of entering into World War One; they've been among the most bloodthirty entities in America.
War sells newspapers, back then; and sells TV commercials, makes newscaster's carreers, and gets a huge amount of face time for politicians on either side of the issue.
The media needs to develop ethics in this kind of deadly political participation, but I'm not holding my breath.