Round-the-clock live television images of the war in Iraq are mesmerising viewers across the
world, but not all are happy with what they see.
U.S. and British broadcasters such as CNN, Sky and the BBC are pumping out coverage of the U.S.-led invasion, and evenmedia in countries not involved in the conflict have cranked up their programming to feed a surging public appetite for news.

Many viewers are gripped by what one London radio station has called "war porno" -- live television feeds of desert firefights or spectacular fireballs on the Baghdad skyline.
"The 24-hour multi-channel coverage of operations in Iraq is even more surreal than coverage of the Gulf War in 1991," columnist Darrel Bristow-Bovey wrote in South Africa's Sunday Independent newspaper.
"What's worse, with 10 years of reality TV conditioning...it becomes increasingly difficult not to treat the coverage as another species of entertainment, an unfolding saga with twists
and turns and unexpected surprises."

Organisations providing live coverage from Baghdad include Iraqi TV, Reuters, Qatar-based al-Jazeera, Dubai-based al-Arabiya, and a U.S. pool operation.
Bristow-Bovey said the coverage was like watching "Big Brother Iraq" -- a reference to the "Big Brother" reality show that lets viewers gape at contestants confined to a house full of cameras.
Even people who are not usually news addicts have been tuning in for regular updates on a war that has caused deep rifts in the international community.
"Usually I seldom watch CNN or the BBC, mainly because my English is not good enough to understand," Tokyo businesswoman Atsuko Hiranshe said. "But when it comes to minute-to-minute
developments in Iraq, my eyes are glued to the TV screen."

"MARINE'S EYE VIEW"
One of the most enduring television images of the 1991 Gulf
War was of U.S. cruise missiles swooping down Baghdad streets.
This time, networks are trumpeting their ability to
broadcast live satellite images from their "embedded" reporting
positions with the U.S. and British forces in Iraq.
Live on CNN, American Stefanie Lyle watched her soldier
husband Clay charging through southern Iraq this week on a tank.
"I've been taping it," she told the network. "I just can't
believe that we're able to see this on TV. It's great."
CNN, Sky and the BBC were all dominated early on Sunday by
live, "Marine's-eye-view" footage of fighting between U.S. and
Iraqi soldiers around the southern town of Umm Qasr.
The Sky presenter enthused about the "dramatic" images. It
was hard to make out much in the expanse of sandy wasteland,
except for telegraph poles and a few distant buildings.
"As if he were covering a football match, the British
reporter tells viewers back home about the battle this morning
from Umm Qasr. No editing, just two hours of live coverage," one
German journalist told his own viewers on the ARD network.
Television coverage has also been ramped up in Germany and
France, whose governments are opposed to the Iraq war, but the
tone there tends to be more downbeat.
One German correspondent warned viewers to beware of
"disinformation" from Washington, and a German network ran shots
of a U.S. tank stuck in the Iraqi sand.
Even in Britain, some criticise what they see as the overly
bullish tone of some television reports. "Somehow the people
reporting and presenting have too much enthusiasm for it," said
British marketing manager Tom Greaves.

SANITISED VIEW OF WAR
Many also doubt the pictures tell the whole story, and say
television is presenting a sanitised view of war.
Coverage by some Arab stations, including al-Jazeera, has
been far more graphic, showing bloody images of Iraqis killed
and injured in air raids.
The U.S. administration was angered by film shot by Iraqi
television and provided by al-Jazeera apparently showing
American dead and prisoners of war in Baghdad.
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said it would be
"unfortunate" if television networks carried the pictures. U.S.
networks indicated they were treating the footage with caution,
but were deciding how to proceed according to their editorial
principles.
Gadi Wolfsfeld, professor of political science and
communications at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said the
upbeat tone of U.S. and British coverage might not last.
"Because of the lack of international consensus on this war,
the role of the media may change very quickly and turn against
the American government," he said.
"We're not seeing many dead and wounded. If the war goes
badly (for the United States and Britain) we'll see a lot more."
U.S. television coverage of the Vietnam war in the 1960s and
1970s, although not real-time as it is today, was a major factor
in fuelling the anti-war movement in America.
Broadcasters spending millions of dollars on Iraq coverage
may find the thirst for news drying up if war drags on.
U.S. network ABC's live, intensive Iraq coverage came second
in the Thursday's viewing ratings to the top sitcom "Friends".
(Additional reporting by Darren Schuettler in Johannesburg,
Teruaki Ueno in Tokyo and Erik Kirschbaum in Berlin)
((Reporting by Gill Tudor, editing by Ian MacKenzie; Reuters
Messaging: gill.tudor.reuters.con@reuters.net))