& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Propaganda war on TV?

AFP, New York
For the first time in history, television networks are carrying simultaneous broadcasts of an ongoing military offensive, but a new and more subtle form of disinformation may lie behind the "live on TV" spectacle of war in Iraq, some experts fear.
For the past two days, viewers around the world have had access to real time images of fighter planes launching sorties from US aircraft carriers and blinding explosions as cruise missiles pound targets in Baghdad.
They have seen columns of tanks and armoured carriers advancing relentlessly across the desert scrubland as the US-British invasion force fans out across southern Iraq.
While presenters go into raptures over the stream of images from the front-line, the New York Times noted Friday that the television networks had carried more live war coverage in 24 hours than in the whole of the 1991 Gulf War.
It has all come about thanks to the invention of the videophone, a telephone system which can transmit images of mediocre but broadcastable quality, and the decision of the Pentagon to allow
some 500 journalists to accompany combat troops.
But US media-watchers and campaigners for impartial reporting are concerned that all may not be what it seems.
"It's a total orchestration. They know that television needs pictures, characters. It's about story-telling, it's Hollywood, " said Danny Schechter of the internet site Mediachannel.org which specialises in scrutiny of the media.
"This is a new level of manipulation, that conceals it's own intention."
"The Pentagon is running the public relations in this war they way it would run a political campaign. And the whole idea of a political campaign is always create photoops, action situations in which your candidate looks good," he said.
"You identify with the troops, with their problems, and therefore you identify with the mission. They don't question the mission anymore."
Schechter's comments were echoed by Rachel Coen, an analyst with Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), an NGO which monitors the media and its activity.
Coen acknowledged that tele-
vised coverage of the conflict in Iraq was turning up new information, but she warned that appearances can be deceptive.
"Seeing the picture of a tank rolling into the desert may give the viewer a feeling that they have an inside track to the war and know the inside scoop, but in reality, it doesn't convey very much information," she said.
The danger, Coen noted, is that such coverage allows mainstream networks to generate hours and hours of exciting battle footage without really addressing bigger picture about the war.
"Humanitarian issues, international legal issues, political issues, all the major important questions that we really need journalists to address," she said.
The last two days have almost turned into a conduit for military information, which is really disturbing."
Coen fears that the US public will be able to sit at home and feel that they have all they need to know at their fingertips, when in fact the access granted by the military provides "superficial, patriotic images of our troops doing their job."