Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero & Myth-maker from the Crimea to Iraq” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero & Myth-maker from the Crimea to Iraq

Phillip Knightley

4.07 · Rating details · 256 ratings · 20 reviews

"The first casualty when war comes, is truth," said American Senator Hiram Johnson in 1917. In his gripping, now-classic history of war journalism, Phillip Knightley shows just how right Johnson was. From William Howard Russell, who described the appalling conditions of the Crimean War in the Times of London, to the ranks of reporters, photographers, and cameramen who capt ...more

Get A Copy

Paperback, 608 pages

Published September 13th 2004 by Johns Hopkins University Press (first published January 1975)

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about The First Casualty, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about The First Casualty

Lists with This Book

Foreign Correspondents, Journalists & Reporters

134 books — 24 voters

Make Way for Ducklings by Robert McCloskey

Bring Me Some Apples and I'll Make You a Pie by Robbin Gourley

'Make' Me

518 books — 16 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 4.07 ·

Rating details

· 256 ratings · 20 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero & Myth-maker from the Crimea to Iraq

Aug 26, 2013 Simon Wood rated it it was amazing

FIRST DRAFTERS DEBUNKED

"The first casualty when war comes, is truth"
- Senator Hiram Johnson, 1917.

Phillip Knightley is a fine journalist with a long career of first class investigative reporting, as well as a number of fine books under his belt including "The Second Oldest Professtion: Spies and Spying in the Twentieth Century" and his biography "A Hack's Progress". In "The First Casualty" (originally published in 1975, but updated in 2000 and 2003) he casts his eye upon his own profession and FIRST DRAFTERS DEBUNKED

"The first casualty when war comes, is truth"
- Senator Hiram Johnson, 1917.

Phillip Knightley is a fine journalist with a long career of first class investigative reporting, as well as a number of fine books under his belt including "The Second Oldest Professtion: Spies and Spying in the Twentieth Century" and his biography "A Hack's Progress". In "The First Casualty" (originally published in 1975, but updated in 2000 and 2003) he casts his eye upon his own profession and how they have acquitted themselves reporting the many wars of the past century and a half.

The book starts with William Russell Howard the self-declared "miserable parent of a luckless tribe" and his and others record during the Crimean War, followed with the American Civil War, the small imperial wars that punctuated the twentieth century, and on to the Boer War whose reporters included that half child and half man Winston Churchill with his boys own style of writing. Knightley covers the First World War in some depth, the militaries attitude to the press, as well as the other side of the coin, that of the press to the military, for example: "a principal aim of the war policy of [The Times] was to increase the flow of recruits. It was an aim that would get little help from accounts of what happened to recruits once they became soldiers." That little gem of journalistic integrity was from The Times own account of its performance during that war! The book goes on to deal with the Russian Revolution and the western intervention, the Spanish Civil War, the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, the Second World War, Korea, Vietnam, Algeria, the Falklands War, the Gulf War of 1990-91, and Kosovo, before ending with an early account of the reporting during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, including some amply deserved criticism of those "embedded" (in beds?) with the military.

The record brought to light is not one of total success, indeed the reflections of many correspondents are liberally quoted to indicate the limitations they worked under, the danger, deadlines and the technology of particular times, as well as the things they missed (which generally includes any attempt to give the broader context within which events occurred), the lack of perspective in what they reported, and the attitude of the military in particular and the authorities in general to their profession, not to mention their own proprietors and editors back home. While the emphasis is on English language reporting, there is some room made to tell of the experience of Japanese, Italian, Russian and German correspondents, and the attitudes of their respective militaries and governments.

In "The First Casualty" Knightley brings to the reader his own not inconsiderable judgement on the performance of war correspondents, and though his judgement is often harsh he does not shy away from recognising some of the brilliant examples of journalism that war correspondents have from time to time produced. This is an endlessly fascinating read, full of analysis and anecdote, fluently written, and an excellent introduction to the subject for those who, wisely given the often-lamentable record, prefer to get behind the headlines and see what is really happening. An excellent book that I'd highly recommended reading. ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Feb 25, 2010 The Final Chapter rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction-1975-1980

High 4. Knightley traces the history of the war correspondent from its first celebrated individual, William Howard Russell, who termed himself "the father of a luckless tribe". Prior to the Crimea War, newspapers had relied on foreign coverage or reports from junior officers with no nose for news. The popular enthusiasm for the Crimean War finally led the 'Times' to abandon this trend and despatch Russell in Feb 1854 and this stocky Irishman would greatly influence the conduct of the war. The Br High 4. Knightley traces the history of the war correspondent from its first celebrated individual, William Howard Russell, who termed himself "the father of a luckless tribe". Prior to the Crimea War, newspapers had relied on foreign coverage or reports from junior officers with no nose for news. The popular enthusiasm for the Crimean War finally led the 'Times' to abandon this trend and despatch Russell in Feb 1854 and this stocky Irishman would greatly influence the conduct of the war. The British army had not seen action on a prolonged campaign since Waterloo, and the expedition was led by Lord Raglan, who had been Wellington's military secretary. Though a brave, competent, staff officer, he had no previous experience of command in the field - a fact made worse by having to rely on the worst collection of subordinate officers ever assembled, such as the hard-drinking commander of the Light Brigade, the Earl of Cardigan. Though Russell's report would focus on the courage of the suicidal nature of the Charge of the Light Brigade in Oct 1854, he lay the blame for the tragedy firmly on Raglan's issuing of commands to his commanders on the field, and in not recognising that they did not share his vantage point above the battlefield. Moreover, at the bloody but inconclusive Battle of Inkerman, two weeks later, Russell was appalled at the level of casualties and stressed Raglan's incompetence in private letters to his editor, who circulated them to his friends in the Cabinet. The growing popular discontent was mirrored by the antipathy Russell aroused within the armed forces and the Establishment, and when Raglan died of natural causes after the failure of the seige of Sevastopol, Victoria herself revealed her displeasure with the 'Times', with Prince Albert calling Russell "that miserable scribbler". This change in the tide of official opinion led to calls for restraint on the freedom of the press, and the danger to national security posed by journalists' reports such as troop movements, thus leading to the beginning of military censorship. Though too late to affect the Crimean correspondents, due to the ceasing of hostilities before the issuance of this military order, the precedent had been established. Thus, coverage of the Boer War and First World War would be greatly curtailed. Historical research has revealed that Raglan was ill-served by Russell's accounts, as he tirelessly campaigned for better resources and cared deeply about the humane treatment of his men. Yet, the war correspondent had arrived, and in the American Civil War, the Union side alone was followed by 500 of them. The author reveals that the pressure to provide good coverage on meagre wages led to inaccurate and falsified reports, even instances of correspondents being bribed by army officers to comment on their imagined courageous deeds in their despatches. In the Confederacy, the position was worse with correspondents sharing the partisan belief in the South's cause. The first instance of military censorship surrounded the first clash of the war at Bull Run, where precipitate reports of a Union victory were allowed through, but an updated account of the subsequent rally of the Confederate troops and rout of the Northern forces was blocked. The mounting censorship was soon under the auspices of the Secretary of`War, Edwin Stanton, who massaged casualty figures, arresting editors and suspending their newspapers, while initiating a practice which would be repeated in later conflicts of publishing official accounts of the progress of the conflict, based on his own war diary. the generals themselves had differing opinions of the corresponents with Grant embracing them, while Herman banned them from accompanying his entourage, thus making his campaigns in the west and south poorly reported, though his actions effectively won the war. Thus, the correspondents failed to recognise his capture of Atlanta, combined with a 'scorched earth' policy in a sweep through Georgia to the sea, split the Confederacy and destroyed its lines of supplies. However, the worst standards of the coverage of this conflict were provided by the 'Times', where the proprietor and editor's own sympathies for the Southern cause were allowed to smother objectivity, and whose correspondents' biased reports would harm relations with the US for a generation to come. It had all started differently with the posting of Russell, whose reputation had since been further garlanded for his perceptive reports on the Indian Mutiny. Yet, despite his Union sympathies, his objectivity would soon fall foul of American readers with his truthful observations of the panic and rout of northern forces at Bull Run, and when accusations arose of financial speculation by his informing of an American business associate of the outcome of negotiations between Union and Bristish diplomats, he found himself denied access to the battlefront. With his departure, the 'Times' was able to appoint an individual with political views more akin to the management of the paper. Charles Mackay was so obvious a supporter of the Confederacy, and the latter so valued his reporting of the war, that his return to British shores for holiday was curtailed and his steamship passage paid for. When the fortunes of war waned for the South, and the Union emerged victorious, Mackay would be fired and made the scapegoat for the obvious impartiality of the coverage in the 'Times'. With the rise of the popular press and widespread use of the telegraph, the period between the American Civil War and the First World War is regarded as the 'Golden Age' of the war correspondent. The profession now attracted those with a thirst for adventure, who had undoubted bravery and resourcefulness, but also editors saw the merit of the narrative for their growing readership, and thus reporters were appointed due to their literary ability in depicting battle such as Stephen Crane for the 'New york Journal'. For many of this new breed, the glorification of war held far greater sway than any moral concerns as many conflicts surrounded the pacification of native peoples in the pursuit of Empire. This all changed with the Boer War, where British interests once the bitter taste of defeat took hold would not welcome obtrusive impartiality. Kitchener's disdain for correspondents was clear from his attempts to hamper their activities during his Sudan campaign to avenge the fall of Khartoum and the death of Gordon. The mutual animosity which grew between him and the reporters would foreshadow how the Boer War and First World War would pit censorship against the newspapermen. Moreover, aside from those shackled by the military censor, many fell foul of furthering the jingoism of the time, or of becoming so embroiled in the action that they forego their responsibility to be neutral observers. Churchill epitomised the adventurer in search of self-aggrandisement, who joined the ranks of the correspondents, but more than others shaded the distinction between neutral observer and active combatant. His undoubted skills at self-promotion ended up with a lecture tour both sides of the Atlantic recounting his exploits and netting him £10,000 in the process. As the country entered the twentieth century, the clampdown on reporting the truth had failed to reveal lessons which should have been learnt about the unsuitability of trench warfare. The censorship surrounding the First World War would permit more deliberate lies being told to the unsuspecting public thsn for any other conflict in history.In this deceit, both the newspaper proprietors and correspondents were complicit and the scale of propoganda was so organised that it would serve as a model for Goebbels and the Nazis to emulate. The leading newspapers share the blame for this official line of deceit by publishing outrageous claims of atrocities committed by the Germans, including express orders from the Kaiser himself to pay rewards in double to submarine crews which sank shipping carrying women and children. The worst and most influential example of such malicious invention was the Boyce Report, issued by a committee headed by the former ambassador to the US, Lord Boyce, which claimed to provide comprehensive witness testimony of the systematic murder and violation of the Belgian populace by German troops, but the depositions on which it was based mysteriously disappeared when requested by post-war commissions of enquiry. Despite clamour to allow the posting of correspondents on the front, in a perfect illustration of poacher turned gamekeeper, approaches to the First Lord of the Admiralty, Churchill, met immovable resistance. Indeed, Churchill would even propose to his Prime Minister, Asquith, that the 'Times' be commandeered and transformed into the official means of guiding public opinion. Kitchener had given the army express orders to arrest and confiscate the passport of any correspondent who managed to evade the ban and find himself on the field. The official approach only changed in response to Cabinet pressure, after a letter reached the Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, from former President Theodore Roosevelt, pointing out the harm such a blanket ban on correspondence was having on failing to evince sympathy in American public opinion. Despite the ban being lifted to a select group, the restrictions imposed, including being shadowed at all times by travelling censors, made it almost worthwhile their remaining at home. Even the 'Times' would later acknowledge that restrictions aside, the principal aim of the war coverage was to increase the number of recruits into the services, and thereby avoid publishing the true horror of the trenches. Knightley reveals that those correspondents who witnessed the Spanish Civil War allowed their own political agendas and sympathies to colour their coverage. Thus, interpretations of events at Guernica even included reports that this was a Republican self-inflicted attack in an attempt to blacken the name of Franco's crusade. The blindness which so affected such correspondents could no better be exemplified than by Hemingway's refusal to publish any accounts of the purges and executions conducted by the Communist forces despite having first-hand knowledge of such events. During the Second World War, the certitude with which the Allies challenged the evils of Nazism allowed correspondents to identify so closely with the military that myths, such as the extent of influence of the flotilla at Dunkirk and the display of courage under fire, were consciously generated at the expense of reporting the chaos and acts of desertion which characterised the retreat to the coast. Perhaps the most illustrative examples of colouring a more victorious portrayal of events than the true nature of the defeat, surround the reporting of the Dieppe raid and Operation Market Garden, where casualty figures were concealed as were the blunders in military planning. In the final chapters, Knightley catalogues the constant pressure exerted on correspondents to restrict reporting true events in the disastrous campaigns to stem the tide of communism in Indo-China. An excellent work of historical research which deserves far greater readership. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Sep 11, 2017 Muhammad Ahmad rated it really liked it · review of another edition

The first edition of this book are an excellent read that takes one through the history of western war reporting but the segments appended since then are perfunctory and derivative, more the work of a polemicist than a historian. Since the recent cases are more familiar to me, it made me wonder if the earlier parts of the book would seem just as superficial to a historian of Korea, WWII or Spain.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

May 21, 2013 Erik Graff rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Recommends it for: everyone

Recommended to Erik by: no one

Shelves: history

Ponderous and with extraordinarily small print, I almost didn't read this one, but having only it to hand upon going to bed I was sucked in, finishing the thing in a couple of days.

Basically, this is an account of the work of war correspondents. The wars treated include the Crimea, the Boer, WWI, the Russian revolution, the invasions of the U.S.S.R., the Spanish Civil War, WWII, Korea, Algeria and Vietnam during the involvement of the U.S.A. Most of the correspondents discussed wrote or broadcas ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 22, 2012 Michael Gerald rated it liked it

Do not always believe the things that you see and hear on the TV, radio, print, and in the Internet.

It's not always what you see is what you get. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Sep 17, 2017 Brian Page rated it it was amazing

THE FIRST CASUALTY: THE WAR CORRESPONDENT AS HERO AND MYTH-MAKER FROM THE CRIMEA TO IRAQ is Phillip Knightly’s classic, influential, and angry look at the relationship between the press and governments at war. He spares no one: “Had the correspondents had the moral courage to refuse to play their part in the charade, the government might have been forced to reconsider its attitude.” (p. 103) Here he’s speaking of World War I, but this same indictment is applied to essentially every conflict unti ...more

flag Like · see review

Nov 05, 2017 Joshua Greer rated it really liked it

Thought provoking work that should be read by more than just journalists and military personnel.

As a journalist in college and a military officer of 14 years now; I identify with both sides. Does the military lie, spin, obfuscate? Absolutely. Does the military do so because the people feel like it is necessary and the right thing to do in order to win? Yes. Is this right in a democratic society where the military is ostensibly subservient to the will of the people? There are no easy answers.

It ...more

flag Like · see review

Mar 03, 2020 Ian Boyle added it

A compelling detailed book about war reporting

flag Like · see review

May 21, 2015 David Rush rated it liked it · review of another edition

The early chapters of the Crimean War and the American Civil War lay out pretty clearly what follows for the rest of the book, mainly that any contemporary reporting of war is at best, crap, and even more likely totally wrong.

In WWI the very purposeful use of “news” as actual propaganda is developed. Usually with the full cooperation of the reporter. During WWI, the prime minister is at a dinner and after hearing actual stories from the war says..”if people really knew, the war it would be stopp ...more

flag Like · see review

Feb 19, 2017 Melissa rated it it was ok

I have a lot of issues with the book and I'm not going to list them here. Besides the lack of verifiable facts and the constant use of specific chosen stories, I would say what annoyed me most was the not so very hidden normative ideas. Let's just leave it here... ...more

flag Like · see review

Oct 26, 2015 Jerry rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: bazin

The First Casualty seeks to fill two needs: to catalog the failures and successes of war reporting since it began as a recognizable form, and to analyze its failure to engage news viewers into ending war.

As a catalogue of press behavior and roadblocks in the major wars from the Crimean war to Vietnam, this is an extensive and useful tome. But analyzing the press’s failures and censorship’s failures, it gets lost. Even transparency seems to end up a failure when it comes to war reporting… but he ...more

flag Like · see review

Aug 09, 2011 Pascal Lapointe added it

Un livre des années 1970, mais plus d'actualité que jamais, à l'heure de nos interrogations sur la couverture de la guerre en Irak (en fait, la version que je viens de lire date des années 1970, mais je viens d'apprendre qu'une réédition, incluant la guerre en Irak, est récemment publiée). Ça commence avec les tout premiers correspondants de guerre, au milieu du 19e siècle, et ça va jusqu'à la guerre du Vietnam: l'auteur passe en revue des générations de manipulations de l'information, de censur ...more

flag Like · see review

Oct 10, 2012 Christopher Saunders rated it liked it

Knightley provides a polemical history of war correspondents, analyzing their general failure to provide accurate reporting. In broad strokes it's an effective argument, showing how easily journalists are influenced by government pressure and personal beliefs. But Knightley is extremely inconsistent in his criticisms. He excoriates anti-Bolshevik reporters during the Russian Revolution but upholds John Reed as a paragon of integrity (!). He similarly praises Herbert Matthews' pro-Fascist writing ...more

flag Like · see review

Sep 05, 2007 jeano rated it really liked it

Recommends it for: chapter readers and historians

organized chronologically with each chapter devoted to a war (and not limited to the wars that america was involved in), the book is a compendium of the courageous, lazy, romanticizing war correspondents and the plotting military and conspirational government forces that met them, from the 1800s til Iraq. its best feature is the rampant use of punctuating, romping, outrageous, hilarious, or merely cold and sinister quotes from everyone. a little difficult to make it straight through as it seems ...more

flag Like · see review

Jan 29, 2014 Gordon Howard rated it it was ok

I was going to say this book, written in 1975, is out of date, but I see that the author published an updated version more recently. Nonetheless, the book was too far into the weeds, and skimmed too much material.

flag Like · see review

Jun 21, 2012 Tom rated it it was amazing

I read this book a while ago and it set me on the road to becoming a journalist, a road, I might add, that I have long-since turned off. Nevertheless, this is first rate stuff from the first man to interview Phiby.

flag Like · see review

Mar 19, 2008 Missmath144 rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: war

Dull reading at first, but gave an impressive feeling for the drudgery, callousness, and injustices of war. I read it in conjunction with The Naked and the Dead, Hiroshima, and For Whom the Bell Tolls.

flag Like · see review

Jun 30, 2008 Ava Semerau rated it really liked it

I've just started this book and frankly, had to put it down because it was so personally upsetting as a journalist. I am now reading it in small pieces, digesting what I've read and learned, and then going back to it. Powerful. Provoking and deeply disturbing. ...more

flag Like · see review

Dec 03, 2012 Richard rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: project-2013

•
Truth is the first casualty of war. Want to learn a bit about world history, wars of consequence and war reporting…read this book.
•

flag Like · see review

Dec 29, 2010 Cody VC rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Surprisingly even-handed and very engaging; a real shame it ends in the 1970s.

flag Like · see review

Ali Hasan rated it liked it
Feb 08, 2015

Nat rated it it was amazing
Feb 18, 2016

Katie rated it really liked it
Oct 21, 2013

Brian Wilson rated it really liked it
Jun 06, 2013

Zak Schwarzman rated it really liked it
Jul 29, 2016

Michael rated it it was amazing
Jan 14, 2018

Viola rated it really liked it
Jul 25, 2014

Mustafa Novikoff rated it liked it
Jul 21, 2020

Emanuel Nordrum rated it it was amazing
Aug 06, 2020

Effie rated it it was amazing
Oct 17, 2013

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend It | Stats | Recent Status Updates

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Genres

History

36 users

Writing > Journalism

17 users

Nonfiction

14 users

Politics

12 users

War

10 users

Political Science > International Relations

4 users

War > Military Fiction

3 users

War > World War II

3 users

Military > Military History

3 users

War > World War I

2 users

See top shelves…

About Phillip Knightley

Phillip Knightley

13 followers

Phillip Knightley was a special correspondent for The Sunday Times for 20 years (1965-85) and one of the leaders of its Insight investigative team. He was twice named Journalist of the Year (1980 and 1988) in the British Press Awards. He and John Pilger are the only journalists ever to have won it twice.

He was also Granada Reporter of the Year (1980), Colour Magazine Writer of the Year (1982), hol Phillip Knightley was a special correspondent for The Sunday Times for 20 years (1965-85) and one of the leaders of its Insight investigative team. He was twice named Journalist of the Year (1980 and 1988) in the British Press Awards. He and John Pilger are the only journalists ever to have won it twice.

He was also Granada Reporter of the Year (1980), Colour Magazine Writer of the Year (1982), holder of the Chef and Brewer Crime Writer’s award (1983), and the Overseas Press Club of America award for the best book on foreign affairs in 1975 (The First Casualty).

He has lectured on journalism, law, and war at the National Press Club, Canberra, ACT; the Senate, Canberra, ACT; City University, London; Manchester University, Queen Elizabeth College Oxford, Penn State, UCLA, Stanford University, California; the Inner Temple, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. He is a patron of the C.W. Bean Foundation, Canberra ACT.

His two main professional interests have been war reporting and propaganda and espionage. In more than 30 years of writing about espionage he has met most of the spy chiefs of most of the major intelligence services in the world. He dined with Sir Maurice Oldfireld, head of MI6. He lunched with Sir Dick White, head of MI5 and MI6. He corresponded with both. He lunched with Harry Rositzke, head of the CIA’s Soviet bloc division. He lunched with Lyman Kirkpatrick, the CIA’s Inspector-General. He dined with Leonid Shebarshin, head of the KGB. He lunched with Sergei Kondrashov, chief of KGB counter-intelligence. He had drinks with Markus Wolf, head of East German intelligence. He spent one week in Moscow interviewing the notorious British traitor, Kim Philby. He helped KGB general Oleg Kalugin write the outline for his book. He has met dozens of officers and agents from all sides and has written many articles on espionage. Few writers today have his depth of knowledge of the international intelligence community.

Phillip reviews non-fiction books for The Mail on Sunday, The Sunday Times, The Independent (London) and The Australian’s Review of Books and The Age (Australia). He was a judge for Canada’s Lionel Gelber Prize, the world’s biggest for the best book on international relations. He is European representative of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, Washington DC.

He is involved in the the Indian literary and publishing scene and has written columns for several leading Indian newspapers and magazines.

He presented the war reporting documentary to mark the 30th anniversary of This Week; a half-hour documentary on truth for schools’ television; has reviewed the papers for BBC Breakfast TV and many What the Papers Say. He has appeared in many documentaries in Britain, Canada and Australia. He is a judge for Canada’s Lionel Gelber Prize for the year’s best book on international relations ($50,000). He is on the management committee of The Society of Authors, London.

Phillip was born in Australia but has worked most of his life in Britain. He now divides his time between Britain, Australia and India. He is married with three grown-up children and relaxes by playing tennis most days.
...more

Books by Phillip Knightley

How the English Establishment Framed Stephen Ward

The Second Oldest Profession: Spies and Spying in the Twentieth Century

More…

News & Interviews

75 Debut Novels to Discover in 2021

Readers have a lot to look forward to this year! Just feast your eyes upon all of these debut books to check out and emerging authors to...

Trivia About The First Casualt...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from The First Casualt...

“I love the infantry because they are the underdogs. They are the mud-rain-frost-and-wind boys. They have no comforts, and they even learn to live without the necessities. And in the end they are the guys that wars can’t be won without.”60” — 1 likes

“all studies of propaganda tell what a powerful weapon it is; that since armies fight as people think, it is essential to control that thought. This means some form of managing the news, and the only question is the degree to which the news should be managed openly and the degree to which it should be managed subtly.” — 0 likes

More quotes…

See a Problem?

Preview — The First Casualty by Phillip Knightley

The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero & Myth-maker from the Crimea to Iraq

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Phillip Knightley

Books by Phillip Knightley

News & Interviews

Trivia About The First Casualt...

Quotes from The First Casualt...

See a Problem?

Preview — The First Casualty by Phillip Knightley

The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero & Myth-maker from the Crimea to Iraq

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Phillip Knightley

Books by Phillip Knightley

News & Interviews

Trivia About The First Casualt...

Quotes from The First Casualt...

new topic
Discuss This Book