Virtually all the news about this attack on Iran by Israel and the United States is almost invisible compared to former US-led aggressions in the Persion Gulf. Sure there are images of gas tanks blowing up in Qatar or UAE by Iranian drones, but where is the reporting on the actual attacks on Iran itself? Aside from a few videos released by the US Military of Iranian boats being targeted, the type of scenes we are used to seeing are simply not there. If the US and Israel have targeted 'thousands' of sites, then let's see the damage in Iran - and not just focus the news on how much petrol costs now at the pump in the UK, or airline fuel.

I know Western journalists are banned from Iran, and of course that makes it difficult to bring the war into your living room (laptop or mobile), but in this day and age there are workarounds - we all know that. Trump has called US journalists treasonous unless they follow the Pentagon propaganda lines. And others have reported it is very difficult to get images and interviews out of Iran. In Israel, they are also warning journalists not to film damage there. So the threats against them are understandable, I fully get that.

But come on. Covering the war by proxy (gas prices back home, etc.,) is weak. There are satellites, there are 'citizen journalists' - to show nothing of what's going on in Iran or in Israel or not showing attacks on US assets is BS.

Go on you tube, great bombing videos. Some of the secondaries as the Rocket Motors ignite are pretty cool

20 minutes ago, ronnie50 said:

I know Western journalists are banned from Iran, and of course that makes it difficult to bring the war into your living room (laptop or mobile), but in this day and age there are workarounds - we all know that. Trump has called US journalists treasonous unless they follow the Pentagon propaganda lines. And others have reported it is very difficult to get images and interviews out of Iran. In Israel, they are also warning journalists not to film damage there. So the threats against them are understandable, I fully get that.

Western journalists are not banned from Iran (at least, not all of them). Sky News has a correspondent there (Dominic Waghorn) - he's been filing reports from the streets of Tehran for the last several days.

17 minutes ago, ronnie50 said:

Virtually all the news about this attack on Iran by Israel and the United States is almost invisible compared to former US-led aggressions in the Persion Gulf. Sure there are images of gas tanks blowing up in Qatar or UAE by Iranian drones, but where is the reporting on the actual attacks on Iran itself? Aside from a few videos released by the US Military of Iranian boats being targeted, the type of scenes we are used to seeing are simply not there. If the US and Israel have targeted 'thousands' of sites, then let's see the damage in Iran - and not just focus the news on how much petrol costs now at the pump in the UK, or airline fuel.

I know Western journalists are banned from Iran, and of course that makes it difficult to bring the war into your living room (laptop or mobile), but in this day and age there are workarounds - we all know that. Trump has called US journalists treasonous unless they follow the Pentagon propaganda lines. And others have reported it is very difficult to get images and interviews out of Iran. In Israel, they are also warning journalists not to film damage there. So the threats against them are understandable, I fully get that.

But come on. Covering the war by proxy (gas prices back home, etc.,) is weak. There are satellites, there are 'citizen journalists' - to show nothing of what's going on in Iran or in Israel or not showing attacks on US assets is BS.

Western journalists are not banned from Iran, but they are few and their task in not easy.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/14/cnn-frederik-pleitgen-journalist-iran

OK point taken on a few journalists allowed to speak to people in situ. My point is that we are not seeing anything of the 'war' itself. Except what they (US-Israel) want to show us. Even that is very limited. This is very different from any previous 'Gulf War'

2 minutes ago, ronnie50 said:

OK point taken on a few journalists allowed to speak to people in situ. My point is that we are not seeing anything of the 'war' itself. Except what they (US-Israel) want to show us. Even that is very limited. This is very different from any previous 'Gulf War'

What do you want to see? Videos are up. Maps are everywhere.

2 hours ago, ronnie50 said:

Virtually all the news about this attack on Iran by Israel and the United States is almost invisible compared to former US-led aggressions in the Persion Gulf. Sure there are images of gas tanks blowing up in Qatar or UAE by Iranian drones, but where is the reporting on the actual attacks on Iran itself? Aside from a few videos released by the US Military of Iranian boats being targeted, the type of scenes we are used to seeing are simply not there. If the US and Israel have targeted 'thousands' of sites, then let's see the damage in Iran - and not just focus the news on how much petrol costs now at the pump in the UK, or airline fuel.

I know Western journalists are banned from Iran, and of course that makes it difficult to bring the war into your living room (laptop or mobile), but in this day and age there are workarounds - we all know that. Trump has called US journalists treasonous unless they follow the Pentagon propaganda lines. And others have reported it is very difficult to get images and interviews out of Iran. In Israel, they are also warning journalists not to film damage there. So the threats against them are understandable, I fully get that.

But come on. Covering the war by proxy (gas prices back home, etc.,) is weak. There are satellites, there are 'citizen journalists' - to show nothing of what's going on in Iran or in Israel or not showing attacks on US assets is BS.

It's not an Army, Marines ground war, so nothing for them to see or report from. You certainly can't imbed journalist on ships or in planes. Too cramp spaces and they'd just get in the way, aside from nothing to see or report.

52 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

It's not an Army, Marines ground war, so nothing for them to see or report from. You certainly can't imbed journalist on ships or in planes. Too cramp spaces and they'd just get in the way, aside from nothing to see or report.

Totally wrong!

As an example we had news correspondents embedded both onboard and ashore during the Falklands war!

The embedded journalist Brian Hanrahan's famous transmit ion from the deck of one of the RN carriers wrt the first attack on Port Stanley during the Falklands war of "I counted them out and I counted them all back!" to rebut false Argentinian claims of many UK aircraft loses shows that the RN does allow and routinely carries journalists during live situations!

The UK military still do that to this day!

it is called PR!

11 hours ago, KhunLA said:

It's not an Army, Marines ground war, so nothing for them to see or report from. You certainly can't imbed journalist on ships or in planes. Too cramp spaces and they'd just get in the way, aside from nothing to see or report.

I know one who was embedded on a US aircraft carrier during second Gulf War.

13 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Go on you tube, great bombing videos. Some of the secondaries as the Rocket Motors ignite are pretty cool

"Great bombing videos...Cool"? Have you, for a second, considered that there are people underneath those bombs and rockets? Innocent people, families, children, people having their already difficult lives, families, livelihoods and any futures they may have worked for destroyed.

You think it is "cool" - you are one sick individual.

I suppose it makes a change from the bulk of the video content available on the Internet!