جريدة القدس
alquds.com

Television coverage of war shapes how the public understands it—and therefore how democracy responds to it. When networks treat conflict as a tactical spectacle while echoing official narratives, they risk normalizing decisions that deserve far deeper scrutiny. Journalism’s duty is not to choreograph missile strikes on digital maps but to interrogate the power that orders them. Without that critical distance, the media ceases to function as a watchdog and instead becomes, willingly or not, a megaphone for war.

  • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.mlEnglish
    5·
    3 days ago

    I love that this article treats this like a new thing when that could not be further from the truth. Journalism’s purpose isn’t to challenge power it’s to reinforce and it has been that way for decades. Journalists are systemically discouraged from doing anything to challenge the American military. They lose their jobs over this shit all the time because jouralism is owned by private interests that benefit from US imperialism. The people who own news media bought it specifically for this purpose.

    • calliope@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      2·
      2 days ago

      When the Iraq war started, Sony embarrassingly trademarked “Shock and Awe” based on the bombings on TV to use in a video game. They were criticized and never used it, but the phrase was everywhere in 2003… because of popular news coverage of the bombings.

      [NBC TV reporter Peter] Arnett was not alone in calling it “shock and awe.” That term, which had burst suddenly into public awareness in January, was by then in near-universal usage to describe the US strategy for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

      “Shock and awe” was repeated endlessly. In the week the war began, more than 600 news reports around the world referred to “shock and awe,” according to a count by the Washington Post.

      I would actually bet that this is a major reason Trump is doing it. For the ratings.