We Need Blood

Chapter 27 of Doris A. Graber’s book “Media Power In Politics”  discusses Sean Aday’s article “The Real War Will Never Get On Television: An Analysis Of Casualty Imagery”. Aday’s article concerns a simple dilemma, the media will never portray war as it truly is: an “awful” endeavor. The concern is with the medias’ refusal to depict the gruesome carnage that is the result of war. What I want to focus on during the remainder of this article is addressing a claim found in Aday’s article by Walt Whiteman, “The real war will never get in the books.” A question that arouse to me after reviewing this article is: Should the media reveal the graphic nature of war, for the purposes of reporting the full implications of war as observed by the reporters? What I have determined to be my response to this question is: Yes, the media should in fact expose the graphic nature of war so as to adequately inform the public of what the “real war” is like. I believe that that the exposure to this graphic content a necessary to fulfilling the media’s role in a democracy of informing the public of what the “real war” is; so that we may understand the full implications of war in the future consideration in military involvement. If we exposed to war as it really is we may better understand what war is and may aid us in refraining from military action unless determined to be absolutely necessary. It is therefore that I have determined that this graphic content as absolutely essential information in the evaluation of whether or not military action is appropriate. Seeing that this information is essential to the objectivity of war coverage the media does have an obligation to expose us to the graphic nature of war, under its role of informing the public as a media serving a democracy. What implication’s this graphic content would have can range from: Increasing support for a war by displaying the state of the afflicted, to; lessening the support for war as a protection for all of humanity.

"I Don't Think That Would Work"

Bret Baier, Fox News Host, On Newt Gingrich’s Debate
Request: ‘I Don’t Think That Would Work’

Our average candidate typically desires ample media coverage and debate time not
only to promote their pleasantly positive promises and positions, but also to
bash the opponent’s “raison d’etre.” Interestingly, Gingrich announced that he “wouldn’t agree to a debate with President Barack Obama if a journalist was the moderator.” How can an iconic figure and potential presidential candidate pass down on his opportunity to violently beat
the incumbent president’s “failures and misfortunes?” Bret Baier, Fox News Host
and presidential debate moderator commented that Gingrich’s idea of would not
work and would be quite boring.
Why exactly would Gingrich’s hope- to not face Obama in a debate- be so unrealistic? There are two clear reasons. The first is quite simple; an election without debates would certainly lack a certain luster that an audience expects. Election debates are like snuff films for the elite,
powerful, and “educated.” They provide the opportunity for each candidate to
legally insult and destroy the persona of another until there is nothing left.
The second reason is more important than, yet not as entertaining as, the first.
Journalist moderated debates get these haughty political candidates off of
their well-practiced and “programmed responses.” In this sense, the journalists
at these debates act as watchdogs for the audience as they are able to ask
difficult and controversial questions, forcing the candidates to think for themselves
without the help of a teleprompter or professional speech writer. Additionally,
these journalist moderated debates provide a bit of “neutral”, real-time news
to shine through the muck of the wonderful “infotainment.”
So even if Newt Gingrich did become the Republican candidate (but we know he will
not) and rejected a public debate against Obama, he would be harassed and embarrassed
by Baier’s and others’ statement of “I don’t think that would work.”