Slashdot Mirror
Tomorrow's Wars Will Be Livestreamed (vice.com)
Something unique and (in some way) unprecedented happened earlier today. The start of the invasion of Mosul, a city held by ISIS in Iraq, was live-streamed on Facebook and YouTube, and thousands of people around the world watched it. There were several streams that got popular, but one shared by Kurdish outlet Rudaw was getting the most traction -- it was re-posted by major outlets like the Washington Post and Channel 4 in the United Kingdom. Motherboard adds: While some viewers commented on the merits of the offensive, for others, the livestream itself was the most startling thing. As angry cartoon faces and "Wow!" emoticons floated over top of live images of war, viewers noted that it all seemed like a bit too much like a sci-fi fever dream about a war-obsessed culture. For most English-language viewers watching these streams, there was no explanation, no given context, no subtitles or translation -- merely images of a mostly-barren foreign landscape peppered with men and trucks, idling and standing around, sparsely punctuated by violence. But in 2016, decades after Lessons of Darkness was completed and on social media instead of in a darkened arthouse theatre, the void spits out something other than deep, metaphysical understanding about human nature. Instead, in the comments, people ask for money. They talk about porn. They quote Green Day lyrics. They call people "cucks." To be fair, however, not everyone reacted this way. But a lot of people did. "There's journalistic value in the livestream,"
I saw live stream of the Iraq invasion, it has been done, I only expect it to be livestreamed now with drone feeds, body cams and all.
You can't handle the truth.
The First Gulf War was "livestreamed" on TV. Nothing new to see here.....
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I would like to know more...
it'll be shut down (and fast). We're starting to see this with Black Lives Matter where the major streaming sites are setting up systems to exercise editorial control. This is why the Iraq war has lasted so long. Our media turned a blind eye to the carnage...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Livestreaming on TV is so much different than having it go over Twitch. It's a whole magnitude level up.
Irresponsible disclosure is responsible
ADDERALL
"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened."
It's freaking video. One is over the air or cable, the other one is in packets. Not a big deal. What's important is the information, and how the information was put together (sources, bias, etc.).
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
It's kind of different though, right? When the Gulf War was livestreamed, it was heavily censored, an act of pure propaganda. It wasn't really live, it was filtered. Now we have the capability to see the action through the eyes of many more people, from all sides, if we want to.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There is always a war tomorrow. The US will ensure that.
Most of the press was part of embedded journalism and had to keep the good news flowing if they wanted to stay embedded.
Risk not been invited back to the best locations for the next war was a big issues for the media brands.
Objective, free reporting like the US got out of Vietnem is now contained by access and the fine print that comes with been embedded.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
all we need is an alien bug invasion to make "Starship Troopers" a reality. What's doogie howser up to these days anyway? Psychic warfare research?
War as a spectator sport? And here I thought "Reality TV" couldn't get any worse after Survivor.
The real tick for the mil is to create fake army units packed with their own media experts. Pretending to be everyday very low ranking troops as to get friendly with the press.
Some real effort goes into getting the camera team to become a part of the squad of troops they live with for months.
What a lens can then see is then natural, helpful and suggested. Any hints seem friendly and helpful. Limitations are local protections.
Support for a "freedom fighter" is like an informant and cannot be broadcast.
The "tell" is usually in the body language that hints at an unexpected university level media education around a camera or location for a camera by troops kept at a very low rank after mil testing. Charming, simple conversations cannot cover for a level of study and a hint of jargon.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
While there's some truth to what you say, I have yet to see a medium where there can be a considerable amount of dust-- read that lack of trust-- in sources, coverage, attribution, and significance.
Part of the problem of media is that the public's ability to discern what's controlled media vs what's real and live and truly happening is weak at best, viz the current situation. "Follow The Money" isn't quite the best method to judge the content, although it's a good way to understand bias.
Yet there are really good journalists out there, and differing covering entities that sometimes do a really good job, only to be knee-capped by proximity to truly evil, spoon-fed lackeys of moneyed sponsors. It's not the fine print I'm really worried about, rather the capacity to present facts in a way where the chain-of-authorities for those facts can be referenced in a way that allows context. Context is key to trust.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I spent some time watching the coup in Turkey on Periscope. In one feed, a bunch of pro-government forces were outside of the army barracks in Ankara, they were moving in, and one guy got shot and had to be pulled to safety (not sure if he made it). In another feed, tanks were guarding the bridges over the Bosphorus Bridge, and a tank fired a round into a armored personnel carrier. Scary stuff!
Oh please... Does the Battle of Agincourt ring a bell? Clever people have been figuring ways to strike at the enemy from longer range pretty much since the beginning of warfare. And the losers have whined about the "unfairness" and questioned the "bravery of being out of range"... right up until the point that they invented new weapons and were themselves the ones fighting from out of range.
It's nothing new, and it's not going to stop.
Imagine all the people...
No, he was right.
It's going to be streamed instead.
-- sigs cause cancer.
And from this, we can conclude exactly what?
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
The press that was allowed to sail out/with/invited to the Falklands in 1982 was really a fun test after Vietnam.
The friendship and camaraderie just gets built on for every war. Training, early access, deployment as part of a team soon allows for troops suggestions and questions to reshape good journalists.
"Looking for failure? Why the ADF hates the Australian media" (August 13, 2013)
http://theconversation.com/loo...
has some good insights and links into the thinking in Australian and New Zealand that results in "favourable messages".
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Except for the fact that we don't necessarily have to rely on the courage, tenacity or honesty of mainstream media reporters (and their military babysitters) to see what's actually happening.
So, uh, I'd say almost everything of importance is new here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I recall when that statue of Saddam was toppled - the news made it look like a spontaneous action of an angry population
It actually was -- in a sense. A marine commander was looking for a psy-ops opportunity, and found a few people beating on the statue with sledgehammers, so he capitalized on the moment. So yeah, it was both spontaneous by the locals and made to look like a bigger deal than it really was.
But you can't fault the military for that. Battles -- and especially wars -- are rarely won with weapons alone. That's just the military doing its job like it's supposed to do. And, that particular event was one of the things the military executed correctly in my opinion. Was it propaganda? Yeah, but not all propaganda is bad, and I don't believe any war has ever been won without propaganda, including popular wars like World War II.
The problems with Gulf War II mostly came from disbanding the Iraqi military and failing to secure the Iraqi borders, and those are areas where the military royally screwed up, making the war last much longer than it needed to and eventually permitting the ISIS aftermath.
... Amused to Death
The overthrowing of the communism in Romania (the "revolution") was live-streamed on TV back in 1989. Made quite an impression at the time.
Are you saying that our downward spiral is inexorable and so shouldn't even be discussed? I don't buy that. Even if we are doomed to a state of ever-increasing atrocities being committed in front of an audience with ever-increasing apathy, acknowledging this could perhaps slow that descent. But more than that: recognizing empathy and recognizing where it's missing in one scenario can have broader effects in how we think about it in other scenarios.
In other words: while fighting at extreme distance may divorce us from the suffering that we cause, acknowledging that problem and its consequences can help you appreciate the people that you have nearby. And this can be true even if, as you say, war will continue to become more and more divorced from our personal experiences.
Future wars will be livestreamed...unless the war is in Ethiopia, in which case see the next post.
Just to clarify, it wasn't the US Military that disbanded the Iraqi military, they actually had plans on how to hand over security to the existing Iraqis and were just starting to implement it.
It was the State department that decided to imitate what happened in post war Germany, the difference here is by disbanding the military and forcing all Baathist members out of their jobs they upset a lot of people (a lot were part of the party only because it gave them more money in their jobs not because they had any true political affiliation).
"The revolution will not be televised" - LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
A pox on web designers who feel that window.innerWidth == screen.availWidth
"We are a war-like people" - Saint Carlin
There's NOTHING wrong with editing. Slickness is in the eye of the beholder, sometimes taking away the raw nuanced value of journalism. Other times, it takes a disjointed bunch of stuff and molds it into something discernible.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Kudos to you for offering a broader view of propaganda.
As for securing the borders, that was a monumental failure of our political leadership. Iraq is bordered by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iran. Every one of those nations had strong factions within the gov't that had reasons to want to see a US occupation of Iraq fail. The Bush administration seemed to believe that awe and fear would keep them all in line. Rather than offer even a token olive branch, the administration preferred to imply that Damascus and Tehran could be next. Well, that kind of threat only sort of works, under the best circumstances. Once the occupation hit a rough patch, the threat has the opposite of the intended incentive -- making Iraq hell for US forces was a very practical means of keeping America distracted from further adventures.
Both sides in a conflict have a vested interest in preventing live coverage of their operations, and at least one of those sides usually has control of the local infrastructure, with the other side usually trying to destroy it. Satellite is the only viable option, and even that can be spotty and jammable, and is exceedingly expensive in any event. Sneakernet will always work, but not for live streams.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
It's riddled, not raddled. And your point might have been great if it only it wasn't incoherent.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.