As you may recall, the press has been much more limited in its ability to photograph or video military operations in recent involvements than it was in Vietnam.
QUESTION: Is it healthy in a democracy for the public to be in some ways "shielded" from seeing the impact of political decisions that lead to military action? Explain your reasoning.
Hi and thank you for using Brainmass. The discussion below should get you started. You are expected to give your view on this matter and since this is a political science subject, also weigh in some theories. I decided to use utilitarianism as it is simple enough and widely used in debates such as this. For more, you can also use the listed references for further reading on this topic. If you have any questions, just let me know via the feedback section. Good luck with your studies.
OTA 105878/Xenia Jones
News Photography: Military Action
The US is one of the countries in the world wherein freedom of the Press is celebrated and protected by the Constitution. This is considered as one of the checks and balances of government, with the Press acting the part of a civilian private agency holding to account its government. The thing is, war is a tough business that entails acts of violence to force a threat and an enemy to surrender. When war happens, diplomacy has broken down. History teaches us that this is the case as in WW2 when despite the negotiations and agreements between Russia and Germany, Germany took Russia by ...
The solution provides information, insight and advise on the topic of news photography of military operations in the Vietnam War and the notion of their impact on political decisions as well as the debate of controlling the release of images to shield the public from their impact on public opinion. References are listed for further studies.