Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : PROPAGANDA AND THE GLOBAL 'WAR' ON TERROR (GWOT) Years 1 and 2, ie 9/11-2003
The war's first media star: the videophone by Paul Farhi 
Technology and terrorism The war's first media star: the videophone By Paul Farhi The Washington Post October 10, 2001 The pictures are grainy and static, the audio quality about as crisp as an underwater conversation. Crude though it may be, the videophone has quickly become the high-tech tool of choice for TV news reporters stationed in remote, no-tech locations. Before being kicked out of Kabul last month by the Taliban government, CNN correspondent Nic Robertson used a videophone to transmit pictures from inside the Afghan capital, including shots of a brief rebel strike on the city. Correspondents from all the major domestic networks, as well as the BBC and Associated Press television, now use the devices as well, reporting from inside Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Small, portable and relatively inexpensive, videophones -- which can send pictures (about 20 frames per second) over circuits normally used to transmit audio information -- could transform the way Americans look at the war on terrorism. They've already transformed where and how television reporters can do their jobs. "The biggest leap forward for us is that we can now go to the story and broadcast from there, without having to leave and find a way to get the material out," says David Verdi, executive director of news for NBC News. "It has taken the shackles off our ankles to pursue the story." A videophone enabled NBC reporter Tom Aspell to transmit live during a 200-mile trek through northern Afghanistan last week with members of the Northern Alliance, a coalition of forces fighting the Taliban. Aspell's reports probably would have been impossible without it: Conventional satellite equipment, including generators, weighs about a ton, far too heavy for the small convoy of rebels to transport. By contrast, Aspell's videophone rig and related equipment fit into four suitcases. The $7,500 videophone (which connects to an $8,000 satellite transmitter) can be set up or dismantled in minutes, usually by one person. It comes with its own batteries, or can be operated off another small power source; Robertson used his car's battery via the cigarette lighter outlet. The most popular system is called the Talking Head, made by 7E Communications, a British company. Another key advantage is that the equipment is noiseless and relatively inconspicuous -- a decided advantage in places where TV reporters might want to maintain a low profile. "You're not lugging equipment that catches people's attention," said Robertson, speaking from Islamabad, Pakistan. "You can put this in a backpack." He added, "I truly believe this equipment is the future." Robertson contrasts his use of the videophone to his experiences as a video technician during CNN's legendary broadcasts from Baghdad at the start of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Those broadcasts were possible because Robertson was able to sneak bulky satellite equipment past Iraqi border inspectors by breaking the equipment into innocuous-looking pieces. A videophone, he says, probably wouldn't have attracted the same kind of attention, or required the same kind of deception. Robertson apparently was the first network correspondent to report via videophone. In December 1999 he broadcast exclusive video and sound of a hijacking in Kandahar, Afghanistan, using an earlier version of the device. But the technology really earned its breaking-news laurels earlier this year when CNN went live from Hainan, China, during the standoff between Chinese and American officials over a captured U.S. spy plane. Despite later objections from Chinese officials, a videophone captured images of American service men and women boarding a plane that would take them out of Chinese custody. After that, CNN's competitors scrambled to get their own videophones. Although the devices produce images that are poor by conventional standards, they produce pictures nevertheless -- something TV can't live without. "Ultimately, I think the viewer will forgive the lower-grade quality," said Sharri Berg, vice president of news operations for the Fox News Channel. "This doesn't really replace traditional [technologies] in the field, but it does enhance them." New versions of the videophones are expected to improve on the herky-jerky pictures. The technology is improving so rapidly, in fact, that it may present a challenge to the U.S. military as it attempts to maintain restrictions on live accounts of military action. A reporter, after all, could broadcast virtually undetected from anywhere in a theater of operations. "We're getting awfully close to the battlefield, to creating a true TV war," said Stephen Hess, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "Once the bombs start bursting, the government wants to take as much control as possible." However, Eason Jordan, CNN's chief news executive, said the technology doesn't change reporters' ethical responsibilities. "We're not spies, we're professional journalists," he said. "We're committed to [acting properly] with this or without it. We still have to do what's prudent and responsible." Hess pointed out that each war seems to bring a newer, faster technology to cover it. In the Civil War, it was the telegraph and still photography. During World War I, it was newsreels. Radio reporters covered World War II. During the Vietnam era, people saw the fighting on TV for the first time -- albeit at a distance. "It used to take about three days to get tape out of Vietnam and onto the air," Hess said. "There's a lot to be said for that kind of delay. The old adage is true: Half of what you learn in a crisis is wrong, and you never know which half it is. . . . We're speeding up our information, [but] I'm loath to say we're increasing our knowledge and understanding." Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune |