Iraq; An appropiate example?

After watching "No End in sight" an American left wing documentary on the war in Iraq one thing became blatantly clear in my mind - how the news manipulated the public psyche in regard to the war.

For instance both Sky News and Fox seemed to treat the build-up to the invasion as a type of entertainment miniseries.

We had the various presentations to the UN, Blair telling the public that Iraq could launch WMD's which could cause great devastation to the UK.

Then we had the troops assembling, George Bush's warning that Saddam had 48 hours to leave Iraq or else the coalition would invade at a date and time of their choosing.

Imagine this as a mini-series, it's nearly akin to a subtitle darting across the screen with to be continued highlighted in bold.

Of course we then had the actual invasion, with news reporters posted at the frontlines, eagerly reporting the current progress of the coalition forces - in reality we always knew the coalition was going to be victorious as Iraq had been crippled by UN sanctions for years.

Who can forget the Iraqi Minister for Information? A politician who was constantly belittled by certain parts of the media. A man who became a point of jest for millions when discussing the war due to his constant denials of any coalition advancement.

As this miniseries continued it may have been pertinent for it to end with Saddams statue being torn down. Surely gripping viewing, provided to us by the main protagonists of the series.....Fox and Sky - which coincidentally are both owned by Rupert Murdoch.

The result of the miniseries - George Bush received approval ratings of 98%.

But what about the consequences of such a series?

What about showing the pain suffering and mutilation that inevitably comes with war? Were those pictures deemed too gruesome? Would they begin to blur the original context of the plot, considering we had to keep an eye on the main protagonists and their eventual victory?

I feel the initial reporting of the Iraq war was nothing short of a media spectacle, hollywoodesque in style and production.

Ashamedly I admit to sitting down with a few friends to eagerly watch the live pictures as Baghdad was bombed for the first time from the air. But was this appropriate to be broadcast as news? If so, why were pictures of the aftermath of the bombings not seen as equally appropriate?

The reporting of this war by certain news organisations I feel brought us to a new level in the coverage of war. I also feel it was dumbed down in order to fascinate the viewers and to bring them to the frontline with reporters, to give them an eagle eye view of the bombings and not to forget as one reporter did - to use old archive material and pass it off as current material of a warship launching missiles.

I only wonder what is next from the production company....err....I mean news corporation.