WWII Broadcasting
What I found most interesting about the reading was censorship. During the war journalists had to report on the war that supposedly everyone wanted to know everything about, but they couldn't really say anything about the war, unless it was cleared by someone first. This is a really tuff subject. I understand that they couldn't report on military stategy or reveal in depth detail due to security reasons, but what could they really say?
I agree with government censorship for security in the field, but not to shape the opinions of its citizens. In the news I don't think that advertising should play a role censorship, but at the same time people aren't going to pay for what they don't agree with. (unless they're making some fat cash)
I like Fly's suggestion to eliminate sponsorship in news casts, but that will never happen.
I do not think that news reporting should be filled with the reporter's opinions. I feel that the news should be reported as facts and interpretation left to the listener. It is for that reason that i don't feel that Brown was a victim of censordhip. However, I do feel that Brown had every right to voice his opinions, but they should be voiced on an independent show that is seperate from the dry, factual reporting of the news. All I'm saying is that before you can throw in your opinion, there has to be the option of getting the news without the commentary. If it is understood from the beginning that you are hearing either fact or opinion, then I'm fine with that, but it is ideal for the listener to hear the facts first. I don't think news should be censored or opinionated, just facvtual, whether or not that's possible, who knows?
OH, THE HUMANITY!!!!
I really liked the listenings this week. I've been a big WWII buff for a bit so I found them very interesting. The news bulletins were great and it was awesome to hear how they reported on D-Day. Had I been sitting in restaurant in 1944 and heard that, I would have been captivated with interest, as I'm sure people were.
London after dark was cool because it was live. You kept listening and expecting at any moment to hear planes, and bombs, and hoping that Murrow wouldn't be hit, but they din't really deliver. It was an excellent portrayal of the suspense there must have been in London. But it also showed the people of London tried to forget the war by dancing and eating at fancy restaurants with famous French cooks. Kind of bizarre.
The FDR speches were very well done. I've nver really sat and listened to anything like those before. He seemed to be an excellent speaker and I understand how people thought him to be such a great president. He almost sounds like a father explaining things to children when he talks. I don't know how I feel about his national service act, sounds kind of like forced labor. People should be free to not support the war if they don't want to. However, it was interesting to hear how the entire country was involved in one cause (or expected to be). I wonder if anything will umite the country like that again?
I agree with government censorship for security in the field, but not to shape the opinions of its citizens. In the news I don't think that advertising should play a role censorship, but at the same time people aren't going to pay for what they don't agree with. (unless they're making some fat cash)
I like Fly's suggestion to eliminate sponsorship in news casts, but that will never happen.
I do not think that news reporting should be filled with the reporter's opinions. I feel that the news should be reported as facts and interpretation left to the listener. It is for that reason that i don't feel that Brown was a victim of censordhip. However, I do feel that Brown had every right to voice his opinions, but they should be voiced on an independent show that is seperate from the dry, factual reporting of the news. All I'm saying is that before you can throw in your opinion, there has to be the option of getting the news without the commentary. If it is understood from the beginning that you are hearing either fact or opinion, then I'm fine with that, but it is ideal for the listener to hear the facts first. I don't think news should be censored or opinionated, just facvtual, whether or not that's possible, who knows?
OH, THE HUMANITY!!!!
I really liked the listenings this week. I've been a big WWII buff for a bit so I found them very interesting. The news bulletins were great and it was awesome to hear how they reported on D-Day. Had I been sitting in restaurant in 1944 and heard that, I would have been captivated with interest, as I'm sure people were.
London after dark was cool because it was live. You kept listening and expecting at any moment to hear planes, and bombs, and hoping that Murrow wouldn't be hit, but they din't really deliver. It was an excellent portrayal of the suspense there must have been in London. But it also showed the people of London tried to forget the war by dancing and eating at fancy restaurants with famous French cooks. Kind of bizarre.
The FDR speches were very well done. I've nver really sat and listened to anything like those before. He seemed to be an excellent speaker and I understand how people thought him to be such a great president. He almost sounds like a father explaining things to children when he talks. I don't know how I feel about his national service act, sounds kind of like forced labor. People should be free to not support the war if they don't want to. However, it was interesting to hear how the entire country was involved in one cause (or expected to be). I wonder if anything will umite the country like that again?
posted by Daniel Porter at 4:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home