BuzzMachine
by Jeff Jarvis

March 28, 2003

News sources
: A Magid survey shows where people are going for war news: 45 percent go for to cable news, 22 percent to network news, 20 to local TV news, and 11 to other media.
Where do they go next? Mix up the results above and then the Internet comes above newspapers.
The audience is demanding immediacy. [via Live Remote]
: Meanwhile, 42 percent of viewers in another survey said that war coverage tired them out and 58 percent found it frightening to watch.
: Imagine how many will be frightened by French Network News....

Troop buildup
: So some are giving Rumsfeld grief for the speed of the troop buildup in Iraq: from 90,000 in week one to 120,000 in week two, to 200,000 in short order.
In Vietnam, it took from 1950 to 1965 to get to 184,000 troops -- and, of course, many said that was too damned fast.

I want my Frog TV
: I'm surprised I haven't seen more blog levity over this: Jacques Chirac asking for media companies to propose starting a French news channel: snail TV.

Fine, Yankee goes home
: The South Koreans are getting snarky about our presence and about our war in Iraq.
Some are making noises about taking our troops out of Korea and sending them to Iraq.

"Will General Tommy Franks suddenly `discover' that he needs the Second Infantry Division in Iraq?" said Robyn Lim, a conservative foreign affairs professor based in Japan, referring to the front-line American troops here. "In crying `Yankee go home!' South Koreans should have been more careful about what they asked for."
In a poll conducted last month, a pullout of American soldiers was favored by 68.4 percent of 2,154 South Korean adults interviewed by Fn Research and Consulting, an affiliate of a business newspaper here.
We spent decades protecting South Korea from North Korea and they want us out and refuse to support our fight. We gave them our sitcoms and this is how they treat us?
Perhaps they'd prefer to starve under a nutso porno dictator.

Water finding its own level
: A new Zogby poll finds different levels of support for the war among viewers of at least two networks:

Pollster John Zogby said his research shows that of Fox viewers, 68 percent are strongly in support of the war. Of NBC watchers, the figure of those who are in strong support is closer to 40 percent.
It's what I said in a post below: People will start seeking viewpoints that agree with their own (as newspapers readers do in Britain and elsewhere in Europe). [via IWantMedia]

New blogs
: Jewsweek has a blog.
So does Gary Hart (well, I think it will qualify once it gets more than one post).

CNN
: I've been offline at the gut of the day because I was doing an interview on blogs with Jeff Greenfield of CNN. Will probably be on Monday. Will let you know.

Blix talks
: Hans Blix talks to the Guardian about hanging up his canary:

"While we were disappointed that it didn't continue and that it came to war, I think we have shown that it was feasible to build up a professional and effective and independent inspection regime... it's just too bad it didn't work."

Grapes of wrath
: So I was talking to a CNN producer and wine fan about the war and this French thing and he has a secret hope: That the price of good wine will come down. Somebody start a futures index.

At last!
: Some good news: The first aid ship arrives at Umm Qasr.

The media war
: Michael Wolff, New York Magazine's media man, files his column from Qatar early. I've been waiting for this: caustic Wolff embedded in the press corps, wolff in the hen house.
But he ends up with a nonstory about a nonstory.
He complains that there's no news at the news center at Centcom.
As Gomer Pyle, USMC, would say: Surprise, surprise, surprise!
Of course, there's no news there. For one thing, there's no war there; it's many sand dunes away in Iraq. For another, this is where the generals are, not the soldiers. And for another, this is the military, filled with armed control freaks.
Wolff got applause at yesterday's Centcom briefing when he complained about no news in the briefing (a theme begun the day before by other correspondents). From the briefing transcript:

WOLFF: We're no longer being briefed by senior-most officers. To the extent that we get information, it's largely information already released by the Pentagon.... So I guess my question is, why should we stay? What's the value to us for what we learn at this million-dollar press center? (Applause.)
GEN. BROOKS: I've gotten applause already. That's wonderful. I appreciate that.
First, I would say it's your choice. We want to provide information that's truthful from the operational headquarters that is running this war. There are a number of places where information is available, not the least of which would be the embedded media. And they tell a very important story. The Pentagon has a set of information they provide as well. If you're looking for the entire mosaic, then you should be here.
I think some of you may have been, based on the questions yesterday, looking for very, very precise information about the operations. And we'll give you that as we can. But we should never forget, the more we tell you, if we're precise about the frontline trace and where units are operating, exactly what our strength is, you're not the only one being informed....
From which we learn that the Pentagon now has excellent courses in PR.
But this is nothing new. Don't we all remember the fabled Five O'Clock Follies of Vietnam; those briefings became the subject of not only complaint but also lampoons.
But it's not just the military. Any press briefing is, by definition, controlled. It's not about reporting. It's about a message being spoonfed. It's a press release.
Same thing at a White House press briefing. Nobody's going to get a scoop from Ari in the auditorium; you're going to get what Ari want to tell you. Even though Ari and various generals are now on live TV, they don't want to give us an exciting show. They want to give us their message.
If you want to report, get the hell out of the press briefing and get out where the action is. Thank goodness, the Pentagon is now allowing that to happen with the embedded reporters.
If you're a media reporter, Mr. Wolff, then you should get your butt back to New York and watch what we're watching because I'm eager to hear your take on it all.
You'll learn a lot more in front of a TV here than in front of a camera there.

Fog of media war
: And here is the problem with instantaneous reporting: Sometimes it takes awhile for the facts to catch up.
The BBC catalogues the incidents of big stories that turned out to be smaller: columns of tanks that turn into trickles of tanks, uprisings that don't rise up much.

[Former BBC reporter and now British MP] Martin Bell blames the recent confusion on the "excitability" of editors of rolling television news stations.
They are under pressure to give the television war junkies something fresh to keep them hooked.
Some "report rumour as fact", Mr Bell says....
The Iraq war is a media war like never before.
Military training courses around the world attach increasing importance to public relations.
Martin Bell says the best way of cutting through the "fog of war" is to return to journalistic basics: be sceptical.
And this applies to those watching the war on their computers and TV screens, as much as the reporters putting it there.
: The BBC admits making daily mistakes in war coverage. No news there. Of course, mistakes will be made.

Archives:
06/05 ... 05/05 ... 04/05 ... 03/05 ... 02/05 ... 01/05 ... 12/04 ... 11/04 ... 10/04 ... 09/04 ... 08/04 ... 07/04 ... 06/04 ... 05/04 ... 04/04 ... 03/04 ... 02/04 ... 01/04 ... 12/03 ... 11/03 ... 10/03 ... 09/03 ... 08/03 ... 07/03 ... 06/03 ... 05/03 ... 04/03 ... 03/03 ... 02/03 ... 01/03 ... 12/02 ... 11/02 ... 10/02 ... 09/02 ... 08/02 ... 07/02 ... 06/02 ... 05/02 ... 04/02 ... 03/02/a ... 03/02/b ... 02/02 ... 01/02 ... 12/01 ... 11/01 ... 10/01 ... 09/01 ... Current Home



. . .