War on Iraq
www.GlobalAware.org
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.
|
