| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "MEDIA WAR": |
|
|
Media and the War on Terror, 2006.
An essay looking at media representation of the War on Terror.
2,250 words (approx. 9.0 pages), 6 sources, £ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay discusses the role of media in the war on terrorism. The paper asserts that media provides a pre-packaged hysteria that has dominated both U.S. rhetoric and mainstream media, who, at times, are joining forces to create cynicism about the global war on terror. In short, it is a business, a product. If people are scared, they are going to want to know what is going on, driving both the medium and the message; even if it is, at times, difficult to tell exactly who is wagging the dog.
From the Paper
"At a media event last fall, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told soldiers at a Florida base how to combat growing confusion about the war on terror. Acknowledging that soldiers could find themselves fielding queries about America's goals, Rumsfeld briefed soldiers like a spin-doctor, printing off a figurative sound bite to keep handy in their hip pockets. "Tell those who ask such questions that you...are standing on the front lines to protect them and to safeguard their freedoms... And you can tell them something else: America is not what's wrong with this world."
| |
|
The U.S. Media and the War in Iraq, 2006.
An analysis of the role the US media played in the war with Iraq.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 5 sources, £ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how since September 11, 2001, it has been painfully evident that the U.S. news media has been much more interested in promoting the Bush Administration than in being objective reporters of the news. Their abandonment of journalistic standards and integrity has had serious consequences, ranging from the disastrous war in Iraq to massive and systematic violations of our Constitution and our laws by the Bush Administration. The paper further discusses how despite overwhelmingly supportive media coverage, the Bush Administration's Iraq policies have been clearly based upon hype instead of facts. Before the war, many Americans and much of the international community suspected the Bush Administration of ulterior motives in Iraq and the Middle East.
From the Paper
| |
|
Media and the Gulf War, 2002.
The paper analyzes the role played by the media in the first Gulf War (1991) and the lessons that should have been learned.
3,685 words (approx. 14.7 pages), 14 sources, APA, £ 72.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses whether the image presented in the media was a misrepresentation of reality and claims that much of that coverage was superficial and misdirected. The paper examines how the American administration wanted to shape the story of the war in a certain way and utilized the power of the media to achieve this goal. It also looks at the gullibility of reporters and the way they were easily led.
From the Paper
"As America prepares for another war in the Middle East, the news media as well as American troops are preparing for the effort to come. It is a good time to reconsider the lessons that should have been learned from the last Gulf conflict, when the government tried to control the news media as much as possible, and when the news media failed to see certain aspects of the story and reported much false information. The news media has a role in a democratic society, and that role is not mere boosterism for the position of the administration but the need to provide all the information possible so the public can make informed decisions regarding its leaders, their policies, and all actions being taken in the public's name. This does not mean providing information that would be damaging to security, and the line between what is damaging and what is essential is not always easy to draw. The issue may be whether the news media draws that line on the basis of a business decision, either to gain audience by reporting scandal or to cater to an audience by avoiding bad news, or on the basis of fulfilling its obligation in a democratic society."
| |
|
Guidelines for Media Coverage of Wars, 2002.
A presentation fo some guidelines for the media's coverage of wars.
1,900 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 4 sources, £ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
An ethical guideline for covering war reporting.
| |
|
The Mass Media and the Iraq War, 2003.
Discuses public influence by the mass media on the subject of the Iraq war.
870 words (approx. 3.5 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 21.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Early in the war between the United States and Iraq, a poll taken showed that 67% of Americans believed that they decided to support the war in Iraq because of a media campaign against Saddam Hussein. This paper shows that during the Iraqi conflict, mass media played a unique role. For the first time in history, American reporters were "embedded" with U.S. troops and could present the war to the American public from the front lines. But was this merely a ploy by the Bush administration to bring its own version of the war to Americans? This paper discusses the role of mass media in the war in Iraq and shows how public support for the war was influenced by media coverage.
From the Paper
"American television tends to stress the symbols of patriotism, reflecting the pro-war sentiment of the government, and, presumably, of American society. But is the mass media shaping this sentiment by showing such images? The American media rarely showed Iraqi civilian casualties, but highlighted U.S. troops' humanitarian assistance to Iraqis. This should make it obvious to all that the media did not present a fair and balanced picture of the war. Media can influence the public as much with what is left out of its coverage as by what is reported."
| |
|
Media and the War on Terrorism, 2002.
A paper which discusses the media?s manipulation of the war on terrorism.
3,200 words (approx. 12.8 pages), 16 sources, MLA, £ 65.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
A paper which presents a detailed discussion about the war on terrorism and the media?s manipulation of the war. The writer outlines the societal views of the US attacks on Middle Eastern soil. The writer also describes the way the media has manipulated society members regarding the attacks by refusing to cover certain issues and cooperating with the US government.
From the Paper
"One of the earliest ways that the media began to manipulate the world opinion about the United States attack in the Middle East was its coverage of Bin Laden?s reaction to the attacks on 9-11. The media on an almost world wide basis began to claim in November that Bin Laden had proclaimed credit was his for the attacks(Truth pg 10). Media in the United States, Britain, New Zealand and other nations insisted that he had admitted, ?we did it? (Truth pg 10). It was reported that he confessed on a news network in England. This would have a very heavy impact on the way society would view Bin Laden and the war against the Middle East. Until this occurred, America as well as other nations were outraged at the attacks on America which killed thousands of civilians but there was a hesitation about who to attack. "
| |
|
The Use of Media in War, 1999.
A look at how NATO and Slobodan Milosevic took excellent advantage of propaganda using the media as a communicator during the Kosovo War.
1,835 words (approx. 7.3 pages), 6 sources, £ 41.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
A look at the effects of propaganda during war with special reference to the war in Kosovo. The writer argues that opinions do not simply exist; they are always formed. Usually, it is propaganda that produces the most effective results and especially when the question of concern is war. Both NATO and Slobodan Milosevic took advantage of propaganda using the media as a communicator.
From the Paper
"Everybody pretends to know the truth about this war. Yet, they all have difficulties defining truth. The reason is that people confuse knowing the truth with having an opinion. And opinions do not simply exist; they are always formed. Usually, it is propaganda that produces the most effective results. This war was not an exception."
| |
|
The World Trade Center: Media, War and Ethics, 2001.
An in-depth examination of the role of the media in portraying the news. Particular emphasis is given to ethics and levels of accountability.
4,150 words (approx. 16.6 pages), 17 sources, £ 78.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this 15 page paper the author takes a look at the attacks on the World Trade Center. He begins the examination by looking at how the media dealt with the event and the effect that this has had on people ? was it really necessary to show so much detail? Was the media coverage sensationalizing? The author moves on to examine the ethics of reporting and looks at the various debates that are currently going on concerning this issue. The author concludes with a specific look at the way the media works during times of war and makes reference to the Gulf War, The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict and Afghanistan and talks of the media acting as a visual conduit.
From the paper:
?Who can forget the graceful turn of the massive jet as it turned to slam into the second tower, and the massive fireball that plumed outward? There are some pictures that change the world, like the photograph of Kim Phuc at My Lai?a little girl in flames and running. The image of Americans leaping to their death from the upper floors of the towers is like that, and the chilling choreography of their free fall was captured on film as they plummeted to their death rather than endure the agony of burning up.?
| |
|
Hitler?s Rise to Power and the Media Wars, 2002.
A paper which examines the similarities between Hitler's use of propaganda to maintain his power and current product marketing campaigns.
3,679 words (approx. 14.7 pages), 12 sources, APA, £ 72.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper shows that while some call Hitler?s pamphlets, radio programs and book ?propaganda,? to Hitler they were just good ?marketing.? Hitler constantly used his ?propaganda machine? to tear down the credibility and as defense to negative propaganda being distributed by his sworn enemy, the United States. The paper examines how Hitler used many forms of media to distribute his messages to the masses, including dropping pamphlets from the Hindenburg, one of Nazi Germany?s finest shows of strength and power. This paper compares Hitler's use of this form of propaganda to the the way in which advertizing companies and other forms of media promote products and images, concluding that both are effective forms of brainwashing.
From the Paper
"This ?Propaganda War? grew to epic proportions that would make the best Superbowl advertisers of today proud. Both sides sent a barrage of pamphlets, books, and radio broadcasts, posters and many more creative mediums in an attempt to break the public?s confidence in the other side. When the United States launched their own propaganda war, Hitler tried to use this against them also in a ?look what the meanies are trying to do us? type of idea. He tried to use the United States media campaign to gain credibility for this own cause. The media campaigns used by both sides were impressive."
| |
|
War and Media, 2004.
A discussion of the impact that media has on war.
3,157 words (approx. 12.6 pages), 10 sources, MLA, £ 64.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes the media during four periods of history in which America was at war. The four periods are World War II, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the War for Iraqi Freedom. The news sources that were most prevalent are discussed, as well as the effect that these types of sources had on American opinion, and how technology had changed since the previous period.
From the Paper
"The media is pervasive in today?s society. It is often taken for granted the amount of information one can now receive on current events. Yet, it has only been in this last generation that the media has truly exploded into a variety of new avenues. What once was relegated to the newspaper headlines, or the nightly news, is now available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week on cable networks devoted entirely to the news, and Internet news releases that can even be set up to come directly to one?s e-mail."
| |
|
War and Media, 2007.
An analysis of the way that society's view of war is shaped by the media, focusing on "The Battle of Algiers," directed by Gillo Pontecorvo.
2,965 words (approx. 11.9 pages), 3 sources, MLA, £ 61.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the portrayal of war within media. It specifically focuses on and gives examples from the epilogue of "The Battle of Algiers," directed by Gillo Pontecorvo. It describes scenes in the film and the ways in which Pontecorvo illustrates many of the aspects of war. The paper finally discusses how the media affects the way that society sees the realities of war.
From the Paper
"Media both causes and expresses reality. The landscape and local identities of war have been reshaped for our consumption. Modern media is instrumental in legitimizing war wherever it takes place by outlining differences in culture and identity. In The Battle of Algiers we could see this as the commanding military officer and the press questioned spokesman for the resistance. One of the reporters asks, "Isn't it vile to have women carry bombs in their baskets?" The questions had little to do with the reality of bloodshed and suffering and everything to do with shaping cultural values. The role of media in war is to anchor conflicts in its own media landscape, and then adopt a critical stance, while at the same time it constructs identities discursively. This is a change from the older function of literature "to point to the ideals and values related to war beyond the literary constructions" (p. 487). Larsen (2004) tells us that the "modern function of literature is to remind us that the real landscapes, with real bloodshed and real persons, only reach us through the arbitrary and abstract constructions which are circulated by the media" (p. 488)."
| |
|
War and the Media, 2003.
Examines how the mainstream media's methods of coverage provide a limited view of the Iraqi war zone.
1,414 words (approx. 5.7 pages), 2 sources, APA, £ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses criticisms of the Iraqi war coverage as discussed by reporter Jon Sawyer and author Susan Carruthers ("The Media at War.") It argues that this "fog of war" amplifies problems in reporting that occur in peacetime, giving the public distorted information on well-known events such as the Jessica Lynch incident. Further, it argues that in the early stages of war, the media is sometimes too complicit in agreeing to government censorship, a problem that is now exacerbated by the prevalence of "embedded reporting" from the field.
From the Paper
"In a strong critique of the role played by both the military and journalism in the recent war in Iraq, Jon Sawyer of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch argues that the media failed to provide accurate coverage of the conflict in proper context, leaving news audiences with an incomplete and sometimes downright inaccurate picture of the hostilities taking place. Certainly, war coverage is one of the most fundamentally daunting tasks for the media to report on. There is a fundamental disconnect between the goals of the military, which seeks to operate with as much secrecy as possible, and the media, which thrives on openness and public access to information."
| |
|
The Vietnam War: Media or Military?, 2003.
A discussion about whether the media role in the Vietnam War has been exaggerated or not.
2,309 words (approx. 9.2 pages), 11 sources, MLA, £ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper questions the truth behind the myth that the media was mainly to blame in America losing the Vietnam War. It examines this assumption, discusses how the media may have helped form public opinion, and concludes that it is not with public opinion alone that a war is won.
From the Paper
"The Vietnam War has been an extensive topic of discussion for the last few decades. Many have scrutinized the strategy of the US Military, criticizing them immensely. Indeed, the word Vietnam itself has to some extent become a synonym for failure, defeat, even folly. Was this failure due to the actions of the military alone? Or, as many believe, could the failure in fact have been caused by the media?s role? The media has frequently been given substantial blame for the US defeat in Vietnam. During Vietnam, much tension arose between the armed services and the media, which led to a sort of ?game of strategy, one-upmanship and high-stakes jockeying.? So was the war lost because of the media?s role in the lives of Americans at home? Or did the US military lose a war in which most would have expected a quick victory?"
| |
|
War and the Media, 2002.
A look at the media coverage of the 1990 Gulf War.
1,128 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how the 1990 Gulf War, more than any other U.S. military action, showed how important a role the media played in international politics. It looks at how television in particular was the most efficient way for governments to develop and invoke their ideals into the public eye. It examines how every cable news channel in the U.S. carried the latest news and information packed full of images, video and fast sound bites, all in the place of perspective and analysis and shows how analysis and perspective was left for the magazines and newspapers.
From the Paper
"By the second day, the obligatory war coverage was joined by more opinion and political coverage. The papers seem careful to not take a position directly contrary to the war effort, but with smugness that only can be found in east coast journalism, these two papers began debating who the most charismatic TV talking head had been on the opening night of armed conflict. A Washington Times article asked ?TV talkers: Who did it best?? Another piece lit matches between the toes of democratic congressmen George Mitchell and Tom Foley, reminding them how difficult it would be in the days ahead to stay opposed to a popular president who is executing a popular war."
|
|
|
