David Boyd linked to military analyst Victor David Hanson's Oct. 27 New York Times op-ed, 2000 Dead, in Context.
Among other things, Hanson notes the influence of war reporting on public opinion which in turn influence war policies and outcomes:
It is conventional wisdom now to praise the amazing accomplishment of June 6, 1944. But a few ex tempore editorial comments from Geraldo Rivera or Ted Koppel, reporting live from the bloody hedgerows where the Allied advance stalled not far from the D-Day beaches - a situation rife with intelligence failures, poor equipment and complete surprise at German tactics - might have forced a public outcry to withdraw the forces from the Normandy "debacle" before it became a "quagmire."Hanson reminded me of a post I put up following this year's D-Day observances.
Other than a little tweaking to shorten it, here it is.
_____________________________________________
The D-Day anniversary reminded us of what we owe the extraordinary men and women who made our success possible.
It also led me to ask how today's media would have reported the invasion and some other WWII events.
Below is a satire of many MSM news organizations’ contemporary war reporting. All historical references are accurate save two. One, the report of the success of Enigma project which in fact remained a secret until many years after the war. The other is the work of the "peace activist" who ends our "news report."
Now here’s ABC’s Evening News – June 8, 1944
Charles Gibson: “Good evening. We begin tonight with the war news. And there’s plenty of that, including reports of a serious split in the ranks of Allied military leaders.
When we first reported the D-Day invasion, we believed Americans and British military leaders had agreed on the invasion plan. Now we learn that was not the case.
We go first to Linda Douglas at the War Department. Linda, we’re hearing rumors of serious disagreements among Allied military leaders? Any truth to them?”
Douglas: “There certainly is, Charles. A source, who must remain anonymous, told me Eisenhower’s air chief, Leigh-Mallory, strongly opposed the plan to drop paratroops into Normandy during the early hours of D-Day. He feared they couldn’t achieve their objectives and would suffer massive casualties.
Eisenhower, not an airman and with no experience commanding paratroops, went against Leigh-Mallory’s advice and ordered the drop anyway.
Now, although the paratroopers achieved their main objectives, even Ike’s headquarters is admitting many lives were lost.
Gibson: “Well then, Linda, do we know yet who will replace Eisenhower?”
Douglas: “No.”
Gibson “Well, do we at least know when he'll be replaced?”
Douglas: “I’m afraid that might not be soon, Charles. Ike’s boss, General Marshall, is solidly behind him.”
Gibson: “That’s really not too surprising since Eisenhower is a Marshall protégé. Well, thank you, Linda.
Now we go to Terry Moran at the White House. Terry, do we know why President Roosevelt has failed to tell the American people anything about this major split in Allied leadership? He spoke to the nation on D-Day and said nothing about it”
Moran: “That’s right, Charles. And he’s still said nothing. And I’ve got to tell you that just from where I’m standing here on the White House lawn that looks like a really huge blunder.”
Gibson: “And why is that, Terry?”
Moran: “Because it makes you wonder if Roosevelt really knows what’s going on in Normandy.”
Gibson: “Indeed, Terry. ABC News will continue to follow this story.
Now we bring you another report in our series, Your Right to Know. This one concerns a top secret effort to decode German military and diplomatic communications. It’s called the Enigma project.
. George Stephanopoulos is here to explain it to us.
George, can you tell us first whether this Enigma matter is really as important as it seems, or are the Allies exaggerating its importance in order to draw attention away from the quagmire that’s developed in Normandy?
It’s almost 48 hours since the invasion began and they're still not in Germany.”
Stephanopoulos: “Charles, Enigma is really big news. The allies are intercepting and reading communications the Germans thought were secure. They’re doing it in almost real-time”
Gibson: “Thank you, George. Now we go to Berlin where Admiral Karl Donnitz, in charge of German submarine warfare, is standing by.
First, Admiral, thank you for taking time to be with us.
Donnitz: “A pleasure, Mr. Gibson.”
Jennings: “Admiral, I don’t know whether you’ve heard yet, but ABC has just reported the Allies have for some time been intercepting and reading German communications, including those of your submarine fleet.
So if I may, Admiral, I’d like to begin by asking if you would be good enough to give us your reaction to the news. …..Admiral?….We seem to have lost our contact with Berlin.
Well, we’re almost out of time.
Tomorrow night we’ll bring you our Person of the Week. She’s a peace activist who wants the schools in her town to let children wear swastika armbands and learn to goose step so they can better understand children in Germany. But some angry parents and a hostile school board don’t share her dream of a more peaceful world.”
1 comments:
Perfect. Would love to get some of the MSM's reaction to that.
Want to tell you a story regarding the effect the MSM had on me. I fully supported the war from the beginning. Was involved with a message board throughout the first year. Because of "life" I stepped back from the war in regards to following it on the net. Up till about 4 mos ago I received my info from the MSM. During the "MSM" period my feelings about the war plummeted. I had a feeling of doom, felt that the war was a total disaster. Once I got back involved with it on the net, started reading blogs, my feelings have done a 180. Yes, the MSM does have a huge affect on the feelings about this war. If it could turn me around, imagine what it has done to people who were on the fence in the beginning.
Post a Comment