Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : WAR & CRISIS REPORTING
Media Coverage of the War in Iraq from the American University 
MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE WAR IN IRAQ A SUMMARY REPORT Full survey results and narrative responses can be seen at:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Many media outlets have self-censored their reporting on the conflict in Iraq because of concern about public reaction to graphic images and details about the war. Many journalists said vigorous discussions about what, how and where to publish were conducted, in an attempt to balance fair reporting with audience sensitivities. In addition, journalists used their Internet sites to post material different from what was printed in newspapers or broadcast on TV or radio programs. Nearly one-third of news outlets used their Web sites to disseminate materials online that were not first published or broadcast elsewhere by the organization. In most cases reporters and editors posted additional information online such as photographic essays, extended interviews and behind-the-scenes reporter accounts. These are some of the conclusions from research conducted by American University School of Communication professors MJ Bear and Jane Hall. More than 200 American and international journalists completed the anonymous, online survey in September and October 2004. Journalists were asked about coverage from March 2003 through September 2004. While the research covered events from the beginning of the conflict through the first 15 months of the occupation, it focused primarily on decision-making during major events such as the release of the Abu Ghraib prison photographs and the images showing the deaths of four American contractors in Fallujah. The study surveyed reporters, photographers, producers and managers involved in their organization's coverage of Iraq. News personnel were e-mailed a link to the online survey; those who completed it in its entirety are counted in the results. Respondents also identified themselves by audience geography. They were asked to indicate whether their audience was primarily from the U.S. or if their coverage was targeted to an international region such as: the Middle East, Europe, Asia, Africa or Eastern Europe. Respondents said several incidents sparked newsroom debates concerning the impact of publishing graphic photographs or detailed information about death and torture. In most instances news managers self-censored coverage by choosing to run less-graphic images or putting details inside the paper and not on front pages. The survey reached a high percentage of journalists who were on the ground. Thirty-five percent of all respondents, 73 people, reported being in Iraq or in a surrounding country during the war and its aftermath. About half that group said they were embedded with the U.S. military during all or part of their coverage. HIGHLIGHTS Self-censorship occurred due to audience reaction to graphic content One-third of news outlets surveyed published material online that was not in print or aired. A majority of newsrooms did not have prior rules about what they would or would not publish. Editors dealt with graphic content on a case-by-case basis. Respondent Snapshot: 210 media personnel completed survey 73 respondents were in Iraq or surrounding countries 38 respondents were embedded 83 percent report primarily a U.S.-based audience 59 percent are primarily in print 26 percent are primarily in broadcast 12 percent are primarily in online The following report details additional findings from Bear and Hall's research. Full survey results and narrative responses can be seen at:
THE FINDINGS Background How does an editor determine if a graphic image from the war in Iraq should be published? Have the media accurately reported the conflict in Iraq? How did news editors and managers make decisions about what was published? These are some of the questions we attempted to answer. We wanted to hear directly from the reporters, editors, photographers, producers and managers about how they made decisions and what was published. The quantitative results include an acknowledgement by 36% (75 out of 210) of all respondents saying they have rules to guide coverage when sensitive details such as dead or wounded military personnel or hostages are involved. As the survey delved into specifics about what newsrooms would or would not publish, 14% (30 out of 210) said either they or their management limited publication of dead American or coalition civilians and nearly an equal number (29 out of 210) said they limited publication of dead American or coalition military personnel. Nearly 30% (62 out of 210) of the respondents say they published material online that wasn't broadcast or printed in their primary media first. The qualitative results are telling about the decision making process at many institutions and explain why some toned down coverage was often published. "As with any death, we tried to make sure the pictures were as 'tasteful' as possible -- not much blood or gore. We ran a front page picture of the four dead contractors in Fallujah, for instance, but from a greater distance than some newspapers, so the bodies were not immediately distinct as corpses. Even so, we drew a large amount of criticism from readers." "We published a press release issued by the kidnappers of American Paul Johnson in Saudi Arabia, which included images of his beheading. It was hotly debated in the newsroom and resulted in dozens of e-mails, letters and phone calls from readers around the country; surprisingly, all but a handful approved of our use of the images, we published an editor's note on Page 1 warning readers of the images on an inside page. The photos were run in black-and-white, far smaller than actual size." "Our duty is to report as vividly and accurately as we can what is happening in Iraq. But we have to make difficult judgments about some of the shocking raw footage we or agencies film of death, horrific injuries, hostage murders filmed by hostage takers etc. We want to show what is happening, but also to avoid causing unnecessary shock and distress to viewers or encouraging further brutality by hostage takers. It is a difficult task." Context In the light of continuing conflict in Iraq, many media observers have said that the American media failed to investigate sufficiently and independently the U.S. government's rationale for going to war and the plans for post-war Iraq. Military officials and many journalists have said that embedding reporters provided an important window on U.S. and coalition force operations, but there has been little research done about reporting during embedding and afterwards. Today, reporters are facing great hazards in covering the continuing conflict in what has become one of the deadliest wars for journalists in recent years. We wanted to research the combat phase and the first year of occupation to determine if embedding, military guidelines for reporting, audience concerns and news organizations' own guidelines and standards had an impact on what was published and where it was published. For example, were there differences between coverage of Iraqi and U.S. casualties? How did journalists deal with graphic footage such as images of dead and injured military personnel and civilians? How did they deal with images of hostages? How did they deal with pictures from the Abu Ghraib prison? Statistical research about coverage of Iraq was not readily available. So, we set out to find out if perception about coverage was accurate in terms of how news was gathered and published. Concern over Audience Reaction Leads to Self-Censorship The survey concludes that many media outlets self-censored their reporting on the conflict in Iraq because of concern about public reaction to graphic images and details about the war. But, media self-censorship came after thoughtful discussions about the implications of publishing sensitive information. Thirty percent of all respondents (63 out of 210) said they had rules in place limiting publication for dealing with sensitive information and images at start of coverage. But what may be even more telling about self-censorship is the amount of editing that went into content after it was gathered but before it was published. Of the group of respondents who were in newsrooms and not in-country, 20% (27 out of 137) said material was edited for reasons other than basic style and length. Of their counterparts who were in-country, 15% (11 out of 73) said on one or more occasions their organizations edited material for publication and they did not believe the final version accurately represented the story. "It was a case-by-case basis, but no general rule on blood or bad news." "Our rules were about providing context, not prohibiting certain images." "Our duty is to report as vividly and accurately as we can what is happening in Iraq. But we have to make difficult judgments about some of the shocking raw footage we or agencies film of death, horrific injuries, hostage murders filmed by hostage takers, etc. We want to show what is happening, but also avoid causing unnecessary shock and distress to viewers or encourage further brutality by hostage takers. It is a difficult task." The Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, the brutal deaths of four American contractors in Fallujah and images of hostages generated the most debate. "We aired images up to the killing, but did not show it or the sound." "The photos of the bodies hanging from the bridge. We felt that the photos needed to be published to tell the story, but did not need to be sensationalized." "There was a sharp debate following the exposure of coalition prisoners of war via Arab TV stations when we ourselves had shown Iraqi POWs." Online-Only Coverage Wide-Spread The report also found that most media outlets turned to the Web to publish additional material. Nearly 30 % (62 out of 210) of the respondents said they used their company's online sites to publish material different from what was broadcast or printed. Most indicated the reasons were due to lack of space in print and broadcast and not due to the nature of the content. So, "extended" coverage on the Web allowed many more photographs to be published along with first-person, behind the scenes reporter accounts. Of the journalists who were in the region, 86% (63 out of 73) said their ability to publish online did NOT affect they type of information and material they gathered, but nearly half said they were able to publish content online that wasn't available to print and broadcast audiences. In addition, 29% (21 of 73) said their Internet reports allowed more comprehensive coverage. Only 7% (5 out of 73) said their Internet reports allowed them to publish material deemed not appropriate for other media. Rules Were Followed We found that most media professionals said they followed government embed rules and the Geneva Convention not only while being embedded, but also at other periods throughout the coverage. Survey participants wrote that they limited publication of graphic images and details because of a sensitivity to their audience's reaction. Several journalists suggested that the U.S. media sanitized coverage. A print journalist who said he was embedded wrote this: "On some occasions, the reports were subtly edited to make them less negative and more in line with official views. This was not systematic, though." Geography of Audience Affected Coverage While the survey results are broken down by publishing medium and geography, the decision making didn't vary significantly between print, broadcast and online media. But the geographical breakdown provided more differentials. For example, before coverage began, many U.S. journalists reported having specific rules in place against showing dead Americans whether they be military personnel or civilians. Many respondents said they dealt with such "graphic" or "disturbing" images on case-by-case bases. Respondents who identified their organizations from Europe and the Middle East did not seem to be as confined by as many restrictions. Coverage Sensitivities The survey found that there was extremely limited censorship in the type of interviews conducted. When journalists who were in-country were asked if their editors/managers limited interviews, 92% (67 out of 73) respondents said they had no limits at all and only two respondents said they were limited in publishing interviews with Iraqi military personnel, Iraqi insurgents and other journalists. Of respondents who were in-country, 27% (20 out of 73) said their organization had prior rules in place about what they would or would not publish and 31% (43 out of 137) of the respondents who were based in newsrooms said their organization had prior rules. Coverage sensitivity focused more on the type of images published. "No video was actively discouraged from use. Rules that guide our network generally were used also during the war: death and destruction can be illustrated without gratuitous tightly shot graphic images. In general, however, the images showed of dead Iraqi military personnel/insurgents/etc. were more graphic than footage of American troops or coalition casualties. The showing of hostages was discouraged until families were notified of the situation." "We have no limits on information. We were asked by our news director not to put gruesome/bloody images on the air." "Our community is notoriously squeamish and vocal about it to boot. So, we usually avoid dead bodies if we can." One of the survey questions was: "If your organization edited material for publication, do you think the report and/or images which were published/broadcast or posted online accurately represent the story?" One respondent said: "Yes, but. The 'but' being that we sanitized the conflict for the very good reason of not wanting to shock and revolt our audience." Several respondents talked about issues surrounding photographs taken of wounded soldiers who later died. "There is an unspoken rule against publishing images that would be extremely horrifying such as a bloody stump on an amputee or a mangled corpse." "To publish or broadcast the dead, dying or injured would be {exploitative}." Editing at Home Twenty percent (27 out of 137) of journalists who were not overseas said material from the field was edited for reasons other than basic style and length. Thirteen respondents said material was too graphic and seven said the material was not balanced. One journalist said a report with pictures for Saddam Hussein's secret archive showing beating and torture was edited, "on the grounds that the pictures were "sickening" -- my answer was that, Yes they were, but all the more important to show as much as possible." "The real damage of the war on the civilian population was uniformly omitted." "Again, this survey was difficult for me to answer because I was an embedded reporter and was not in the newsroom when decisions were made or debates conducted. I just wrote my stories, turned them in and they ran." "Our duty is to report as vividly and accurately as we can what is happening in Iraq. But we have to make difficult judgments about some of the shocking raw footage we or agencies film of death, horrific injuries, hostage murders filmed by hostage takers etc. We want to show what is happening, but also to avoid causing unnecessary shock and distress to viewers or encouraging further brutality by hostage takers. It is a difficult task." Respondents Snapshot Two hundred and ten media professionals completed the survey. Of that number 73, or 35%, were in Iraq or the surrounding areas at some point between March 2003 and October 2004. About half of that group, or 38 of the total respondents, reported being embedded with the U.S. military during all or part of their reporting. Respondents also self-identified their primary medium -- 59% print, 26% broadcast, 12% online, 9% radio and 2% cable TV. The majority -- 83% report a U.S. based audience, but 11% also reported a European audience. Audiences in other areas include: 7% Asia, 6% Africa and 5% in the Middle East. About the Survey The study, conducted from September 13, 2004 - October 13, 2004, was completed by more than 200 self-declared media personnel. Reporters, editors, managers, producers and photographers were invited to take the test through a series of closed e-mail announcements from the Society of Professional Journalists and the Online News Association membership lists. The International Center for Journalists International Journalists Network posted an announcement in its e-newsletter. In addition, more than 1000 individual media personnel were e-mailed direct invitations to take the survey. The results are from 210 completed forms. Responses that were not completed were excluded from the totals. Full results can be seen at: .
Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge: American University, the Society of Professional Journalists, the Online News Association, the International Center for Journalists, the Military Reporters and Editors Society and WJLA-TV for their help in conducting this research. In addition, our colleagues: Dianne Lynch, dean of the Ithaca College School of Communications, Professors Wendell Cochran, Amy Eisman, Alison Schafer and John Watson at American University's School of Communication and Janice Castro, assistant dean of Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism provided invaluable guidance. Michael Meneer was our graduate assistant. Assen Assenov from AU's Center for Teaching Excellence was instrumental in helping analyze the data. Maralee Csellar from AU's Media Relations Division provided an invaluable contact list and was instrumental in generating publicity and helping distribute the results. Jane Wilson, AU's School of Communication marketing director, helped facilitate publication of the results online. We would also like to thank AU School of Communication Dean Larry Kirkman for supporting this research. |