Replies to this message

Re: "The War Channel" ? Re: "The War Channel" ? -- TLC Top of thread Archive Posted by: Phoebus ® 04/21/2003, 19:53:37 Author Profile Mail author TLC, It will happen, no doubt. But don't expect any (serious) live broadcasts. Military are mostly spooks. Knowledge is everything, and they know it. They don't want to have a spy-cam attached to their soldiers. You can bet that they will filter the footage, unless it's rigged/trivial combat. There's also the problem with dead Americans. Ether the shows will be rigged, or there will be Americans dying live on TV. That's a big NO-NO. I put my money on a War News/Documentary channel, including non-live footage of current/past wars. Phoebus | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Re: The Sport Re: Re: "The War Channel" ? -- Phoebus Top of thread Archive Posted by: JAK ® 04/21/2003, 20:21:04 Author Profile Mail author But think of the sport. The sport of war orchestrated by men in suits -- Rumsfeld, Tommy Franks, George W. Bush could be exciting! We Americans really like sport. Think of the “running of the bulls” in Spain. They like sport. JAK | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous |   | Current page Re: "The War Channel" ? Re: "The War Channel" ? -- TLC Top of thread Archive Posted by: JAK ® 04/21/2003, 20:12:43 Author Profile Mail author Many Americans as well as other less well-healed countries enjoy sports. As if to amplify that the war in Iraq is a kind of sport’s event, the military has issued the “playing cards” with key Iraqi targeted people as playing card personalities. It gives the news media an entity with which to play as it reports the news. However, on your point about the “war channel,” unless we are able to maintain a continuous war somewhere in the world, viewing might become boring. One could not have the toppling of Saddam statues day after day...even if they were other statues in other places. How long could killing and/or being killed be tolerated? Wouldn’t people go channel surfing soon? Virtually everyone is intimately involved with weather. And the weather really is non-stop. The US even with the “coalition” could not fund a continuous war for the “War Channel.” Weather is easy. Cameras and satellites are relatively cheap. And the weather channels or Internet weather sites are also relatively cheap to maintain once in place. However, with the “War Channel,” it would be necessary for minute by minute up-dates on the number killed. Not only would it need to show number of allied killed (and wounded which would need to be a separate number), it could also show the number of enemy killed (and wounded which would need to be a separate number). As for “helmet cameras on soldiers and UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) with real time cameras in every combatant's back pack,” such realities might have military objections as well as objections from soldiers who might be “selected” for the camera. Then there would be the sound. Would each soldier’s helmet also have a microphone? Would we want to hear every word the military soldier might speak? To be fair, considering this war on Iraq, we would needed to have an equal number of Republican Guard soldiers for Saddam equipped with cameras and microphones in their helmets as well. This would have given us a clearer view of the larger picture in the war. Perhaps we would need at least TWO war channels. One for our side -- one for the enemy’s side. ...Maybe even THREE channels JAK | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous |   | Current page