PDA

View Full Version : Props to ABC for war coverage last night


AgPete
03-18-2003, 04:35 AM
Like most Americans I tuned into the President's speech to the nation last night. Am I the only one who noticed this or does it seem like Bush is getting a lot better at speechmaking? He doesn't stumble on his words near as much as he used to and I'm glad he comes across more assertive and intelligent in his speeches these days because the country needs strong leadership more than ever. Jeers to CBS and NBC who showed the speech, talked about the horrible implications of war for a few seconds and then switched to King of Queens or another sitcom. :p ABC actually treated it with respect and made me think they were the only news network that realized we are making history. With this war, our foreign policy changes forever and perhaps the U.N. becomes an irrelevant body. Anyways, just wanted to pat ABC on the back because the rest of the networks probably gave Elizabeth Smart's reappearance more press than they did this critical moment in our nation's history.

One of ABC's special news programs last night was one which predicted possible war scenarios. It brought up some interesting tidbits but I'll only be able to remember a few:

- Recent intelligence says Saddam Hussein has dispersed WMD to his troops in the field, specifically, a poison gas to be used in artillery shells against U.S. troops.

- To give you an idea how advanced our military is after only ten years, the first Persian Gulf War used 10% smart bombs, this war will use approximately 80%.

- Overall, there are less U.S. (and allied) forces than the first war.

- The U.S. will drop more firepower from the air in the first day of this war than they did in the entire 44 days of the first Persian Gulf War.

- The "BIG IF?" of this war is if Iraqi civilians will look at American troops as liberators or conquerors.

- Just like the first war, the Iraqi army is bigger than the U.S. (approx. 400,000 Iraqi grunts) but also like the first war, they're still poorly trained and equipped and morale is low.

- U.S. military leaders have seen subtle hints by Iraqi field commanders that indicate they will surrender without a fight as soon as war breaks out.

- Hussein has a very good human intelligence network that will last until the war's very end but the U.S. will wipe out all radio and phone transmission devices on day one. Rumors are that Hussein is already in hiding and his son will run the war. (The youngest son, the one in charge of his secret police.)

- The U.S. is hoping small special forces units can take out a strong armored division in the north or prevent refugees from entering Turkey. (I guess the U.S. still has troops in the sea north of Turkey waiting for the okay to enter.) The Kurds in the north are more concerned with a Turkish invasion than a U.S. one. Turkey is rumored to invade north Iraq as soon as the invasion begins and seize Kurdish lands and the Kurds do not want to be under Turkish rule and treated like current day Kurdish residents of Turkey.

- Hussein's forces are much more spread out than last war. We won't see any roads littered with destroyed Iraqi tanks this time.

- With barely a decade separating both Persian Gulf Wars, the U.S. is already far more advanced. Estimates are that the missiles we employ now can inflict 5x more damage.

- The rough plan in this war is to march quickly to Baghdad ignoring resistance along the way. The U.S. hopes that by going easy on Iraqi troops in the field and not pulverizing them like the first war they will give up easily.

- 120+ ships waiting to seize Iraq's coastal regions.

- Intelligence rumors are that Hussein thought he would have more time to prepare after a warning from Bush. Thought he would have at least 72 hours.

- More than half of our country's Marines will be in Iraq.

- Most strategists agree that Iraqi civilians will be thrown into the fight and placed in the way of our troops. Hussein will even kill them himself and blame it on the Americans in order to gather international support for a quick end to the war.

- Hussein has a very limited hiding area. The north and southern regions of Iraq would kill him or arrest him just as quickly as American troops would.

- This war will revolutionize media coverage of wars. The military is trying things it never has before. There are approx. 600 reporters stationed with the troops. Satellite and instant news technology are better than ever. The U.S. Military will not censor anything and will only have small one hour periods of blackouts at critical strategic moments like before the invasion launches. Luckily our military hasn't become as bad as reality T.V. yet and dead soldiers will not be shown nor will announcements of their death be made public until the service can notify the families. But, with little censorship, if our troops accidentally killed Iraqi civilians, it would be seen, any mistakes are going to be shown and this will not be what many criticized in the first war as a military PR machine.

BTW, I noticed CBS or ABC had a reporter via satellite in Baghdad but unlike the first war in which reporters were still affiliated with their broadcasters, this journalist was labeled as "freelance journalist." :D

oykib
03-18-2003, 07:51 AM
One question: What kind of numbers would ABC have put up ratings-wise if they had stuck with their usual programming instead of news.

I don't know that ABC deserves props for their integrity and sense of proportion. It probably just made good dollar sense. Maybe it was a combination of both.

Maple Leafs
03-18-2003, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by AgPete
- Most strategists agree that Iraqi civilians will be thrown into the fight and placed in the way of our troops. Hussein will even kill them himself and blame it on the Americans in order to gather international support for a quick end to the war.
This is an important point. With all the global opposition to the war, winning the PR battle will be important. Saddam seems pretty savvy about that, and I expect him to try some dirty tricks to turn public opinion in his favor.

When the first reports of "US bombs an orphanage" come out, I wonder how many people will take a critical look, and how many will just blindly accept whichever side they already support.

CHEMICAL SOLDIER
03-18-2003, 08:52 AM
I think ABC 'S coverage was a class act . Very classy and informative .

scooper
03-18-2003, 09:16 AM
One thing that struck me is the coverage we will see when it begins. They did a story about reporters emebbed with military units. With satellite technology and the absence of cencorship, we will see this war like we've seen no other. The military is taking a big risk in allowing this.

Havok
03-18-2003, 09:26 AM
Yeah i watched it last night... it was pretty good considering i hate Tom Brokejaw.

I thought Bush's speech was Excellent. He looked alot better last night then he did a couple weeks ago. His last speech he looked very tired and just plain worn out. The stress that man must be going through is unreal.

Craptacular
03-18-2003, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by AgPete

- The U.S. will drop more firepower from the air in the first day of this war than they did in the entire 44 days of the first Persian Gulf War.


I may be wrong, but I think they said they'd use more smart bombs on the first day than they did during the entire 44 days of the Persian Gulf War, not total firepower. I remember the 10% / 80% numbers you mentioned as well, and I believe they talked about the first day / 44 day comparison just to reinforce the point.

I didn't even bother watching the other networks to see what they had. ABC News is much better than CBS and NBC.

AgPete
03-18-2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by scooper
One thing that struck me is the coverage we will see when it begins. They did a story about reporters emebbed with military units. With satellite technology and the absence of cencorship, we will see this war like we've seen no other. The military is taking a big risk in allowing this.

I don't know if that's a good idea either scooper. I love how the military is being upfront and honest but war is war. If U.S. soldiers make one little mistake, our enemies may turn it into a P.R. nightmare. Can you imagine what Vietnam would have looked like if they had this kind of coverage? One of the reporters on a big three network was a former leatherneck so I don't think he would cause that many problems but if I'd hate to see our soldiers restrained or put in harm's way because they have to worry about the tag-a-long civilian journalist.

AgPete
03-18-2003, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Craptacular
I may be wrong, but I think they said they'd use more smart bombs on the first day than they did during the entire 44 days of the Persian Gulf War, not total firepower. I remember the 10% / 80% numbers you mentioned as well, and I believe they talked about the first day / 44 day comparison just to reinforce the point.

I didn't even bother watching the other networks to see what they had. ABC News is much better than CBS and NBC.

It may have been that way Craptacular but I'm pretty certain about the 10%-80% number too.

Anrhydeddu
03-18-2003, 08:31 PM
If that ABC special made those points that AgPete listed, that is indeed good coverage.

cthomer5000
03-18-2003, 08:31 PM
I hate the media. ABC was calling their coverage "When Diplomacy Fails"...

As far as I can tell, diplomacy only failed to produce the outcome our whitehouse wanted!

Maybe if the UN and basically the entire world doesn't agree with us, we might be jumping the gun.

Tarkus
03-18-2003, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by cthomer5000
I hate the media. ABC was calling their coverage "When Diplomacy Fails"...

As far as I can tell, diplomacy only failed to produce the outcome our whitehouse wanted!

Maybe if the UN and basically the entire world doesn't agree with us, we might be jumping the gun.
Out of curiosity, can you tell me what exactly was accomplished by the latest inspections? We found a few weapons that went beyond the specified range and what?

Tarkus

CamEdwards
03-18-2003, 09:16 PM
I hate it when I write something and think I hit reply, only really I didn't.

ct, just remember who's telling you is us against the world. 30+ nations are calling themselves part of the "coalition of the willing", Turkey seems poised to reverse course (as does France, incidentally), other nations have said our disagreement over the use of force won't be a hinderance to long term relations.

Remember, we didn't have UN support for Kosovo. And France hasn't had UN support in any of the 37 military actions (including regime change) they've initiated in the past 43 years. This is all just politics as usual.

Craptacular
03-18-2003, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
If that ABC special made those points that AgPete listed, that is indeed good coverage.

AgPete gave a really good synopsis. I watched most of their coverage, other than when we ran out for some food. They did a nice job giving bios of the key players on both sides, including the U.S. military leaders who will oversee operations. It was very professional and straight to the point.

kcchief19
03-18-2003, 09:31 PM
Of course, ABC News also posted on their Web site and reported on radio stories about the "mystery" ships floating around the gulf and that Bin Laden had been captured without making it clear that these stories were in fact based on reports published in a disreputable British tabloid. If their coverage last night was good, that's fine -- they are playing catch up right now.

CBS may have blinked, but they were the only network that had left a reporter in Baghdad. There are other reporters in Baghdad, but no other network reporters.

kcchief19
03-18-2003, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by CamEdwards
I hate it when I write something and think I hit reply, only really I didn't.

ct, just remember who's telling you is us against the world. 30+ nations are calling themselves part of the "coalition of the willing", Turkey seems poised to reverse course (as does France, incidentally), other nations have said our disagreement over the use of force won't be a hinderance to long term relations.

Remember, we didn't have UN support for Kosovo. And France hasn't had UN support in any of the 37 military actions (including regime change) they've initiated in the past 43 years. This is all just politics as usual.
Cam, I usually am with you lock step, but I got to call you out, especially since you're an influential member of the media. :)

Colin Powell identified 30 nations as member of what the Bush Administration (not the countries themselves) calls the "coaltion of the living. Two of those nations, the Netherlands and our good friend Spain, who specifically ruled out committing their own troops. Japan has expressed public support, but also is not willing to jump into the fray.

Powell says another 15 countries have "quietly" expressed support. That means they have told the administration they support the war, but they will not say it publicly. It also means they cannot be trusted, because if it goes poorly you can bet they won't have our back. Turkey does indeed appear willing to let us use their airspace and territory for basing operations, but will not contribute troops. France may waffle, but they also will not endorse an attack.

There are 191 nations in the U.N. That means that at best, just under 25 percent of the world's nations have backed us either publicly or privately. Not exactly an impressive coalition.

True, Kosovo was not a UN operation -- it was a NATO operation. It was a coalition of NATO. An attack on Iraq will be a joint U.S./British operation. Period.

Frankly, I don't care whether France did or did not have UN authority for any military operation. We're not talking about France. We're talking about the U.S. We're supposed to be the good guys.

I don't like Hussein. I do indeed think he is a tyrant and I do believe that he is dangerous. It would have been very easy to build an international coaltion against him if we actually tried instead of doing what we have done, which is tell the world, "Do as we say or get out of the way." As the world's only superpower, that may well be within our abilities, but that does not make it the right or the wise thing to do.

We should indeed do what we are about to do. We just shouldn't be doing it alone. We don't have to be doing it alone.