Rongnongno Loc: FL

W/o going back to the secession war, war has influenced how news is reported and received.

WWII brought the heroes and the horror of nazi camps as well as the start of the weaponize nuclear era. It changed the film industry in many ways.

Korea showed the inability of the UN to stop anything and the rise of TV shows, theme based (even if created later). This war was largely ignored world wide and it is continuing.

Vietnam brought in war photography that is turns took it folk's home. It also enhanced the perception of TV as a serious source of news. Another effect was cultural in the form of music that became unbridled.

The cold war that started from the end of the 40s to the mid 90s brought suspicion of the government and many films.

The middle east started the global terrorism we see today. This also started after WWII.

After 9/11 the US went to war in Afghanistan with the UN support. This is still going on and has not led to anything but large expenses that benefits the arm industries at the expense of who knows how many lives. Most folks still do not know where this country is and why we are still there.

Then there was the war in Iraq, a fabricated war that brought ratings on television as 'reality show'. The 'shock and awe' was nothing but an insane demonstration of military might against a country unable to defend itself - regardless of causes-.

In all modern wars photographers, journalists, videographers civilian of military died reporting from the front lines so that we learned from it.

Have we?

What did photography really contribute?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Rong...., photography was given an acknowledgment as to ending our involvement in Viet Nam. The photographs, Nick Ut's for instance, brought the war to the American home. The American public became alarmed at the atrocities and began to voice sentiments contrary to supporting the war. Photography and videos along with newscasts were given credit for hastening the end of that conflict.

The invasion of Kuwait and subsequent invasion of Iraq was probably the most journalistically covered of all of the modern conflicts. The issues with Afghanistan seem to have taken, not only the back burner but put on a stove in another room. We seem to need reminding that we still have troops in harms way there. Photography contributes, but only when it's placed in front of the public. When was the last large news coverage of anything happening in Afghanistan?

I think photography would contribute a lot, but it must be seen to have that effect.
--Bob

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

My undergrad journalism thesis was comparisons in how photography influenced public opinion and policy in the Vietnam War and the "War on Terror." Sadly I can longer find the file.

My ultimate conclusion if I recall correctly was essentially no matter how brutal the images of war, while it may create opposition, it does little to stop another one from occurring. People forget what they see and learn rather quickly unfortunately.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I sadly concur with your conclusion.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

It most certainly did have an effect as the reports were so negative and graphics that the US population became restive and anti government. There was a grave injustice in all that. Military drafted or not, were vilified without concern that they were the US primary victims.

So, what have we learned?

I fear nothing.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

In addition, the saturation of violent imagery and our subsequent desensitization to such imagery has lessened the impact images have on the public.

Also, the deliberate targeting of journalists along with other factors has contributed to a "media blackout" in our current major conflicts such as Syria.

chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California

Hey Rong.......Have you ever been to war, any war, anywhere? If not, then perhaps the record should reflect that anything you know about war is second hand information, such as TV reports, newspapers, magazines, the internet, perhaps other peoples accounts. The media here in the US is owned by big corporations (and perhaps in other countries or controled by the government). There is not obligation for the media to tell the truth, they are in business to gain more viewership, readership, sales of whatever. And just what is the truth? As you well know, several people can view an incident and their reports of what they saw/what actually happened can and usually vary greatly. Photos and videos of war and its related matters as reported through the media can and have had major impacts on public opinions and attitudes about war.

OK, I'm a US Army Vietman veteran, served with the 101st Airborne Division in I CORPS 1969-70. Also a victim of the mainstream media such as Time Magazine, Frontline (on PBS), etc. of their misquotes, selective editing or lack of giving the necessary details to complete my story, matter, issues.Having been a combatant, I think wars suck but unfortunatly certain religions, politicians, governments, business owners/corps and the the US media seem to support and encorage this carnage.

chase

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I refer you to my previous post... in this thread

As to have been in a full blown war? No. Having been in a covert war to keep a puppet government in place? Yes, as a french military, in Chad. Very low key conflict, been shot at only once. That was before the US got involved when Libya tried to annex Chad.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Regardless of where getting shot at once is once too many.
--Bob

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Don't make a big deal about it, I was not hit and it was not even close.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

I remember standing on the sidewalk in NYC in 1966 wearing Class A’s with a crowd around me like a lynch mob, yelling, “Baby Killer, Baby Killer.” This was, I believe, a result of the headlines created by some of the “war correspondents” and their editors who made it their personal project to vilify everything American, while ignoring the everyday Hell that is day to day war. And as soon as those headlines stopped selling newspapers and television commercials, the media was on to another tangent. As far as Korea goes, I live daily with the memories of the horrible death of my cousin who stepped on a land mine. Things will not change until the media is forced to ram the whole truth, including that about war profiteers, down peoples’ throats - or until, God forbid, in lands in the back yard of every city and town throughout this country.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

While I agree that photojournalism contributed heavily to, and against the war, we must remember that the photo or video is just a slice of the reality. I was in Vietnam and saw the realities of the war. The shot of the Vietnamese Spy being shot was missrepresented as an attrosity when in fact, it was a North Vioetnamise Colonel that was caught, out of uniform, working as a spy. In his case, he was noticed by an aquaintence that caught and shot him, in accordence with the Geneva Convention, which I might add that North Vietnam, China, North Korea and other communist leaning countries in that area did NOT sign or recognise. In their oppinion (when it was in their best interest) they treated captives as people that failed to perform and were lower than dirt.
So remember, everything you see in print or film is not always as it appears.

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

This is a very good book about a cameraman and Vietnam :

Shooter https://www.amazon.com/dp/0882252658/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apip_U5OhtU39MsM3v

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Through various media filtering, the most gruesome, terrifying images of today's wars are kept from public view. The very images that would have the most impact on society's perception and opinion about war, and why the insanity must be stopped.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

What i havelearned is that chickenhawks love war while my experence was shot at and missed shit at and hit