When I was a kid in the 40s and 50s, the RKO Pathe newsreel that would
precede the Three Stooges short and the five cartoons was never
critical of the American mission, nor did it include any clips
portraying tactical failures by the Allies. Instead, it was always a
rousing tribute to the rightness of our mission, highlighting only our
military successes.

My question: should the American media shift gears in time of war from
critic to national cheerleader?

A squib has been making its way around cyberspace that contains a
hypothetical news story as it might have been reported during WWII had
the current press posture been the case then. Of course, it's full of
negatives, the implication being that, had the current media thinking
been the case during WWII, both our troops and the American populace
would have been disastrously demoralized.

Would it be better if we returned to those days? Would it be better if
the media saw themselves as supportive arms of government during
wartime?

---

Request for Question Clarification by omnivorous-ga on 12 Oct 2004 21:27 PDT

Nautico --

You seem to be in search of precision on these definitions, using
non-declared wars as examples.

I realize that there are often declarations of "war" against poverty,
drugs or terrorism, but when was the last time the United States
Congress declared war?  That will help researchers answer your
question.

Best regards,

Omnivorous-GA

---

Clarification of Question by nautico-ga on 13 Oct 2004 05:34 PDT

We could debate the operative effect of the Constitution vs. that of
the president as CINC under the War Powers Act all day long, but I
don't think it germane to my question. I think it's safe to use the
word "war" to describe our current imbroglio in Iraq. Unlike the "war
on terrorism," which I believe is indeed a metaphor, the war in Iraq
is as much a war as those we fought in Korea and Vietnam. So, let's
move on to the question: should the national media revert to the kind
of behavior they evinced during WWII and Korea, as cheerleaders for
both our mission and our troops? (Please reread para three of my
original posting.)

---

Clarification of Question by nautico-ga on 15 Oct 2004 05:33 PDT

I have the sense that researchers are still not meeting my question
head-on, and so I shall repeat the one para in my original question
that may prompt you to do so:

"A squib has been making its way around cyberspace that contains a
hypothetical news story as it might have been reported during WWII had
the current press posture been the case then. Of course, it's full of
negatives, the implication being that, had the current media thinking
been the case during WWII, both our troops and the American populace
would have been disastrously demoralized."

Re the above, do you think the media behaved wrongly during WWII and
Korea by puffing our successes and downplaying the negative? Do you
think that the assertion made in this snippet, namely, that our nation
might have lost the will to carry those wars to conclusion, if today's
media had been doing the reporting back then?

---

Clarification of Question by nautico-ga on 15 Oct 2004 05:59 PDT

Here's the email squib to which I referred, here shown on the URL that follows it:

How Would the D-Day Invasion be Reported today?
(This is what you would hear if today's media reported on D-Day at Normandy)

June 6, 1944. -NORMANDY- Three hundred French civilians were killed
and thousands more wounded today in the first hours of America's
invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women
and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of
artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German
fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S.
troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St.
Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had
anticipated and reaction against the American invasion was running
high. "We are dying for no reason," said a Frenchman speaking on
condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never
thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."

The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops,
tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and
thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed
that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped
out, threatening the species with extinction. A representative of
Greenpeace said his organization, which had tried to stall the
invasion for over a year, was appalled at the destruction, but not
surprised. "This is just another example of how the military destroys
the environment without a second thought," said Christine Moanmore.
"And it's all about corporate greed." Contacted at his Manhattan
condo, a member of the French government-in-exile who abandoned Paris
when Hitler invaded said the invasion was based solely on American
financial interests. "Everyone knows that President Roosevelt has ties
to big beer," said Pierre LeWimp. "Once the German beer industry is
conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will control the world market and
make a fortune."

http://www.auctionarms.com/help/forum/DisplayForum.cfm?SubjectID=2085

---

Clarification of Question by nautico-ga on 15 Oct 2004 07:01 PDT

It's occurred to me that maybe you had to have "been there" to be able
to judge the difference between reporting during WWII and the Korean
conflict and wartime reporting today, to have sat in the theatres that
showed the weekly RKO Pathe news reports of our heroic soldiers, as
they marched across the screen to the accompaniment of stirring
background music. Even our foreign correspondents were in uniform! I
believe they thought of themselves as part of the war effort and, as
such, might have felt they would be doing the country a disservice if
they reported "the whole truth" as they saw it.

---

Clarification of Question by nautico-ga on 16 Oct 2004 14:11 PDT

I guess nobody wants to take the time and energy to formulate an
answer, so am closing this question.

An answer to your question turns on two issues:
1) What is the legal (judicially defined, with precedents) definition
of "give aid and comfort" in this context?
2) What does the test of public sentiment at the time vs. historical
resolution show? For example, Tokyo Rose was tried, found guilty, and
jailed after the war. But events in the following years showed that
she was not guilty (due to perjured testimony, among other things),
and she was eventually pardoned. Also for example, the Rosenbergs were
tried, convicted, and executed. Documents from Russia, revealed many
years later, indicated that Julius had indeed passed important secrets
to the Russians, but his wife was probably not directly involved.
  Since the definition in point one above probably does not exist, and
since point two requires many years to play out, it is not surprising
that our government does not often seek to prosecute alleged ?aid and
comfort providers.?
   Alleging that those who make known their disagreement with the US
Government about an armed conflict are providing ?aid and comfort? to
the enemy is a political tactic aimed at eliciting an emotional,
strongly patriotic reaction from the people.
BuddhaSam

These are two very different wars fought for very different reasons
under very different leadership.  The job of the media is to inform. 
It should not censor itslef nor should the government censor media.

Did the USA need to supply arms and other aid to the alies as much as
three years before the attack on Pearl Harbor? If we had restrained
this aid sufficiently and certain rich and powerful USA citizens, what
is the probability that the USA would have had to fight the Germans,
Japanese or Italians up to this day? My guess is about 50-50.
 Almost as important, The USA likely would not have had a cold War
with The Soviet Union, Cuba nor China, nor have fought subsquently in
Korea, Japan, Bosnia, Iraq and a hoast of other locations, the past 58
years. The media did a massive sales job on the USA citizens to get us
to move from our natural position of nuetrality in the late 30s.
 Did the media do Europe a big favor. Yes, but the average USA citizen
has not benefited, except a higher standard of living, which was not
worth the many USA lives lost unnecessarily IMHO.
 After Pearl Harbor the USA media was justified in distorting the news
to get citizen support, and perhaps the present USA media is justified
in distorting the news to improve USA and world support for the war on
terror. The situation is arugably different than it was in the late
30s, partly because The USA did become entangled in foreign alienses
before December 7th 1941
 Telling the truth would have done great things for average USA
citizens in the late 1930s. Perhaps we would benefit from hearing
truth now. Any ideas on how to get the media to tell the truth?  Neil

For neilzero:

I understand the thrust of your comments, but my question has less to
do with the media's "telling the truth" than it does with what it
chooses to emphasize and what to soft-pedal. Should the media think of
themselves as American boosters during time of war, as opposed to
simple observers, analysts, and critics? Should they assume a
cheerleading role in the name of national unity, as they did during
WWII and Korea (but didn't during Vietnam)? Stated otherwise, should
they in time of war regard their allegiance to the United States as
eclipsing their First Amendment prerogative to report the negative?
That's the thrust of my question.

To address your ?should? question, rather than the issue of ?give aid
and comfort,? I offer the following observations.
	Since in a democratic country such as the USA there is no way to
control whether the media reporters function as patriotic cheer
leaders or as opinionated ?truth tellers,? the entire issue is in the
realm of preference. For example, the government leaders, no doubt,
would prefer cheer leading reports, and could make access to battle
and war information very difficult to obtain. Enterprising reporters
often find ways to circumvent obstruction. Patriotic citizens could
prefer either and both of the reporting options, i.e., cheer when it
would be beneficial to our soldiers and citizens, and be
critical/truth-telling when it appears that poor decisions have been
made by the leadership. There cannot be one satisfying answer in the
US context of the question.

It's obvious that the Vietnam war changed the way the media reports
war news. As that war became increasingly unpopular at home, the media
reflected that attitude, highlighting body bag counts and other
negative images to prove that the war's unpopularity was indeed
warranted! One wonders whether the media would or could ever return to
its WWII posture in the wake of that watershed.