Miscellaneous desk
< May 30	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	June 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 31

How did the U.S. TV war footage whitewash happen?

Back in the bad old '70s when the Vietnam war was raging, and when, to quote Pink Floyd, we had only "13 channels of shit on the TV to choose from", we sometimes saw more war footage in a single hour long program than I've seen broadcast on mainstream news sources in the last 9 years of war. Vietnam was the first war truly broadcast into our living rooms. Now I have about 500 channels, half the soldiers and civilians have cellphones that can take photographs and video, and all I see on the news are unbloody still images with voice overs maybe reading off some casualties. I am not looking to be pointed to sources where I can view material. I am well familiar with off the grid sources such as liveleaks. I am here wondering how this whitewash happened. Did the government go to all the news organizations and say "look what happened in the late sixties and seventies; don't show any blood? Did the heads of the news organizations get together and decide not to show anything for some reason? And where is all the clamor and cry over this glaring lack of coverage? That latter issue really baffles me. How come I don't see the whitewash itself as the biggest news story of the decade?--108.54.17.250 (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been extensively researched, see Sharkey, J.E. (2003), "The Television war: unparalleled access and breakthroughs in technology produced riveting live coverage of the war in Iraq. But how complete a picture did TV deliver?", American Journalism Review, 25 (4): 18–27. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with news for profit is that they want to show the people what they want to see, and people only want to see things which reinforce their beliefs. Thus, if a war in unpopular, people may want to see the gory details, as in the case of Vietnam near the end. However, if the war is popular, then people want to see "images of victory", and that's just what they are shown. Now, Iraq and Afghanistan aren't the most popular wars, but they are far more popular than Vietnam was. In the case of the Afghan war, at least, there is a clear casus belli (9-11), which was totally lacking in Vietnam. A justifiable war is likely to be more popular. StuRat (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, although it takes a very UK perspective, 108.54 might be interested in watching Newswipe_with_Charlie_Brooker, and possibly an episode or two of Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe. At the very least, they might be interested in the mini-documentaries Adam Curtis made for these series, looking at news reporting. 86.164.164.27 (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Vietnam war period is still a catharsis in the American psyche, the Disabled American Veterans being a constant reminder. There are certainly more scenes like this in the present wars but they don't fit the comfortable "soft news" Infotainment profile of US media.
Opposition to the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War gained momentum on the coincidences of the maturation of the Baby-Boom Generation determined to redefine traditional values, the civil rights and anti-nuclear movements, and became an unavoidable news story as the re-election bid of an unpopular president collapsed as a result of turmoil within the Democratic Party related to opposition to the Vietnam War. This time around there is a different generation and the simplistic issues of the 60s are mostly solved or burnt out.
War is no longer a source of exhilerating stories of derring-do told by unimpeachable heroes and magnified by Hollywood. The signs were clearest when Oliver Stone's acclaimed anti-war film Platoon was written partially as a reaction to the John Wayne's cliched depiction of war in terms of "cowboys and indians" The Green Berets. War is uncomfortable to hear about.
Reporters at the battlefront are ostensibly "embedded" in military units for their own protection, which means they are escorted by Minders who are less concerned with Freedom of the press than the potential propaganda value of what gets reported. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A "reaction" 18 years later ? StuRat (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was considerable press freedom in the US Civil War, but Wilson made the press into a government propaganda wing in WW1. Reporters were allowed to report reasonably freely in WW2. Walter Cronkite in 1995 praised the freedom of reportage in WW2,when censorship was understood necessary to prevent active intelligence from being transmitted to the enemy, but there was limited "spin," but criticized the restrictions of the 1990's. During Vietnam, Nixon 's military censored press coverage of the fact that the US was bombing Laos, a fact well known already to the Laotians. After the Vietnam War and before the Gulf War, the US government issued rules limiting coverage depicting US soldiers in extreme pain, mutilated by wounds, etc. The Pentagon was happy to release video of "precison bombs" blowing things up, but did not want images of the human consequences. The US military was unhappy with media coverage of wounded, frightened soldiers and war crimes. The US news media generally supported the war until 1968, but did show some incidents which soured the public on the war. The military blamed "the media" in part for losing the war in Vietnam. They wanted positive propaganda only, to aid the war effort. Reporters were banned from covering the 1983 invasion of Granada, for instance, and the Pentagon issued fictional reports about victories and battles which did not happen. Reporters were kept from covering the US invasion of Panama in 1989. There was limited and heavily censored press coverage of the 1991 Gulf War. This may have been cutback , since some film of unhappy times in Iraq and Afghanistan have been seen. Many governments in the 20th century and after have had similar rules. This is like the rule (recently reversed) against showing US dead soldiers being flown back to the US and the offloading of the coffins from the plane. That rule was imposed during the term of the first President Bush, because TV images of soldiers in flag draped coffins were broadcast in split-screen while Bush was shown in some happy moment. Edison (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that US TV news switched in recent decades from being an "expense" dedicated to showing the important truths to a "profit center" showing what people want to see (anything having to do with celebrity underpants, or lack thereof, apparently). Showing coffins draped in flags is a fave, though, too. This seems reasonable, but not when you consider that they almost never show the coffins of, say, kids who died of cancer. Thus, the public gets the impression that people are being killed right and left in the military, while childhood cancer is only a minor concern, when the reality is the reverse. Even "responsible" news orgs fall into this practice, it seems. StuRat (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was censorship during the Civil War too. Abraham Lincoln had two New York newspaper editors arrested when they fell victim to a hoax and printed a false story about a new draft. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abe, like Wilson, sometimes got heavy handed stifling "sedition", but the 1995 Cronkite article says that there were 600 roving reporters during the Civil War, whose reports got telegraphed back to their newspapers for next-day publication. They did not seem to have the "minders" or "embedding" techniques which have more recently aligned press reports with policy. Several cities had papers which criticized government war policies. Edison (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is of note that there are two separate censorship issues in war. One is reporting from the front; the other involves home-front discussions about the war itself. It sounds to me like Lincoln had a lot of the former but cracked down on the latter. I don't know about Wilson's approach to home front reporting, but the sedition acts definitely cracked down on the latter in an extraordinarily harsh way. During WWII, it sounds like the restrictions on the former were pretty pared down for the most part. There was press censorship administered more broadly during WWII, but it was entirely voluntary. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Cronkite, in his reminiscences, pointed out that the American media in WWII were only allowed to report battlefield information that could reasonably have been assumed to already be known to the enemy. Back to the Civil War, Mathew Brady's exhibit of photos titled "The Dead of Antietam" caused a huge stir, similar to (and for the same reason) as the stir about showing coffin of dead soldiers in the recent war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could quickly come up with some proper references and footnotes, but what I've read is that the U.S. authorities (many of whom felt that a war they could have won in Indochina was lost by public reaction to negative media coverage of burning villages and napalmed children) were deeply impressed by the amount of control the UK Ministry of Defence had been able to exert over press coverage of the Falklands War in 1982. (Margaret Thatcher's government had almost ideal conditions to do this, given the isolation and small size of the islands.) Media coverage of Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm in 1990-91 was very tightly controlled by a chain of command running from Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf to Colin Powell (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) to Richard Cheney (Secretary of Defense) to Pres. George H. W. Bush. I think the same was true of earlier U.S. operations in Panama and Grenada. Coincidentally, I just read that the British army allowed only five reporters at the front lines in the first year or two of World War I. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does having a successful football team benefit a college in America?

Just up above, in the College Football Coach Salaries question, we were told, no doubt accurately, that "having a successful football team brings the college a lot of money".

To me as a non-American, that's a puzzling fact. How and why does it bring the college a lot of money? Do potential students think they will get a better degree because the football team is good? I don't get that. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni are a major source of money for US higher education. They will tend to give more donations if they identify with their college sports team, and they will identify more with it if they regularly get treated to positive news about the team. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget television contracts which are now often negotiated individually. Notre Dame had a $9 million per season contract, for example. Rmhermen (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And with some college football teams getting crowds of 50,000-100,000 (look at List of American football stadiums by capacity), the ticket receipts are going to be high. College sports in the USA gets crowds that match professional sports in Europe. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Michigan recently mentioned possibly expanding its 110,000 capacity Big House to seat 120,000. Which would move it from third largest stadium in the world to a tie for second largest. 14 of the largest 25 stadiums in the world are for American football - and only one of those is for a professional team. Rmhermen (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the OP: Non-Americans have a hard time understanding the popularity and business of college athletics in the U.S. It's huge. Forget the college and professional distinction for a minute, and just know that college-level sports are as big, if not bigger, than professional-level sports in terms of business and viewership. The second largest US sporting event, in terms of TV viewership, money, and interest is undoubtedly the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship, which brings in far more TV viewers than the NBA Playoffs, the equivalent tournament for professional basketball. Now, consider the amount of money that a top-flight professional sports team brings in. For the British people, consider the money made by a Premier League football team. Now, imagine that kind of money going to a University. That is why it is important in America. --Jayron32 19:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. Yes, it is very different from most of the world. As a teacher myself, and one who loves sport, I still just wonder what it all has to do with education. A fascinating funding model. HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, besides the actual money such sports bring in (much of which is actually recycled back to the athletics program, but some does make it back to the classroom directly) there is also the way in which sports can raise the profile of a University and attract students, faculty, and money in non-sports related ways as well. Consider the case study of the University of Notre Dame. It is today one of the best endowed, and larger, private Universities in the U.S. It is well regarded, academically. But prior to the 1910's, it was a tiny little catholic college, attracting mostly a small group of local students and not a major national university. On November 1, 1913 Army, then a major college football power, scheduled Notre Dame as a warm up game, literally playing a nobody team just to warm themselves up for the rest of the season. Notre Dame beat Army, and became the pre-eminent college football program for the next 70 years. When a student from the Bronx or Los Angeles or anywhere else in the U.S. applies to study at Notre Dame, when a major researcher establishes a laboratory there, etc. etc., they do so because of the name recognition that Notre Dame has specifically for its football team. Without having had football success, Notre Dame would be no different from, say, Rockhurst University or Stonehill College or St. Edward's University or any of a bunch of other nice, little, catholic universities in the U.S. The reason that kids from Los Angeles or Chicago or The Bronx don't apply to attend Stonehill College or Rockhurst University like they do to Notre Dame is because of sports, even if they don't play them. --Jayron32 21:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've known many adults in the US who did not attend a particular college (or any college) who cheer for that football (or basketball) team. An example is residents of Michigan or Ohio following U. of Michigan or Ohio State sports, respectively, while "hating" the other state's team. An admissions officer at a Big Ten school said years ago that after the team went to a major national postseason game (such as the Rose Bowl), applications from around the US increased dramatically the next year. Edison (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right -- it's a marketing thing. The same reason why companies like Frito-Lay sponsor bowl games. You're getting your name out. That said, money isn't the only reason colleges sponsor football programs. Georgia State University launched one partly in an attempt to be a real campus with a sense of community rather than just a "commuter school." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as Jayron indicates, it has to do with branding and prestige. The professional parallel is the prestige enjoyed by cities that have professional teams. That's why cities are willing to build stadiums for them, in contrast with the "old days" when teams built their own facilities or leased already-existing facilities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For once I kind of have to agree with HiLo. It is really odd, and it distorts the academic mission of the university. The NFL should set up a minor league rather than using schools for it, and the universities should let real students play ball, as an extracurricular activity subordinate to their studies.

I've been at both ends of the spectrum — my undergrad school has a basketball team that just broke a two-decade-plus conference losing streak, whereas my grad school holds, if I recall correctly, the absolute record for total NCAA championships in all sports combined. --Trovatore (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL absolutely should have a minor league system so kids who are more interested in making money than in getting an education can't mess up the system. But even if there was an equivalent to baseball's minor leagues, college football wouldn't disappear. It's too ingrained in the campus culture. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are, or at least were, minor professional football leagues around, but they are not a "farm system". The current system stays (for both football and basketball) because the people running it have no motivation to change it. That's not to say it will never change. The ever-increasing one-and-out approach to basketball, in particular, could lead to a revamp of the "amateurism" rules in order to keep players in school longer. The NFL, however, has - or used to have - a rule that required that a college player's class had to graduate before he could join the NFL. That was the Red Grange rule. That was the 1920s, when college football was huge and professional football was little more than a curiosity. Baseball is different, of course, as they've used professional farm teams since before the turn of the 19th->20th century. Even college baseball stars get sent to the minors first, generally speaking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is arena football, but I don't know if that is quite the same thing, though I think Kurt Warner for one played there before making it to the NFL. Googlemeister (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction would be that that's just another league, as with the Canadian Football League, whereas the colleges (and baseball's minor leagues) are the primary "farm systems" for the top-level professional leagues. Player development occurs during junior high, high school and college. Then the pros choose what they consider to be the cream of the crop. A player in arena football might get a look, but that's more haphazard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that there is no minor league football and basketball, but there is a strong minor league baseball and hockey is that baseball and hockey were professional sports before they were college sports, while football and basketball were college sports before they were professional sports. Just looking at when things started: The National League (baseball) dates from 1876 and the Stanley Cup has been contested by professional teams exclusively since 1915. On the other hand, college football was well organized before 1900, while the NFL didn't start until 1920. Likewise, college basketball became organized in the 1910s, the NBA is less than 60 years old. Its a case of the college sports in Basketball and Football having a longer tradition than the professional game. Inertia is why there aren't viable farm systems in basketball and football like there are in baseball and hockey. --Jayron32 04:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon Decoration

Are these helium balloons? How is this done? also, there are gaps in between the balloons.

http://delectablesinc.com/gallery/lrg_decoration.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.224.149.10 (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suspect that yes, these are helium balloons, and they are threaded on a very thing string, e.g. a transparent monofilament fishing line that is effectively invisible in the image (and probably hard to see even in reality). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the string on the far right of the photo, where it crosses in front of the black speakers. You can also see it on the left where it passes in front of the wood of a chair (third balloon). And you can just see it crossing between the second and third balloon in the strand to the middle-right of the image. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]