Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : PROPAGANDA AND THE GLOBAL 'WAR' ON TERROR (GWOT) Years 1 and 2, ie 9/11-2003
What's in a name? More than you think by Joe Saltzman 
What's in a name? More than you think. (Words & Images).(Editorial) USA Today (Magazine), July, 2003, by Joe Saltzman TELEVISION COVERAGE of the Iraqi war and postwar illustrates once again how American television news is obsessed with show business terminology that at the very least is poor journalism and at its worst corrupts and ignores a basic rule of journalism: fairness and accuracy in all reporting. With the government's public relations arm pushing hard, phrases to describe the war and postwar stories moved from a fair account of what was going on to an oppressive vocabulary that gave a spin to the coverage. Colorful phrases, sometimes patriotic, sometimes just plain wrong, gave much of the TV news coverage a convenient anti-Iraqi/pro-American stance. Some examples: "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was used constantly by Fox and MSNBC as a banner for summing up the coverage of the war in the Middle East. Few would dispute that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" sounded noble and gave a heroic and honorable reason for going to war as opposed to the accurate and more evenhanded "The War in Iraq" of "The Iraqi Conflict." Fighting for a country's freedom brings images of the American and French revolutions, of World War II soldiers fighting against Hitler and the Japanese, and of friendly, grateful citizens waving American flags to greet soldiers who had liberated their country. These images neatly fit with a title like "Operation Iraqi Freedom." "The War in Iraq" conjures up destruction and death. It is one thing for the Administration to use favorable phrases to win support for its policies, quite another for the American media to use such phrases in trying to describe what is going on in a Middle East war. "Coalition forces" sounds as if a worldwide coalition of military force is being used to fight the war. It's certainly the Bush-approved term for the American and British forces fighting in Iraq. News organizations, however, shouldn't use phrases that do not adequately describe the situation. It was American soldiers in Baghdad, not coalition forces, but most of the news media used the phrase "coalition forces" throughout the coverage of the war. Going into a foreign country to get rid of "weapons of mass destruction" makes sense. As Time magazine put it, "they sound so much more fearsome than chemical or biological weapons. A few papers, like The New York Times, have been careful to use 'unconventional weapons' or other terms instead." If you were trying to figure out whether the war in Iraq was justified, see which sentence would convince you: "Operation Iraqi Freedom was underway as coalition forces went into Iraq to discover and destroy weapons of mass destruction"; or "The war in Iraq was underway as American and British forces went into Iraq to discover and destroy unconventional weapons." "Collateral damage" doesn't sound as horrific as civilian casualties or, even more accurately, civilians who were wounded, maimed, or killed by American bombs and ground fire. Certain phrases make a difference in our perception of what goes on in our world. Catchphrases that make unpopular events less difficult to accept should not be a part of daily news media coverage. It demeans both the journalist and the viewer. Many watching the television war coverage were impressed with the pictures sent back by "embedded" journalists traveling with various military units in the field. And many of the images and reports were spectacular, but at what cost? No one would deny that reporters embedded with individual units would be partial to the people around them saving their lives. No one would deny that this kind of coverage simply gives the viewer a glimpse at specific moments in war. No embedded reporter has the chance or the ability to interview the other side during a battle. In many ways, this coverage, while unique in the history of war reporting, gave an even more-distorted view of what was going on in the field than battle reports issued by reporters safely away from the sounds and sights of immediate warfare. None of this is to say that we shouldn't have reports from embedded reporters. It is one more attempt to figure out what is going on during wartime. It must be put into proper perspective, however. The British broadcasters and the Middle East press did an effective job in showing other sides of the war, other sides that were either not reported by the American news media or given short shrift next to the action-packed, myopic reports from embedded correspondents in the field. Perhaps even more damaging was the news media's attempt to "censor" unpleasant sights and sounds from the battlefield because they were worried about offending American sensibilities. The most-grievous example was the failure of U.S. news media to show the footage of the American prisoners of war when the entire world was watching what was happening to them. Moreover, other pictures of wounded Iraqi civilians were also missing in much of the American news media coverage. Many viewers turned to other sources for news of the war--newspapers, magazines, the Internet, the BBC, and cable stations showing some of the foreign coverage. The TV news media never should assume the role of a parent deciding what images and sounds the American people should be allowed to see. While it is true that pictures of wounded Iraqi civilians and abused POWs do not give viewers an accurate and complete picture of the war by themselves, they would have been an important addition to the embedded war coverage of bullets and sand-clouded battles. One wonders what the news media would have shown, however, if an embedded reporter was suddenly blown to bits on camera. War is always brutal and the images always horrible and hard to watch. If the American TV news media want to cover modern warfare, they will have to do far more than give us fancy showbiz titles and only the sounds and images that they deem suitable for G-rated TV news. Joe Saltzman, Associate Mass Media Editor of USA Today; associate dean and professor of journalism, University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication, Los Angeles; and director of the Image of the Journalist in Popular Culture, a project of the Norman Lear Center, is the author of Frank Capra and the Image of the Journalist in American Film. COPYRIGHT 2003 Society for the Advancement of Education COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group |