Spoilers Civil War Movie

[Ruin Explorer]

I think that, from the 60s to the 90s, there was significantly more freedom in war reporting, but prior to the 60s is was very heavily controlled by the state.

The media in general was, as the laws around it tended to be a lot more restrictive.

The situation we have now though isn't the laws restricting the media. It's the media choosing to not to show stuff without even being told not to.

(I will say this weirdly seems to be war-type violence specific, they're less pathetic about state and terror violence. Well, except the BBC, who are almost equally pathetic on that.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The media in general was, as the laws around it tended to be a lot more restrictive.

The situation we have now though isn't the laws restricting the media. It's the media choosing to not to show stuff without even being told not to.

(I will say this weirdly seems to be war-type violence specific, they're less pathetic about state and terror violence. Well, except the BBC, who are almost equally pathetic on that.)

Well, "the media" covers a lot of ground here.

There are definitely journalists out there putting in the good work as war correspondents, often as freelancers with no lifelines or support systems.

The folks back in New York City (especially) who run the broadcast and cable networks and who have often never done a day of hazardous reporting in their lives are the ones getting cold feet because they're scared a politician will say something mean about them.

I'd go so far as to say most rank and file journalists feel let down by senior management, a problem that is just accelerating as the media aggregates in the hands of rich men (and one or two women) who have interests other than doing good journalism.