Illustration by Arnulfo Bermudez

Since the war with Iraq began last week, many prominent U.S. news stations are dedicating themselves to around-the-clock war coverage. Although many of the images bring back memories of Gulf War footage, there are major differences. For years, many people have said that the next war would be covered in "real time," instantaneous images of battles and interviews. Others have focused on the increasingly video game-like animation and graphics used to explain the latest developments and detailed military weapons.

Is it healthy for society to be glued to such an "in-your-face" type of coverage? Is the fierce competition between news stations appropriate? Should so much airtime be dedicated to war?

Ignorance doesn't improve the situation

The media coverage of the war in Iraq is somewhat sickening and frightening to many Americans. It's more than a little disturbing to see pictures of American POWs while eating dinner.

But, this is war, and war is gruesome. Americans should not avoid the graphic pictures this war has brought and should recognize the price they are paying to fight this war. It's easy for Americans at home to say enough is enough, but simply because the sitcoms return to the airwaves doesn't make the nightmares end for POWs or people dying while fighting in the trenches.

The media should show the realities of war and spare no one's stomach. The intent should not be to shock, but to educate people and keep them up-to-date on what has happened.

Once Americans realized we have not reinvented war, the media coverage grew painful. Hopefully we will never become desensitized to this play-by-play media coverage; rather, we will realize how truly exceptional the wartime is and that life as usual cannot go on when lives are on the line.

Kendrick Wilson is a political science sophomore. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Networks' aggressive war reporting harms public, troops, press

In a war of compromise among the American public, military and media, the current M.O. for coverage of Iraq is bad news on all fronts.

It is disgusting that the war has been relegated to the role of entertainment for some untold millions of Americans. On network news, it acquires a surreal video-game feel, complete with cartoon troop movements and 3-D special effects. The presentation is superficial enough to render the coverage emotionally meaningless.

Additionally, the intense, aggressive reporting compromises the security of American troops. Bush's advisers have frequently commented that they get much of their information only after it is broadcast. Saddam's advisers, too, have said that he made many of his military decisions in the first Gulf War based on "intelligence" gleaned from CNN. That is one instance in which the American public is being given access to more information than it should have.

Finally, this type of coverage severely compromises the media itself. You can forget about any illusions of an independent press ÷ how much will reporters be willing to criticize the people who are physically protecting them while they get their scoop? Journalists aren't just "embedded" in the troops; they're embedded in the military machine and culture.

For the sake of our minds, military and media, the over-reporting has got to go.

Caitlin Hall is a biochemistry and philosophy sophomore. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Watching coverage is vital for awareness

In assessing the coverage of Operation Iraqi Oil Wells, oops, I mean Iraqi Freedom, the most evident conclusion is that the information is extremely captivating. It's easy to find yourself wasting hours on end or sitting up all night watching for every new development that comes into play.

I recall a thousand air raid sirens going off in Kuwait City those first few days and watching crazed network correspondents covering dazzling smiles and perfect hairdos with gas masks, all the while striving for that breaking story.

There is some sort of sick desperation to all of this. It's like a thrilling train wreck that you cannot look away from.

In Desert Storm, Bush the Elder and his merry band of cohorts reduced war from bodies stacking up like crimson cords of wood in Vietnam to Tomahawk missiles being launched from Navy cruise ships. We were grossly misled by what we viewed on television.

This time around, we are kept abreast of the events at hand, but will never be allowed to see the full story. Americans are sadly ignorant of our nation's policies, and it's necessary for us to commit to watching war coverage on television.

Whether or not the media is permitted to bring us the whole truth is another story altogether.

Bill Wetzel is a creative writing and political science junior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Free press makes for more honest world

Anyone who understands the significance of the war against Saddam Hussein and his totalitarian regime should be plastered to the television screen right now to witness the facts of reality for themselves.

Broadcasting technology unique to the commercial television networks of the freest countries of the Western world delivers an opportunity for any interested individuals to witness much of the war with their own senses ÷ uncolored by the calculated propaganda of state-owned networks (such as Iraq's or Russia's).

These Western news sources are offering a firsthand view that only being there or live television can offer, in contrast to the orchestrated government coverage during the Gulf War 12 years ago. The networks offer relatively objective reporting, broadcasting news of every new fact they can sniff out ÷ rather than suppressing the truth to tow some party line.

It is appropriate that we all monitor the actions of the warring armies ÷ that we all "be there" when U.S. troops liberate Baghdad, especially if Iraqi soldiers tap their arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. "Embedded" reporters traveling with military units, as well as independent journalists, serve as our eyes and ears. Asked by The New Yorker why coalition brass invited the press to join their troops, one officer said, "The world's not going to believe the U.S. Army. But they'll believe you."

Erik Flesch is a geosciences junior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

America's newest reality show a big hit

For all of you who just can't get enough reality TV, consider yourself in heaven. The ultimate form of the latest craze to hit television is now part of America's daily life.

Turn your TV on at anytime, day or night, and no less than a handful of stations will be devoting 100 percent of their programming to war coverage. This is nothing new. Anytime the U.S. has gone to war, Fox and CNN have provided in-depth coverage. But the networks are now taking it a step further, inserting their reporters into harm's way. All this in an attempt to keep viewers glued to their network.

With ratings on the line, all bets are off, and you, the viewers, are the big winners. It's important, however, to keep everything in perspective.

While it is important to keep abreast of world events, the coverage of this war should never alter the daily activities of your life. It is said that too much of one thing can be bad for your health. This is certainly true when it comes to viewing the realities of war.

Keep in mind, the participants of this reality show aren't competing for a million dollars or a record contract. They simply want to make it to the end of the show so they can come home.

Steve Campbell is a senior, majoring in Spanish. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Constant coverage weakens war's impact

Defenders of the ceaseless war-babble spewing from the 24-hour news channels say this constant coverage is only answering a desire for up-to-the-minute information. To be sure, many Americans devote considerable time to making sure they know as well as possible how the war in Iraq is proceeding. More of us ÷ all of us ÷ ought to follow their example. As citizens of the nation that began this conflict, staying informed is tantamount to a moral obligation.

But a truly informed perspective comes from a critical analysis of the news and a solid understanding of the roots of the current conflict, not from the parrot-like chatter of a news anchor who has to keep talking all night long. Forced to fill 24 hours, the news channels respond with a blend of trivia and rote repetition: the same explosions, again and again and again.

With time, human beings can get used to anything. This adaptability can be a valuable asset. But it can also be a curse ÷ with enough exposure, even the most abhorrent situations become commonplace. Even the starkest horrors lose their meaning.

By feeding Americans' legitimate desire for knowledge with an endless stream of uncritical images, the news channels do worse than stifle an understanding of why we find ourselves in this conflict. They risk inuring us to the horror of war.

Phil Leckman is an anthropology graduate student. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.