Ukraine war
- Thread starter Publimix
- Start date
Batutta
Major Contributor
Read the forum guidelines--
https://www.dvxuser.com/forum/off-t...elines-sig-restrictions-commercial-sig-policy
https://www.dvxuser.com/forum/off-t...elines-sig-restrictions-commercial-sig-policy
Batutta, I think he is ok with this. He is not talking politics but how news is covered.
Publimix, why are you asking Americans in particular?
ahalpert, in the ever scaling-up of how-far-can-we go videos, there are gruesome, un-censored videos of violence from the war.
Publimix, why are you asking Americans in particular?
ahalpert, in the ever scaling-up of how-far-can-we go videos, there are gruesome, un-censored videos of violence from the war.
Last edited:
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Ah, well that does seem inevitable as the world turns. And then, the censorship regimes of youtube and various internet sites strike me as politically-oriented. For example, if you wish ill of Putin on twitter, your post may stay up. If you wish ill of the queen of England, your post may come down. So, if there are violent drone videos that ostensibly violate the content guidelines of the website but are deemed to be in the public interest by the censors, they might stay up.
I don't know what's in these videos. If they're gruesome snuff films, then I'm probably against showing them out of respect for the privacy and dignity of the individuals involved. But I feel like images such as Napalm Girl from the Vietnam war advance the public interest by revealing the realities of that conflict and, in general, the barbarism of war, despite the impropriety of the shot itself
No politics, just the shift in coverage and technical possibilities. What will be the next step, live camera action (as it is sometimes now).
And USA because best coverage started during WW2 with hollywood cameraman, to Vietnam, journalists embedded etc.
Perhaps so. The news organizations now run on shoestring budgets compared to days of old. It's the Youtubers that now staff the entire world and bring the upfront information.
By the way, I visited Western Europe a couple of times. The amount of European news coverage of what is going on in the States is remarkable. Not just national politics, but all kinds of things.
Also, the amount of American TV shows and American culture on European TV shows was surprising. For example, I watched a German game show which had a couple matching American sports team names to the sport they belonged to. How the fudge would Germans know the names of American sports teams. But they did.
The most interesting part of the war in terms of coverage for me is listening to the intercepted mobile phone conversations between the Russian soldiers and their girlfriends, wives or mothers back home. The Russians aren't supposed to be using open lines of communications but written laws don't apply on the battlefield. (for more reasons than this one). And the dialog is definitely not from the Hollywood movies.
JAMedia
Well-known member
These are intresting BUT you have no way of veryfying their legitimacy.
My information is most of them are genuine.
BOTH sides have people phoning home on mobile phones and posting video to social media. However as it is the Ukrainian network they get to pick and choose what they put out. The Russias don't get the same view.
Also the Russian Army is nowhere near as well trained and dicsiplined as most NATO forces and they don't seem as well supplied or supoported which leads to discontent.
As for Hollywood... they haven't ever put out any accurate war movies.
I know what the Russians put out - from their major TV channels to the military personnel smartphone videos. None of it is surprising. Their TV has been broadcasting in this vein for years. And cutting hefty royalty checks to Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf.
JAMedia
Well-known member
A year on and I think you are right. Both sides using social media and propaganda to great effect. I think the Ukrainians are doing it better as they have better control over their military. The Russians have a lot of untrained conscripts and unhappy people. Also, the mobile phone system the Russians are using is the Ukrainian one....
JAMedia
Well-known member
I did some digging... Actually the first "video war" is considered to be Vietnam. This was the first war where ENG came of age and what was being shot was broadcast on "the other side of the world" less than 12 hours later. It was the first near-real-time television war. Some of the coverage was used to sway the domestic politics in the USA separately to how the government wanted to portray it. For the first time the Government didn't have full control over the portrayal of a war to the mass population like most governments did in WW2.
Fast forward by 20 or so years to the Gulf War(s) and NATO had learnt from the US mistake in Vietnam. Journalists were "embedded" with the Coalition Military so their output could be controlled. A few circumvented this. However the US official video output also included videos similar to the ones suggested above mainly precision munitions on individual targets (ie people)
So the Ukraine war is really little different than any since Vietnam. It is just the technology has advanced in the last 15 years e.g. affordable drones, go-pro and phones with HQ video capability. The Ukrainians are using these with a high degree of skill to create a picture (propaganda)
The Russians are nowhere near as good at this as most of their military is a lot less trained or disciplined. Also like their military tactics most of their propaganda is very last century. They don't have the people to do what Ukraine is doing.