Listening to NPR and stunned at the lousy coverage they offer as “news” following up on a military strike in the middle east.
Media discounting the very people who at that very moment were ensuring their reporter’s personal safety, while elevating claims, unverifiable undocumented wild-ass claims, over the photo-documented information provided by official sources.
How does media have access to the “otherside’s people?”
Had the media become an enemy as much as those fighting against freedom?
Do we have a media that despises their dependency on the Military for Protection?
Why is the NPR reporter not protected by the “otherside”?
All important questions, and largely political ones.
But there is a more glaring issue – “How many additional lives, on both sides, will be lost due to the goading, plan exposure and in general media attention?”
There are arguments that it isn’t possible to report a war without being touched by it, and touching it.
A sort of Quantum Mechanics of Journalism.
But one asks, why do we even need the reporting? It is not like we are close, involved or able to influence the conflict. Is it only to tantalize us that the short term human cost is portrayed by Media, while of course the long term is always ignored?
Bringing this into terms of Amateur Radio, an Encomm communicator has a responsibility to be accurate, part of the solution rather than another problem, and to avoid sensationalism for the sake of “making news.”
When we ignore this, we do so at some considerable risk. We put others at risk, both victims & responders, and could end up at considerable risk to ourselves. Recently a Missionary Couple in Africa was sentenced to prison for “loose talk” over Amateur Radio that the country’s leadership took offense to.
“Loose Lips Sink Ships” read the old military and wartime posters.
It is true of the Modern Media (in their case their loose lips are purposeful and many would say are an act of war in and of themselves) and in Emcomm responses.