IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Do you actually think that would work?
As little as I support censorship, I strongly doubt that "news agencies" could be counted on to keep a lid on anything sensitive. There is just too much pressure to "break the story", to get an "exclusive", to beat the competition to the punch. Besides, most "investigative reporters" are simply cowboys who think of themselves as the next Woodward and/or Bernstien (apologies for the inevitable misspellings), and would rather make their mark on the entire industry than restrain themselves in the national interest.
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
New For a single mission
The idea actually makes a bit of sense if applied to a single mission or battle. But it couldn't cover the period of even a short war, and this doesn't show any signs of being a short war.

Of course, the government is using the nature of this war as a way of covering everything up. It's much easier to manipulate the public if you don't release any real statistics about losses or other bad news.


Jay
New According to Sam Donaldson
(I think it was him)

The News Agencies waited until after something had already been underway before reporting on it during most military actions... whether by choice or not, dunno, but he acknowledged that most news agencies recognized that reporting an attack in time for the other side to respond really didn't do anyone any good.
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young
     Excessive censorship? - (tablizer) - (3)
         Do you actually think that would work? - (jb4) - (2)
             For a single mission - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                 According to Sam Donaldson - (cwbrenn)

For Wade, it is to lag.
66 ms