hmm, just off the top of my head...
*rustles through last year's journalism folder*
For Country or For Truth: The Ethics Of Reporting On Conflict In The Second Iraqi War
“The media does not have the right to be on the battle field. The US military is going to reserve the right to ensure there are no factors out there that are endangering the operation."
Bryan Whitman, deputy spokesmen for the United States Department of Defence.
Newcastle recently played host to the This Is Not Art student media conference, a collection of seminars held to debate and discuss all aspects of the media in Australia. At one of the seminars, ‘Reporting On Conflict,’ a host of speakers met to discuss the ethical problems facing journalists when reporting on war. Although intended to cover all types of military conflict, discussion seemed to keep turning back to the recent (or is that ongoing?) war in Iraq, particularly the role of the media as the ‘fourth estate.’ Media coverage was a hotly contested issue during the conflict – and still is today – and a number of important issues were raised regarding the topic. When does the public’s right to know infringe on the military’s right to run an efficient and successful campaign, and vice versa? How does embedded journalism affect a journalist’s ability to report what they see objectively? Where does the role of the media to inform the public stop, and bias begin? It seemed that these questions were of particular relevance to the Second Gulf War, for a number of reasons.
The Iraqi war stands out as being markedly different compared to other recent international conflicts. The political controversy surrounding it’s build up meant that it was always going to be a closely scrutinised conflict - those who were in opposition to it were waiting for the US-led coalition to slip up - and for this reason the US government mounted a carefully planned campaign to present the best possible image to the rest of the world. This is not to say that the other conflicts America had been involved in during the past few years had not been executed in the same manner, but a definitive strategy was put in place in Iraq to minimise negative coverage of the war effort. Command centers styled on television studios, ‘embedded’ journalists, and euphemistic military jargon all added to the glossy image of this decidedly media-saturated war.
It was perhaps due to this that fact that the role of media as the fourth estate came under question during the Iraqi war. Will it continue to be in future conflict?
Sarah Miskin is the author of the paper Media Under Fire: Reporting Conflict in Iraq, which was recently published by the Australian Parliamentary Library. Covering many of the topics raised earlier, the paper (written before the war) shows great insight into the ethical problems faced by those covering the conflict. A former New Zealand resident, Miskin was a foreign news sub-editor at a newspaper in Christchurch during the first Gulf War, and was horrified by the manipulation of the media by the military – much of which she did not realise had taken place until after the war.
“Hindsight is a great thing,” she says. “Only after the dust had settled and the real information had emerged did we realise how much the truth had been distorted by both the media and the military.”
It was for this reason that in the late 1990’s she wrote an honours level essay on reporting on conflict, which became the basis for her paper.
One of the main focuses of the paper is the phenomenon of ‘embedded’ journalism. The United States military took with it five hundred journalists to Iraq to ‘embed’ with it’s troops. These embedded journalists were attached to one particular army unit, with whom they were obliged to stay with during the whole course of the conflict. It is argued that, coupled with new technology such as digital cameras, embedded journalists will broadcast some of the most realistic and graphic images of war yet seen by the public. Their close proximity to the troops, and therefore to the battles themselves, has been heralded as a revolution in the way war is covered
However, embedded journalism raises some serious questions regarding objective coverage of the war. Firstly, guidelines put in place by the Pentagon mean that there are some restrictions on what embedded journalists are allowed to report. For example, the guidelines state that “all interviews with service personnel are to be ‘on the record’ ”- says Miskin, “ 'On the record' interviews may prevent service personnel from telling the truth for fear of disciplinary action for saying too much.”
Also, on-scene commanders have the right to censor information about ‘ongoing engagements,’ and it feared that the ambiguity of this guideline may result in commanders having an undefined definition of what an ‘ongoing engagement’ is, therefore using it as a way to restrict information.
Questions have also been raised about the camaraderie that is formed between journalists and troops when they are involved in battle together. While not inherently a negative thing, it is feared that the bond formed between the journalist and the troops may result in the journalist developing a subjective viewpoint, as they begin to feel that they are part of the unit – when they are supposed to be an objective observer.
Examples of this were seen in the Falklands war on 1982. Journalists were embedded on British navy ships, and not only did they become entirely dependent on the navy for food, water and shelter, they also needed to use the ship’s communication channels to send reports home – this resulted in the military having complete control over what was made public. Although this was not as prominent a concern in the Iraqi war, it still shows how embedded journalism can result in the loss of objectivity – both intentionally and inadvertently.
Another similar problem that was encountered in the Iraqi war was that of self-censorship - media outlets deliberately suppressing and reporting un-confirmed information in an apparent attempt to assist the military. While not so much of a problem in Australia, the American press were significantly affected by the dilemma of what was more important – objectivity or patriotism. Numerous examples abound: just recently, CNN journalist Christiane Amanpour admitted that she thought the press in Iraq were ‘intimidated’ by the Bush Administration into following the government’s line. However she also believes many media outlets would have been guilty of this with or without the government’s influence.
"I think the press was muzzled and I think the press self-muzzled," Ms Amanpour told former Vanity Fair editor, Tina Brown, on her CNBC talkshow.
"I'm sorry to say that, but certainly television - and perhaps to a certain extent my station - was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News," she said.
"And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did," Ms Amanpour said.
In reply, A Fox News spokeswoman was quoted as saying: "It's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."
However, it would be unfair to say that this apparent bias is the fault of the media alone. In his article What is propaganda to one side is news to the other, Dennis Muller questions how a journalist is supposed to report any information they receive in a fair manner. “How should they (the media) make reasonable decisions about what to publish when they know that everything can be turned into propaganda?” Says Miskin in her article, “An important question is whether such a 'positive' stance on the part of the media is appropriate during wartime, when the media's role in presenting alternative opinions is vital.”
However, there are those who believe that presenting an alternative viewpoint can come at a price. On the 9th of April this year, as Coalition forces advanced on Baghdad, two freelance journalists were killed when American forces attacked their hotel, apparently in self-defence. Retaliating after allegedly coming under "significant enemy fire," the American forces fired a single tank shell in to the building, later saying it was “unfortunate” that journalists were inside. Despite the American’s claims of self-defence, eyewitnesses claim that the US tank knew exactly what it was firing at.
"Film shot by the French TV station France 3 and descriptions by journalists show the neighbourhood was very quiet at that hour,” said Reporters Sans Frontieres secretary general Robert Menard, “and that the US tank crew took their time, waiting for a couple of minutes and adjusting its gun before opening fire.”
Those killed were from independent news sources, not affiliated with the American military.
On the same day, US troops also bombed the offices of al-Jazeera (the ‘CNN of the Middle-East) and Abu Dhabi Television, killing a Palestinian-Jordanian journalist working for al-Jazeera. This was despite the fact that Al Jazeera had previously given the US their co-ordinates, as well as putting a giant ‘TV’ sign on their roof, to avoid being mistakenly bombed.
These two events led the International Federation of Journalists to accuse the American military of deliberately attacking independent journalists. The IFJ compared the attack on Al Jazeera with the bombing of the Kabul offices of al-Jazeera by American forces during the war in Afghanistan in 2001. "It is impossible not to detect a sinister pattern," said Aiden White, the IJF’s general secretary. "This war has been the most televised conflict in history," said White, "but the protection afforded to journalists and media staff is prehistoric by comparison."
Essentially, the media and the military serve the same roles in a democratic society. Both are in place to protect freedom – freedom of the individual and freedom of the state. The military provide us with physical protection, while the media perform a different form of protection – protection from ourselves. However, it is when the two overlap in their roles that conflict arises. What is more important – the public’s right to know or the military’s right to win? Says Miskin, “An inherent tension between the goals of the media and those of the military gives the latter an incentive to attempt to control the information transmitted to the public in order to ensure public support for the conflict.” But at what price? As Miskin notes in her article, “the result may be too much detail and not enough substance.”
