I think a lot of that would depend on the intestinal fortitude of people making the discussions. If they are wimps who bow to every public opinion wind that blows, like some of the current crop, then public knowledge of some of the war actions could have greatly impacted the outcome. If they were more like Harry Truman, who didn't give a rodent's posterior what the media said or the people thought, probably wouldn't have made much difference.
It's fairly well accepted that public opinion began to turn against the war in Vietnam when the major networks began broadcasting images of civilian casualties. As for today's climate, I think the media is hurting for hard news, so they're filling with whatever talking head they can put on the screen, and they have long since lost the concept of differentiating between news and opinion. I have a sibling who works for a major new gathering organization. We have some heated debates about what passes for 'news'. At 10:52 AM 12/5/01 Michael wrote: >Really I Would like to know, what things have been like when we fought WW1 >& WW2 knowing every min. of every day, what was going on.... If we had >this ability to critique every like its bits thing that happened. If we >new of every single friendly fire accident.........if the news was >"warped, to blind the truth...", Sometimes having too much access to >info, can be a bad thing...... we lose sight of the big picture.... > >I would bet that if things were the same for them as it is for us now, >things wouldn't have gone the way they did....... > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/05/01 10:48AM >>> >CNN had a retired major general on this morning discussing what >happened. He said it was most likely a targeting error based on faulty GPS >coordinates. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
