With the emergence of newer, better and faster technology every minute that is designed to enrich our lives and immediately render our gadgetry into obsolescence, the question is raised, are we really better off? That's not to say that I am not a subscriber of the many wares that this modern world has to offer. I cannot deny the glint that sometimes fills my eyes upon seeing the latest offering of digital this or silicone that. Not that I can afford it, but we can all dream.

I too am sucked into the vortex of debaucherous electronic splendor at times, but not without stopping to look at how it has changed my life, both for the better and for worse. It certainly seems to complicate much of what it is intended to simplify and I am at times drawn to the simplicity of old things, the things that have been cast aside. I don't think these thoughts are uncommon today.

This leads me to the line of questioning that I am really driving at. Being a working member of the news media, I often find myself scrutinizing our industry practices. I am not always in agreement with how news is covered and I am often befuddled by some of the patterns that mysteriously develop where we are constantly producing the same stories and soundbites as the competition across town. This homogenization of journalism has led to a decline in the importance of having an individual voices and seeking truth in what we do. With the barrage of information from various sources every second of every day and the push from competition, there is no time to question or second guess, and barely enough to confirm what we disseminate as having basis in fact.

This leads me to the research that I have begun in the area of media coverage of American military conflict, beginning with the American Revolution right through to the current war in Iraq. I am interested in how this coverage has evolved due to changes in technology and how this affects public perception. Has the immediacy of information and the availabilty of so many sources changed the role of media? How have politics played a part in decisions made by media outlets and the access given to them. Is it the job of journalists to simply report the facts or is it also part of their duty to build consensus by drawing certain conclusions and making the public aware of these issues?

I want to focus in particular on the coverage of the current war in Iraq as compared to the coverage of the previous Persian Gulf War just 10 years before. There are vastly different issues raised in this short span of time. Much of it has to do with technology and government influence, but I think it deserves a deeper look into the history of war coverage.