Prev | List | Random | Next
Can you count on reporters to provide the unvarnished truth about Iraq? Are they familiar with the troops that are so often the subject of their reports? Or do they subscribe to some pre-conceived, deeply ingrained prejudice about the situation? I think this offers insight.
The Los Angeles Times polled it's staffers who have covered the U.S. military in Iraq for their opinions of the TV show "Over There". In response to the question "Do the characters seem real?" Five out of six said "yes".
We rounded up MilBlog response to the program here. The main complaint from those reviews was that the characters are simple-minded cliches - caricatures of real people. "Dope-smoking Black Guy" "Screaming Sarge" "Stupid Loo-tenant" "College Boy" "Ignorant Patriotic Texan" etc etc.
I suppose, as with every aspect of the war on terror, the reporters and the actual participants have different points of view. Draw your own conclusions.
"Caricatures of real people" are what you expect in TV dramas and B-movies.Posted by Don Cox at July 31, 2005 06:11 PM
I'm curious why you use the term "war on terror" in a post about Iraq? The President has said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and we went there to free their people, not because of the war on terror.Posted by Anonymous at August 1, 2005 03:19 AM
The President has said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and we went there to free their people, not because of the war on terrorGot a reference for that quote? Posted by Ping Critical at August 1, 2005 01:07 PM
I'm working at a research center this summer, and spend a good part of my day reading news articles. I've realized just how much stuff gets slanted--and just how few "only the facts" stories are out there in the U.S. press. You know it's bad when al-Jazeera quotes biases from American publications. Anyway, I ran across an amazing story: "Why they hate us" (referring to the military's distaste for the press)http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/editorial/12114580.htmPosted by Aiguo at August 1, 2005 03:08 PM
I really don't understand the Milblog dogpile on "Over There." Yes, we all know the show isn't an accurate depiction of the war or most of the service members fighting in it. What do you expect from Hollywood?
There were also inaccuracies in Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers and Black Hawk Down. In order to tell a story, Hollywood routinely changes the facts (and sometimes even the laws of physics) to create something it deems entertaining. This is nothing new, and it is not something that affects only war movies/TV shows. Do you really think "The Perfect Storm" was an accurate depiction of the final voyage of the Andrea Gail? Considering there were no survivors left to tell what really happened, it's not very likely.
Give "Over There" a break. It is at least attempting to put a human face on the war. I hope it succeeds in doing so. Maybe there will be a few more people who have watched the show that will shake a service member's hand at the airport and thank him or her, even if what they saw on TV doesn't jive with the reality on the ground.Posted by ddrem at August 2, 2005 06:05 AM
Everybody should simply turn off their TV(s). I did this years ago and I'm loving it.
i really don't have to get all worked up about the latest stupidity coming from hollywood via the moron-o-scope since I know I'll never ever see it.
sure I own a TV and yes I belong to netflix, but I have zero access to broadcast TV and simply can't imagine spending three seconds watching it.
so, turn off the TV. You'll save money. You'll have time to do something productive and best of all you'll send a message to the idiots that run the broadcasting companies.Posted by skip at August 3, 2005 09:17 PM Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(6) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)