How much is too much?

GINA ASULIN

What do reality TV shows, ancient Roman gladiatorial contests and live coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom have in common? The broadcast companies believe they know the answer: People want to see blood as much as the news stations want high ratings.

But never assume. I do not want to see blood. I want to see the overall picture. I do not need to know every detail. I do not need to know the exact coordinates of the army unit locations. I do not need to know what each unit is planning to do next. I do not need to see Gen. Tommy Franks being asked inappropriate questions.

TV aims to please. First we followed real cops around on the beat, then came the reality TV shows where there was always a chance someone might get killed, and now we are treated to the ultimate thrill ... people really getting killed.

One reporter on NPR radio was heard to refer to a review of a combat incident as "post-game analysis." But this is not a football game. This is the real thing.

The virtually unrestrained live news coverage of the war in Iraq is not only unfortunate, it is downright detrimental to the progress of U.S. troops.

This war has become a reality TV show with one major difference. The indiscriminate reporting could actually affect the outcome of this war. More disturbing than the bloodlust and our supposed "need to know" are the ramifications of no-holds-barred live reporting. One reporter "imbedded" inside a tank as it was rolling to Iraq from Kuwait was showing live coverage of a U.S. soldier placing an American flag at an Iraqi stronghold that had just been taken.

"Get a close-up on that soldier!" commanded the news anchor, back in New York. "Alright, hold on," the reporter answered apologetically. "The shooter (of the tank) is doubling up as my cameraman so this will take a moment."

Can one really believe that these kinds of absurdities do not affect the operation of army units?

Last Sunday morning, when reporter Wolf Blitzer was interviewing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he received "breaking news" and immediately questioned Rumsfeld about it. Rumsfeld was first hearing the news at that moment, without even the opportunity to verify with his own sources, and he fielded the questions with his usual composure. But is this not asking too much of someone in his position?

Ironically, the same coverage that could impair our troops could help the enemy. As live coverage was shown for hours of one Iraqi enclave under attack, it is probable that those Iraqi units being shelled had access to the same coverage from their base on Al Jazeera television and were coordinating their retaliation according to information they were hearing, courtesy of U.S. TV.

Of course we have a right to know. But when the security of a military mission is at stake, we do not need to know everything.

Gina Asulin is the office manager of The King David School. Contact her at 480-991-4333.

Home