The media: Another casualty of war

Philippine Daily Inquirer, Asia News Network, Manila

The invasion of Iraq by the so-called "coalition forces" composed basically of only American and British troops is radically altering the way the media are covering war. After this, media coverage of an international conflict will never be the same again.The media have been practically conscripted into the fight, and more than 500 journalists have been "embedded" in military units. One advantage of this is that the journalists have a "ringside view" of the fighting and can give fresh, detailed, on-the-spot reports to their readers and viewers.

The disadvantages, however, outweigh the advantage. The greatest disadvantage is that freedom of the press suffers because the reporting of the "embedded journalists" is limited by coverage restrictions that are supposed to "guide" them.

Reporting is expectedly biased in favor of the U.S. military because journalists are living with the troops. One cannot be unfriendly to or critical of people with whom one figuratively is in bed.

Tim Blackmore, professor of media studies at the University of Western Ontario, said that from embedded journalists "we can only expect the Stockholm syndrome where those who are supposed to be innocent witnesses become perpetrators, joining with those about whom they are supposed to be objective."

In the coverage of the second Persian Gulf conflict, the great majority of the U.S. media outlets have lost their traditional objectivity and are following the U.S. government line. Tony Murphy, media coordinator for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, said, "The media has sort of functioned as a propaganda arm for the Pentagon, helping the U.S. make its case for a war that is vastly unpopular around the world."

Leaders of protesters in the U.S. believe there is conspiracy on the part of Big Media to promote the war for the benefit of big business. Big businesses, like oil companies and defense contractors, are expected to benefit handsomely from the war. The protesters allege that the media have failed to challenge the U.S. government's rationale for invading Iraq.

In particular, CNN has been accused of "substituting patriotism for (the media's vaunted) skepticism." The pro- government media are virtually wrapping the flag around themselves to protect themselves from the charge of lack of objectivity.

One disturbing aspect of the U.S. media coverage of the war is censorship. Censorship is to be expected in any coverage of a war, but it usually covers only security matters. Here journalists are being censored because of their views of the war. New York-based Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting noted that although the war is being fought under the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom," it has constricted the range of expression of media outlets within the U.S. And, we may add, also in the rest of the world.

Brent Flynn of the Lewisville (Texas) Leader was told he could no longer write a column after he had expressed anti-war views. Kurt Hauglie, a reporter and columnist for Michigan's Huron Daily Tribune, quit the paper after he was told that an anti-war column he had written would not be published. MSNBC canceled Phil Donahue's talk show because, it said, he would be "a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war," given that "he seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war."

But the most prominent "media casualty" was veteran war correspondent Peter Arnett who was fired by NBC after he said in an interview with Iraqi TV that war planners had "misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces" and that there was "a growing challenge to President Bush about the conduct of the war."

The images of war being shown on TV may not be giving a complete, objective picture of the conflict. If one wants perspective and depth, one will read newspapers accounts, but then certain newspapers have exhibited a heavy bias for government and Big Business. A more objective, more in-depth report of the war may come after the fighting is over, when reporters and writers are no longer under a psychological pressure to wave the flag.

The wall-to-wall, 24-hour coverage of the invasion of Iraq is arguably the most extensive, most intensive and most technologically advanced coverage of any war. It is bound to have an impact on military strategy and on the making of military, political and foreign policy. The media, after the war, may have to do some soul-searching and determine what they did right and what they did wrong and whether freedom of the press and media ethics were violated in the frenzied coverage of the conflict.