In the controversy over the reporting of the Falklands conflict, criticism focused on the media''s use of armchair strategists to interpret and speculate about operations in the South Atlantic. Valerie Adams sets that media commentary in an historical perspective and examines its actual content to see whether the criticism was justified and whether the material actually helped to inform the public about the actions undertaken on their behalf. The issues raised in wartime by the relationship between the media, the government and the public in a democracy are explored: the Falklands'' problems appear insignificant set against potential future difficulties.
