The Role of Global Media in War on Terror - Case Study Example

 Reporting of ‘War on Terror’ in the Global Media The happenings on that fateful day, now commonly referred to as the 9/11, had shaken the world as a whole to its core. The large majority of the people of the world had watched with abject horror the aircrafts hit the twin towers and the Pentagon, and equated the crumbling of a secure world with the falling down of the structures. The global media had projected the feelings of the people, and come out strongly condemning the attacks. The Americans were a people wronged, and the sympathy of the global media was with the people of the United States. The United States responded with its declaration of the ‘War on Terror’. The majority of the global media joined in with the United States and its allies in what was considered an obligation to make the world a more secure place to live in. Media support for the cause was overwhelming. Only a very small part of the global media, such as those in the Middle East, lacked the enthusiasm in their support for the War on Terror. The Immediate Aftermath of 9/11 Even in those early days, however, the overall media support was tinted with local political, social and religious colors. This has been attributed to the fact that “While journalists and media staff take terrible risks to get their story, governments on all sides seek to influence media coverage to suit their own political and strategic interests” (White, 2002). This is evident if we examine the cases of some individual countries as examples. In Australia, the media coverage of the War on Terror became closely associated with the issue of asylum seekers to the country, a large majority of whom were from Iraq and Afghanistan. The John Howard government in the country, sought to link the War on Terror with the asylum seekers to gain political mileage. The government tried to project the asylum seekers as ‘sleeper terrorists’ and criticized the media “for being out of touch with the majority views of Australia” when the media tried to take a more objective view of the situation. There is also no denying the fact that many in the media also gave in to the atmosphere of rising intolerance in Australia. In Canada, the coverage of the events of September 11 was largely professional. The Canadian media stood up to the government’s attempt to curb the basic rights of the citizens and to stifle the freedom of the media in the name of fighting terrorism when Bill C-36 for the Anti-Terrorism Act was introduced. The government was forced to make positive amendments to the bill. In the European Union also, the media played the role of the sentinel of private and public liberties when it strived to maintain objectivity in covering the War of Terror. It was all the more difficult for the media in the European Union because the Union had formed a joint approach on counter-terrorism actions with the United States, and had invoked Article 5 of the NATO which declares an attack on one to be an attack on all. In Great Britain as well as in countries such as Israel, the story was somewhat different. The media in these countries tended to go overboard with toeing the all US line of action. The UK media followed the government slavishly in such times. The British Broadcasting Company (BBC) has been specially marked out. “The BBC goes straight into ‘Ministry of Information’ mode imagining at some level of its collective consciousness that it is holding the nation together in the face of a Nazi invasion” (Gopsill). The media also desisted from covering the anti-war movement in the country, and attacked anyone who dared to question the United States in insulting terms. At the other end of the polarity, the media in nations such as Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan reacted differently at the face of differing situations. In Palestine, the government obstructed the media from reporting the facts in many cases. The media was banned from transmitting news and visuals of people celebrating the 9/11 attacks. In Saudi Arabia and Jordan the media had much more freedom and tried to walk the middle path as far as possible. The situation in Qatar deserves special mention because of the presence of the al-Jazeera satellite channel. al-Jazeera insisted on presenting both sides of the picture giving equal air time to both Western leaders such as Tony Blair who led the War on Terror as well as to Bin Laden and other experts hostile to the United States. “The channel’s unique access to Bin Laden has, according to media commentators, exposed a paradoxical aspect of the cultural divide, converted by September 11 into a chasm” (Elstein & Curran, 2001). Turning of the Tide The United States could capitalize of on the sympathy generated by the 9/11 attacks and take the War on Terror to Afghanistan with the full support of most of the media in the Western world. The 2003 attack of Iraq however marked a turning point. It was the first time that public opinion on a major issue as reflected in the media was strongly against the United States. Even in countries like France and Germany which aided the US in the campaign against terror in 2001-2002, the media reflected a deterioration in the confidence of US policies. So much so that “the events during March of 2003 involving the United Nations Security Council made it impossible for this country (United States) to muster even majority support for its resolution to go to war. These circumstances are even more acute when one considers that the United States enjoyed a tremendous wave of global sympathy after the terrorist attacks of 9/11” (Rusciano, 2004). The events that followed the invasion of Iraq were doubly embarrassing for those at the helm of affairs in the War on Terror. The global media, much to its credit, was quick in calling a spade a spade. Even the staunchly supportive British media turned critical of the direction that the War on Terror heading in. The media made it very clear that that the War on Terror had sighted the wrong targets based on very dubious sources of information. The global media laid it bare to the world that the Saddam Hussein regime neither had stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) nor any direct connection with Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. The general impression projected by the media that perhaps the Western powers had been paranoid in its battle against terror, led to questions being raised on other aspects of the War on Terror. The focus once again shifted more to protection of personal freedom and liberties at the face of over zealous laws and acts to curb terrorism. Even in Britain, the media criticized the definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act of 2000 on several points. The point at the top of the agenda of almost all criticism was that the definition was too broad and very widely drawn. Describing the statutory definition as too wide ranging for the clarity required, Blick et. al. stated that it “leaves room for political bias and could be used to prosecute people active in legitimate social or political movements who are exercising their rights.” Amnesty International and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (2005) also expressed similar opinions. All such opinions started finding space and time in the British media. With the media in the country which was the staunchest supporter of the United State raising questions on the War on Terror, the media in other supporting countries of the world such the European Union also followed suit. With the exception of Israel which allows very limited liberties to its media to stray from the line adopted officially, almost all of the global media started to question the actual effectiveness or motives behind the course that the War on Terror was taking. “During Bush’s trip to Europe (in March 2005), the media coverage in most of the analyzed countries was considerably less negative than before. The analysis of the coverage in March, however, showed that the volume of reporting on the U.S. and the president decreased and became generally more negative in tone than in February. This was the case particularly in media such as El Pais, Handelsblatt and Al Quds” (Media Tenor, 2005). The Role of Al-Jazeera The role played by the Middle East based satellite channel Al-Jazeera in the context of the subsequent developments in the War on Terror assumes special significance. As already pointed out, the channel insisted on presenting both sides of the picture. In addition, as stated by Mohammed el-Nawawy in his paper Arab Media and Terrorism: Is Objective Journalism Possible?, “Al-Jazeera focused on the humanitarian aspects and the loss of human lives in a way that would appeal to its target audiences in the Arab world.” Al-Jazeera’s was able to convince its viewers that its approach of focusing on the human losses in the wars did not necessarily mean that it was predisposed against the United States or the War on Terror. Instead it meant that Al-Jazeera should not be expected to operate like other networks in the West because of the difference in perspective. Al-Jazeera tailored its presentation around the theme of victimization of the people of Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan and Lebanon at the hands of the military might of the United States and its allies. For those over saturated with the western media’s concern only with the progress or advance of the US forces on the ground, Al-Jazeera offered a refreshingly alternate and new perspective. To its Arab viewers, the perspective accorded the channel its credibility and legitimacy. Al-Jazeera soon acquired the status of the ‘alternative media’ – a commendable achievement given the very one-dimensional view of the global media. The Internet as a Global Media The War on Terror has been the Internet’s first war as a global media. Since 9/11, the Internet has played a very crucial role as an alternate source of news and opinion. Tamara Straus, senior editor of AlterNet.org says, “Never before has it been possible to gauge so many views -- not only in the United States -- but from Europe and the Middle East... Public opinion is now vulnerable to what is reported outside the [America's] news borders” (Glass, 2002-03). The importance of the Internet has grown because of the fact that more often than not, especially in the United States and its allied nations, television channels and other media has been more like the wings of the military and the government, what with ‘embedded journalist’ fed with military press releases and briefings being the only source of news for such channels. The Internet with its unbridled environment has been establishing itself as a reliable way of reaching across for all those who wanted to forward different view points. The many advantages of the Internet such as independent journalism, increased velocity of news coverage, round-the-clock access, and increased interactivity and navigability has enabled it offer the world an unprecedented quality of coverage. On the down side, issues of credibility and privacy continue to nag the Internet as a global media. Conclusion It all boils down to the fact that the global media has matured over the years in its coverage of the War on Terror. The initial reporting overwhelmingly in total support of the War irrespective of its many drawbacks and shortsightedness stemmed from the concern about safety and security of the world and its people. However, even at that initial phase, the media assumed the role of guardians of the freedoms and liberties associated with democratic societies. As the War on Terror progressed, the global media adopted a more critical stance so that it would not lose sight of the objectivity that is expected of the Fourth Estate. The Internet and channels such as the Al-Jazeera lend an entirely new dimension to the coverage of the War on Terror in the global media. It is only when objectivity is retained and all perspectives are covered meaningfully in the global media that the War on Terror will achieve what it has set out to – a secured world devoid of meaningless violence. References -01 1. White, A., 2002, Journalism and the War on Terrorism: Final Report on the Aftermath of September 11 and the Implications for Journalism and Civil Liberties, International Federation of Journalists. 2. Gopsill, T., [Online] Available. http://www.gn.apc.org/media/nuj.html [July 22, 2008] 3. Elstein, D., Curran, J., 2001, [Online] Available. http://www.opendemocracy.net [July 22, 2008] 4. Rusciano, F., L., 2004, International Media Perspectives on World Opinion during the War with Iraq, Rider University, London School of Economics. 5. Blick A., Choudhury T., and Weir S., A report by Democratic Audit, Human Rights Centre, University of Essex, for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. 6. Media Tenor, 2005, International Media Image of US once again suffers, Agenda Setting Newsletter, Media Tenor, 6th International Agenda Setting Conference, Lugano. 7. Glass, A., J., 2002-03, The War on Terrorism Goes Online: Media and Government Response to First Post-Internet Crisis, The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. Read More