So a friend asked me a few days ago where I was doing my reading about the war. Until hostilities commenced, I was reading a number of different websites, mainly The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and ABC Online with occasional visits to CNN or the BBC. Amongst the less mainstream publications I've been reading a lot on Margo Kingston's challenging "Webdiary" on the SMH site and the crikey site.
Since hostilities have commenced, I've tuned out a bit. When the American military command have spent half a million dollars getting someone from Hollywood to construct a set for them, it's obvious that the media coverage of this war is as important as the war itself to the US government. In the face of that, what do you believe? You have to assume that you can't believe any of it. So then you think you can believe the journalists "embedded" with the troops but that assumes the troops themselves are aware of how their roles fit into the whole picture, which they probably don't for security reasons. This war might be producing more TV footage than any other but how much of it can be said to have any real value? What's been stage-managed or spun so much it only serves to make you dizzy? Frankly, it's probably impossible to sift the facts from the propaganda so I'm finding it much simpler to pay as little attention to it as possible. It's a pity that it takes bombs and death to remind us how vitally important a free and open media is to the wellbeing of the entire planet. Democracy, or any form of government, can't exist without it.
Posted by david at March 25, 2003 10:46 AM