Media Coverage of War - Research Paper Example

?Introduction For truth to be known in the society there must be someone to tell it to others without biasness (Rid 76). In the contemporary society,people rely heavily on the media and major policy makers to obtain information about important events happening around the world. War is one of the major newsworthy events that attract numerous media attention. However, during the war, information from the journalists is often censored by the media organizations, resulting to false reporting and biased news. This paper examines media coverage during the war, with detailed focus on the war in Iraq. The build up to Iraq war and the war itself received wide media attention across the world. The normal television broadcasting schedules of major broadcasters were often disrupted to bring the 24-hour coverage of the war and related analysis. The war coverage was not restricted to the electronic media. The daily newspapers displayed numerous pages with detailed images from the war frontlines. Viewers around the world were able to enjoy quality coverage of the action in the comfort of their homes. It is with no doubt that, the media coverage of the war on Iraq was one of the highest visual qualities, exceeding the coverage of previous wars in the world (Allan and Zelizer 53-60) However, the media coverage of the war on Iraq in 2003 continues eliciting ethical issues, particularly on the role that the journalists played in ensuring that all parties involved in the conflict received fair media attention. In addition, the effects that the coverage had on different groups of people across the world are another major issue of concern. Impartial and objective media coverage is the epitome of professional journalism but during war on Iraq, objectivity was one of the most controversial issues. The issues of impartiality and objectivity were particularly more questionable because most of the journalists came from United States and other western countries that supported the war. The interests in the Iraq conflict particularly in the United States were intense because of the high stakes involved, causing biasness in the reporting (Steven et al, 570-572). In the course of the war coverage, major media houses especially from United States and United Kingdom are renowned for biasness while covering conflicts (Juliane 46). According to Juliane the media companies in these countries seldom question the morality of their countries’ engagement in the conflicts (52). For instance during the Falkland’s war involving United Kingdom and Argentina, Juliane noted that the media in the country failed to challenge the rationale of war. The situation was similar during the first gulf war in 1991 when the American and British press remained largely biased in favor of the allied forces (63-65). Rid attributes the apparent lack of professionalism in the media to vested interests, where the media owners fear reporting actual facts in order to maintain cordial economic relations with the government of the day(82). The media coverage of war in Iraq elicited different criticism from the society. Lewis argued that the coverage from the frontline presented the war as a form of entertainment, involving a superior forces led by the United States displaying their military might against an inferior opposition (55-68). Similarly, the graphic broadcasts elicited concerns about their psychological effects on the audience, especially the young children. In Britain and United States, there were concerns that media would broadcast graphic images of wounded and killed soldiers to the public. This would create psychological suffering to the relatives and trigger public outrage against the war (Rid 77) There was a pronounced contrast between the broadcasts by pro western media and Arab media during the Iraq war. Al jazeera television network, a pro Arabic media house demonstrated a remarkable journalistic coverage by showing the untold suffering of the Iraqi people meted by the occupying forces. The station showed images of Iraqi civilian victims and prisoners of war captured in the custody of the Americans in Mosul and Basra. The broadcast elicited vehement criticism from the United States military led by the then secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Other pro Arabian television stations such as Abou Dhabi TV, and Al Arabiya played a major role in challenging the pro American media coverage of the war on Iraq (Allan and Zelizer 62) There were various misperceptions related to the war on Iraq. Prior to the war, the United States had experienced a devastating terror attack in New York in 2001, which claimed the lives of more than 3000 Americans. In addition, American embassies in East Africa had been bombed in 1998, killing several hundred people including American citizens. The al-Qaida terror group was held responsible for these attacks (Baum 39-48). Therefore, the American public held a number of misconceptions, which were mainly propagated by the media and the American government. The first misperception was an alleged collaboration between Iraq and the al-Qaida terror network (Steven 573). Before and after the war on Iraq, a significant number of Americans were convinced by the media that the Baghdad administration led by Saddam Hussein supported the infamous terror organization. These misperceptions were demonstrated in a research study conducted by Gallup poll after the September 11 terror attacks in New York. According to Gallup, 68 percent of Americans interviewed believed that the Baghdad administration played a major role in the bombings. Although there was no concrete evidence linking Iraq with the allegations, a significant proportion of Americans believed there were substantial reasons to associate the country with the terror group (41-50). Another misperception was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed serious danger to the United States and European powers (Steven et al 574). Prior to the Iraq invasion in 2003, a study conducted by Gallup established that an overwhelming majority of Americans believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (73). Therefore, they argued that invading the country would destroy the arsenals and limit its ability to attack the United States. This view was also held by the American intelligence. After the Iraqi invasion in 2003, no weapons of mass destruction were found. However, these findings did not change the misconception among the Americans that Iraq possessed the weapons (Steven et al 577). A study conducted by Steven et al in September 2003 after the fall of Saddam Hussein regime established that 35 percent of Americans still believed that the country had the weapons (580). Moreover, 22 percent of the respondents believed that Saddam Hussein administration used chemical and biological weapons against American forces during the invasion (579-584). The misperception that the war on terror had gained significant international legitimacy enhanced the American public support of the Iraq invasion (Steven et al 587). After the September 11 terror attacks, the American government embarked on a mission of seeking international legitimacy in the war against terror in the world. The war on terror sought to pursue and destroy the indentified terror groups all over the world, especially in Arab countries that were alleged to be sympathizers or supporters of terrorism (Baum 44). However, Allan, and Zelizer argue that majority of Americans misperceived international support for war against terror to imply that the international community supported Iraq invasion(116). A study conducted by Steven et al in March 2003 before Iraq invasion established that 65 percent of American believed that the international community supported the war. In addition, 48 percent of Americans believed that the Islamic world supported Iraq military invasion by the United States to eliminate terrorists (588-590). However, the American mass media deliberately failed to cover the considerable number of American citizens who opposed the war from the beginning in order to ensure high public support of the operation. The chart below demonstrates the influence of misperceptions in the war on Iraq in 2003. The proportion of American people supporting war on Iraq without the influence of misperceptions was 40%. The proportion of American population influenced by the misperception that there was link between Iraq and al-Qaida was 32%, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq 20% and world opinion 8% (Steven et al 580). Source: Steven, Kull, Clay Ramsay and Evan Lewis. “The Misperceptions the Media and the Iraq War”. Political Science Quarterly, 118.4(2004): 580. Mass media plays a critical role in conflict. Allen and Seaton classified the role of media during conflicts into two categories (39-40). Firstly, mass media could play an active role in the conflict resulting to exacerbation of violence. Secondly, it could be non partisan and independent in the conflict, which facilitates mitigation of violence and establishment of effective approaches of resolving the conflict (Allen and Seaton 48). The role which mass media plays in exacerbating or preventing violence depends on various factors. However, the relationship between the media and the parties involved in the conflict and its independence are the major determining factors (Allen and Seaton 74) In Iraq war, the media coverage of the war on Iraq was biased. The western and Islamic media houses were prejudiced and taking sides in the conflict. The Pro Arabic media footage of the war especially by Al jazeera television network defied the pro-western style of coverage. For instance, the Al jazeera television network showed the adverse effects of the conflict that was deliberately overlooked by the American media in order to sustain the public support of the conflict (Rid, 105). In the war, the United States media had defended the use military strategies such as “precision bombing” which was said to reduce the number of civilian casualties (Lewis, 114). However, Al jazeera television network showed footage of the aftermath of the operations on Iraqis, including images of dead and wounded children and wanton destruction of the country’s infrastructure. The station also showed the adverse effects of cluster bombs used by the invading forces, but the American media did not report application of the highly destructive bombs during the war. In addition, the Aljazeera television network repeatedly referred the war as “illegitimate” (Rid 98-102) The biasness of the media during the war had several implications to the viewers and the world at large. However, the most significant impact was dividing the public and the world opinion into two opposing groups, with one group supporting the war while others opposing it vehemently (Baum 122). The failure of the pro allies’ media to broadcast diverse opinions of the war swayed the public opinion into supporting the war on Iraq without understanding the actual facts. In United States, the American media portrayed the war as a matter of national patriotism, which undermined the independence of journalists covering the event (Rid 82). Extensive use of embedded journalists increased the biasness of the media coverage further in United States because the military had the power to appoint and the sack news reporters (Rid 71). This process undermined the authenticity of the information collected in the war because it was deliberately structured to serve the interests of the American forces to sustain and enhance public support. Another impact of the biased reporting by the American media was dehumanization of the Iraqi people. The suffering of the innocent civilians and non-combatants in Iraq at the hands of American forces was not adequately covered. Consequently, the Iraqi victims of war such as children and women failed to get timely assistance from humanitarian organizations, leading to heavy loss of lives and needless suffering. To determine the authenticity of media coverage during the war on Iraq, I observed and analyzed a recorded interview carried out in the Brookings Institution, on June, 17, 2003. The topic of the discussion was “Assessing media coverage of the war in Iraq: press reports, pentagon rules and lessons for the future”. The panelists in the forum were Victoria Clarke, assistant secretary of defense, Bob Franken, an embedded journalist in Iraq working with CNN, Terrence Smith, a media correspondent at PBS and John Walcott, a senior journalist at Knight Ridder Newspapers. In the interview, the assistant secretary of defense defended the use of embedded journalists in Iraq war as the most effective strategy of ensuring that the American media has access to all information from the frontline in Iraq. In addition, the assistant secretary revealed that Iraq forces disguised themselves as civilians, in order to launch attacks on the American soldiers (Brookings Institution). The embedded reporter in the interview affirmed that there was great temptation for the journalists to be biased in favor of the military units they were attached to during the war. In addition, the embedded journalists declared that most of his colleagues were not professionally trained on the role of media during conflicts. During the interview, the embedded reporter detailed how they experienced the horrors and joys of the war in their respective units. However, the embedded journalists asserted that although they covered all events in the war, they were not responsible for determining the content that was released in the press. The editors of various media houses edited graphic images and footing showing dead bodies of American soldiers and civilians in the war and instead published the dramatic events and stories in the conflict (Brookings Institution). Conclusion It is apparent that the media coverage of the war on Iraq was characterized by widespread professional misconduct, which resulted to broadcasting and publishing of biased and false information emanating from the conflict. One of the major impacts of the biased reporting was that majority of people in United States and the world were misinformed on the actual events occurring in Iraq. Consequently, majority of the audience were tricked into supporting the operation. The reporting portrayed the war as professionally conducted operation characterized by entertaining and dramatic events. This created a perception that there were few casualties in Iraq, which undermined humanitarian intervention efforts to rescue the most vulnerable victims in the conflict, especially young children and women. Work Cited Allan, Stuart and Zelizer, Barbie. Reporting War: Journalism in War Time. New York: Routledge, 2004 Allen Tim and Seaton Jean. The Media of Conflict: War Reporting And Representations Of Ethnic Violence. London: Zed Books Ltd, 1999. Baum, Matthew. Soft News Goes To War: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy In The New Media Age. London: Princeton University Press, 2003. Brookings Institution. “Assessing media coverage of the war in Iraq: Press reports, pentagon, rules and lessons for the future. 17 June, 2003. 22 June 2012. http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20030617.pdf Gallup, Horace and Gallup George. The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 2003. New York: Rowman and Little Field Publishers, 2004. Juliane, Weuffene. War Coverage in the American Media. London: Sage Publicatiions, 1994. Lewis, Justin. Shoot First and Ask Questions Later: Media Coverage of the 2003 Iraq War. New York: Peter Lang Publishing 2006. Rid, Thomas. War and Media Operations: The US Military and the Press from Vietnam to Iraq. New York: Routledge, 2007. Steven, Kull, et al. “Misperceptions the Media and the Iraq War”. Political Science Quarterly, 118.4(2004): 569-590. Read More