Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : PROPAGANDA AND THE GLOBAL 'WAR' ON TERROR (GWOT) Years 1 and 2, ie 9/11-2003
The War Media: Neutral Reportage or Non-Military Combatants? by Dr. Leslie Jermyn 
The War Media: Neutral Reportage or Non-Military Combatants? by Dr. Leslie Jermyn Since the other Gulf War (the one in 1991 not 1980-88), there has been much debate and postmodern reflexivity in the media about their role in war. If you recall, that one was hailed as the first real television war where we were 'permitted,' and some would say forced, to view the proceedings in round-the-clock technicolour in our living rooms, cafes, bars etc. Much was made of the significance of media in determining public attitudes to war. So for example, that iconic picture of the little girl running down the road, alight with napalm, or Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire in protest are cited as powerful motivators for the anti-Vietnam War movement. In contrast, we were told, the videogame surreality of Gulf War I gave us a sense of detachment from the human element which in turn, bolstered a prowar public sentiment. Now we are transfixed by the second great television war, Gulf War II, and once again an examination of the role of media is relevant. There have been some poignant and witty comments on the CNN/Fox/BBC/Sky live coverage of the conflict on both sides of the Atlantic. It has been suggested that one of the problems with this war is just how inane and boring this coverage is - how it resolutely refuses to satisfy the requirements of TV pacing: "It was supposed to be a war that kept up with the demands of 24-hour news coverage. Why was Basra not taken? Would we always be 60 miles from Baghdad?... Thankfully, when no military activity is available to fill the space left after you've fitted in the captions, logo, time and a talking man's head, there is another reliable screen-saver: the fixed shot of the Baghdad skyline, invariably introduced with great flourish by the BBC's Huw Edwards & as if it were a thrilling novelty." (Catherine Bennett of The Guardian, London) The Americans were a bit more hopeful about the effect of war-game TV: "[T]he war in Iraq [is] the ultimate in reality television, [is] the apotheosis of every favorite Hollywood genre, from the combat thriller to the coming-of-age tale to the blow-'em-up, special-effects extravaganza. "The characters are the same: the president is a Bush, and the other guy is Hussein," Erik Sorenson, president of MSNBC, told USA Today. "But the technology - the military's and the media's - has exploded." He likened the change to "the difference between Atari and PlayStation," and added that "this may be one time where the sequel is more compelling than the original."" (Michiko Kakutani of The New York Times, NY) Apart from pacing and special effects, how is media shaping up? When things got tricky after only 4 days of 'shock and awe' and everyone began to doubt whether Cheney's predictions would hold (a fast war) or whether Rumsfeld's plan was solid (too few troops), Bill O'Reilly of Fox News commented, "if you watch too much TV news coverage, your perspective can get warped." As Fox has been a staunch supporter of the White House hawks, O'Reilly seems to suggest that it's not good to watch coverage of a war not going to plan, afterall, it may shake your conviction that the war was a good idea in the first place. But this suggests that the corporate media is presenting the truth about the war even when it's bad news. Let's examine some facts to see if that's true. For starters, it is simply naïve to believe that coverage is 'balanced' - as the big networks and papers would claim. Just this week, a tragedy occurred that made that bias starkly apparent. On April 1st, it was reported that 7 Iraqi women and children were killed by US soldiers at a checkpoint between Najaf and Kerbala. Compare these headlines: "Failing to Heed G.I.'s, 7 Iraqis Die at Checkpoint" New York Times "'You didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!'" The Guardian The first implicitly blames the civilians for their own deaths, while the second quotes an officer at the scene upbraiding his men for an error in judgment. This is no more than expected perhaps, but it is not only a lack of balance that is apparent but the absence of real journalism. All the major media were invited to send 'embeds' with the troops in action. This was the Pentagon's response to criticisms of the last Gulf War that journalists never got a chance to see the front lines. Arundhati Roy comments that of all the words to have entered common parlance from this conflict, 'embed' is probably the most ironically accurate. Some have argued that the Pentagon has decided to turn its old foes into good pals by being as open as possible about the war - including staging photogenic briefings in the $250,000 Hollywood set at Doha, Qatar. However, I think the words of embed, David Bloom of NBC, most chillingly capture the new relationship between the military and the press: "I can tell you that these soldiers have been amazing to us. They have done anything and everything that we could ask of them, and we in turn are trying to return the favor by doing anything and everything that they can ask of us." Real journalism is unlikely to have much of a chance with such cozy media-military relations. Then we have the incident of MSNBC's Peter Arnett being dismissed for telling an Iraqi television reporter that the war planners hadn't expected so much resistance. The excuse given is that he shouldn't have revealed key information to the enemy. That's fine if you ignore the fact that Iraq is not on the moon, Iraqis can watch satellite news along with the rest of us and so probably knew, even before Arnett himself, that there were debates about the number of soldiers needed to continue the war. It can be no coincidence that Arnett has been critical of the 'cakewalk' and 'shock and awe' propaganda from the beginning. Early in the war, he interviewed Tariq Aziz in Iraq and was told that the Iraqis would not be pushovers. MSNBC refused to air the story. Don't worry about Arnett, though, he was immediately offered a job at the Daily Mirror, a UK newspaper that has come out strongly antiwar since the beginning. In the name of 'balance,' it is important to note that Iraqi television has been no less propagandistic in its coverage of the war. They used images of captured US troops and a downed helicopter to keep the spirit of resistance high. Likewise, though the coalition is not being forthcoming about civilian deaths (they either don't have the foggiest or the number is too scary), it is unwise to accept the Iraqi popular version either. What is most entertaining about reports of Iraqi broadcasts is not the extent to which events are exaggerated, but the reactions of US officials. My favourite game is the one where Saddam appears or speaks or is quoted (it's happened about 4 times to date) and Rummy immediately alerts the media that Saddam may already be dead. I wonder if every time Rumsfeld appears, Iraqi television speculates on his continued existence? He is 70 afterall& Many brave journalists decided to skip the Pentagon's invitation get 'embed' with the soldiers, and have been reporting from a variety of hotspots. They are quite literally risking life and limb as the tragic death of ITN's Terry Lloyd in week one attests. To add insult to injury, he was killed by coalition tanks firing on surrendering Iraqis. Lloyd's death is, unfortunately, not an isolated incident in this war. The importance of the work of these journalists was emphasized by Robert Fisk of The Independent. He reported on the Baghdad market bombing from Baghdad, not Qatar, that the bomb had killed at least 30 civilians - US newspapers reported 14 dead. Fisk later revised that to 60 on the basis of investigation while the US papers shifted their emphasis away from the death toll to probable causes of the 'accident,' suggesting that it could have been a stray Iraqi anti-aircraft missile. Fisk found a fragment of the bomb with a serial number on it and his readers were able to use an internet database to trace the bomb to an American factory. Without journalists like these, I doubt we would have as accurate a view of the war as we have now. It is supremely ironic that corporate talking heads are quick to remind us that non-embed reports are being monitored and therefore are not reliable. I'm sorry for being biased but I put my money on the 'out-of-beds' for uncensored journalism any day. Media can be influential as much for what is reported as for what is left out. Has anyone else noticed that reports of antiwar protests have simply disappeared from the headlines? I know the protests continue in many shapes and sizes around the world, but it is as if editors and producers have assumed that we were getting bored by them. If any editors or producers read this, please know that these protests are far from boring and for many, were a beacon of hope in these tragic times. If they are concerned that protests are simply not as newsworthy as the war itself, perhaps they should consider the fact that this war may indeed prove to be the turning point in world history, not because another strongman is ousted, but because, to quote Arundhati Roy, "Bush's tactless imprudence and his brazen belief that he can run the world with his riot squad, &has achieved what writers, activists and scholars have striven to achieve for decades. He has exposed the ducts. He has placed on full public view the working parts, the nuts and bolts of the apocalyptic apparatus of the American empire. Now that the blueprint (The Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire) has been put into mass circulation, it could be disabled quicker than the pundits predicted." Let's hope so& In conclusion, I agree heartily with Fox's O'Reilly, "if you watch too much TV news coverage, your perspective can get warped." To quote Lucian Truscott, "not since the halcyon days of Ronald Reagan has an administration been so adept at managing information and manipulating images. In Iraq, the Bush administration has beaten the press at its own game. It has turned the media into a weapon of war." The only way to avoid being part of the 'collateral damage' of the corporate media weapon, is to avoid it. Switch off your PlayStation and arm yourself with alternative truths. © Dr. Leslie Jermyn cooperative@globalaware.org Leslie Jermyn is a social anthropologist, researcher and writer. Leslie has also written extensively on Latin America and global issues. This article is copyright by Dr. Leslie Jermyn but permission is granted for reprint in email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is clearly appended. All other enquiries to cooperative@GlobalAware.org Please let us know how and where you use the article. |