Military and the Media - Essay Example

How do you account for the predominant ways in which the mainstream covers media covers war Introduction On more than one occasion, it has been found that the media in a country does not report the news or military events in an unbiased way. Instead the reports generally carry with them the thought processes of the author, the magazine and the people who support the cause of the war. All these have affected the faith in the media and the information obtained through them. Media has not stood by to report neutrally as it is influenced by various factors that tend to alter the way events happen in the world. These could be military or political or social; in either case, the media stands by Chomsky's (1988) five filter model. This paper will analyze the various factors that influence main stream media and its reporting of the military activities happening under the guise of freedom or otherwise. The following pages will also look into the effect of society on the media and the proactive / reactive actions that the media has instituted to suit itself to this situation. 2. Human Society and Militarism Human society has always been influenced and commandeered by Militarism until recently. As a matter of fact even the present has not moved out of such imbroglio. The powerful have always played key roles in deciding the way history took its turns. Since the days of feudalism in Europe until today militarism was used to amass wealth. Whether it is the Mongols who overran Asia Minor and Europe or the English who laid siege to the Chinese Ports to sell Opium in their country, military might was invariably used for the wrong purpose (Taylor et al, 1992). The same has happened with the US when they wanted to sell arms and military equipment, creating war became a necessity. Again military might came in handy every time, when the US businesses wanted to make more money. Human society throughout the world has experienced this skewed thought process at one time or the other. In order to get the best deals for their business, whether it is the English or the French or Spanish or for that matter any colonizing country has made use of the military might. And the maxim, might is right has been right. History is replete with incidents that were portrait to the advantage of the victor and almost always to the disadvantage of the loser or to the person who does not have the required clout with the media. 3. Media and the Chomsky Propaganda model Chomsky's Propaganda model states five different causes that affect the media coverage and propaganda. Its five filters in the following, 1, Ownership: Ownership of every media through a multitude of its shareholder population is greatly influential on the performance of the media and its output. Chomsky and Herman argue that 'all mainstream media outlets are embodied in large corporations', which are normally a part of much larger conglomerates that are pretty influential on the performance of the media. With the profit centered market economy in place, it is necessary for the media to perform in line with the thoughts of their owners. 2, Funding: Mainstream media is dependent on advertising for its survival and the revenue that flows from it is very essential for the media. Before any news is printed on the media, it goes through this filter to ensure that it does not hurt any of the funding agencies or advertisers. This becomes a necessity for the media for its very survival and therefore, the media needs to be more lenient to the funding agency and cannot bend itself to hurt people there. Moreover, the media is expected to popularize the current trend of incorporating advertisements as part of the story that is run by the media. 3, Sourcing: The information source for the media is from major companies or governmental sources. These need to be kept happy in order to get continuous and on going information. For instance, a crime magazine needs the help of the police for continuous news to keep their magazine interesting and accurate. This is also needed for timely information as well. Naturally, the media may not be in a position to antagonize the source of such regular information. 4, Flak: It is the negative criticism that the media throws out on the people in power or the establishment. This is viewed at as a measure by which the media gets its marketability or on many occasion works in conjunction with the other factors said earlier. Flak also works alone throwing information that could set people in power or position and spread negative news. 5, Anti-ideology: This should be viewed as Anti-communism in the initial days. Communism was a common enemy. Today with the 'death' of communism, the media looks for a common enemy who could be picked up and therefore, find a common target to attack. This will also ensure that the public stays together to fight against the common enemy. Most of these points raised by Chomsky and Herman have been appreciated and agreed by most of the public and researchers. There are numerous examples of media stories that work on the right side of the filters proposed (Herman and Chomsky, 1988). Mergers of large corporations which were managing the media empires lent themselves to make still larger corporations. There was always a concentration on the bottom line; what was the resultant profit of a publication. Unless a book made a sizable 15% profit nobody prints it. This means that the book necessarily has to be about a celebrity or on an important topic of the day. Ownerships impact the publication of the very article or book. The articles that get published in the media can never be something against the advertisers who fund the media. That is why we find that the media has to bend to the needs of the advertisers, the owners and the sources of information. 4. Militarization of the media Media has been reporting what the military and the government says with aplomb rather than the true facts from time immemorial. British banned imports of Opium from India two hundred years ago. However, they forced the Chinese government to accept it by resorting to a war that the British term the Chinese War I, II and III for the purpose of bringing the Chinese emperor to his knees. However, the real war was for the rights to sell opium in mainland China and the Chinese call it the Opium war. Britain behaved worse than the Columbian drug lords with a democratic and supposed civilized government at its helm. The truth was not leaked to the press, instead the Government chose to give only selective news on that war and that was what got circulated in the London Press. Large scale media bugging has been happening since the days of the World War II. With more and more countries plumping in for a stronger media network, the news that reaches the common man is really the filtered inaccuracies. The case of Iraq is a typical example that has been discussed numerous times. What the 'sources' said was the rule. While most of the governments wanted to establish and enlarge their businesses from the British colonial days to the Cold war days and beyond, it is no secret that the media highlighted what the governments of the day wanted. Governments were and continue to be the major source of information and they also remain the major fund raiser for the media since they do advertise a lot. Apart from this, the governments also have controlling interest in some of the media lines that they own. Therefore, it is only necessary for the media to toe the line taken by the Government (Robinson, et al, 2005: 951-59). The UK government presented in parliament the Iraq Dossier before the invasion of the Iraq by the coalition troops. The statement made by the Prime Minister Tony Blair, 'The threat posed to international peace and security, when WMD are in the hands of a brutal and aggressive like Saddam's, is real' (British Government, 2002). The statement was flashed in all the media from the British and the American to the Eastern magazines in China and Japan. The threat to Iraq became real and soon after the beginning of the invasion, the statement made by Blair was proved wrong. However, the required tempo for the war was created by the Iraq Dossier, prepared by the Joint Intelligence Committee and released to the press (Steinberg, 2003). Vietnam was another example of America military misadventure which was always promoted by the media as a positive and affirmative action for protecting democracy. Much in the same way, democracy was under 'protection' in El Salvador, Brazil and in many of the Latin American countries that were supported by US and ruled by dictators. As a matter of fact, during the early days of Saddam Hussein, he was supported by the US to stop the Iranian onslaught in the eight years of war between them (1980-88). It was not a surprise that Saddam invaded Kuwait thinking that US would eventually support him. Since they had their business interests in Iraq, however, US business interests in Kuwait were larger than he anticipated. Naturally, US had to protect their business interests in Kuwait and hence the first war against Iraq broke out. Again in all these cases, the media remained a reporter who came back to give the story from the US battle fields. They hardly had anything to say on the nature of conditions they experienced in Iraq, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. The same happened years later when the supposed WMD was identified in Iraq and a war to dethrone Saddam was launched. Saddam was dethroned; and made a POW. However, the war continues (Lewis, 2004:295-310). CNN reports on this continuing war more in the lines of what the US government wants rather than on the actual conditions of the war. On June 21, 2006, CNN reported that the Democratic Party would stand to lose if they insisted on a specific time on the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, although more than 50% of the people voted for a time bound plan for withdrawing troops from Iraq. CNN's congressional reporter, Dana Bash said that the democrats were yet to find consensus among themselves on the issue of whether to withdraw troops from Iraq or not; whereas the issue between the two sides on the Democrat front is whether to set a time based withdrawal or a planned and phased withdrawal. The media, in its anxiety to support the Republicans for the 2006 show down, brings about a new picture in their reporting. This is happening with ABC as well. While the Republicans are shown in good light the same is not happening with the Democrats. Media shows the successes of the military much more to the originating country rather than their failures or casualty figures. When fifteen of the twenty helicopters were shot down during the first few days of the war, it was not reported by any of the English media in the world. Throughout it was maintained that the loss of man power and equipment to US and the allied troops were phenomenally low. However, the current casualty bulletin is far too away from the original figures during or immediately after the war. The current casualty figure stands at 2,554 US fatalities alone not including coalition fatalities whereas the original at the end of the war figures were around 500 deaths. The Iraqi civilian and other deaths total to more than 14,000 since the war started (Damon, et al, 2006). CNN was supportive of the Republican stand from the very beginning on the war and they continue to do so even during this debate on the troop withdrawal. The truth of the matter or the facts do not get reported, instead in its place what is good for the people concerned is reported. One of the lead stories in CNN says, 'Struggle for Iraq' (CNN, 2004) and the one in the counterpunch magazine (Cockburn, 2004). The war was started to disarm Iraq and not to liberate it or to take control of it. However, today, with the fight against the insurgency going ahead and the political and other issues popping up every now and then and with the losing human lives mounting every day, it is a sad story how the disarming of Iraq became a Struggle for Iraq. Surprising, when Iraq became the land for which America needed to fight for and lose lives for With more and more American lives being lost, it is becoming highly unrealistic to fight a war where what we need to gain is under a question mark, except of course, for the industry that sells arms and for the specific business houses. Therefore, it is no surprise that the main stream media like CNN or ABC continue supporting the war simply because war would mean more sales for many of their products; more money; hence more profits. Business profits and business decides on what should be reported in the main stream media rather than the news itself. When the Shah of Iran was overthrown, the country celebrated. However, the media in US did not report such a thing. The Shah was granted asylum in the west, and was never called a dictator by any of the press or even by the then President, Carter. It is now history that the Shah out of 25000 political prisoners he had between 1974 and 1977, he had at least 300 of them executed (Beck, 2003). However, then the Shah was a friend of US and supported the rich to become richer in the US and in the countries of the west. He allowed corporate America to make its money without hindrance in Iran. However, the new revolutionist government would not allow that. Naturally, the US was for the dictator to be back irrespective of whether he was good or not. 5. Effect of Media Stories on Public The media has been a powerful player and continue to be a powerful player in any democratic country that votes their leaders to power. What reaches the masses better and surer wins; whether it is the truth or otherwise (Docbug, 2003). The public believe what they hear more. In the words of Lenin, a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. When a lie gets repeated multiple number of times by the media, it carries a stamp of authority over a period of time and tends to become truth and people start believing it. On more than one occasion, decisive victories have come to political parties not because of their correct and emphatic stands, however, because of the media support and consistent stand with them. This again proves Chomsky's filters are at work. People tend to believe the stories that come to them since there is nothing else coming in. If there are two poles and if both of them feed diagonally opposite images of the same happening, the public gets disoriented and are at a loss to know whom to believe and whom not to. This takes some time for the individuals to select one of them and start believing the specific media. However, over a period of time, invariably, the media losses its image and people stop believing the news coming in from that channel. Some of the stories that the public questioned and later proved them right include the war on Iraq which is under question even today. There had been many similar questions on the happenings in Cuba and El Salvador that went under a cloak once started. Now El Salvador is not a question, though Cuba and Columbia still haunt the memories of the Pentagon. The military intervention in Vietnam and the effect that it caused in Thailand has been questioned many times by various people, yet hardly came on to public gaze. However, for short reviews that went on the papers when Chomsky was arrested at the gates of Pentagon (Beck, 2003). The public have very short memories. They are over burdened with the usual chores that they do not and can not afford to stand and muse over what is happening. Unlike the military they are not paid for fighting and unlike the media they are not paid for researching on the news. They are paid only if they produce what they are supposed to. The public do not have time to do the research on what is true and right. They consume what is told to them and generally based on their own experiences and information; assume what is right and wrong. Controversies catch their attention and go out of it once the next controversy surfaces. The public has a mind and it has been managed by leaders, including Hitler and Stalin, to their advantages on many occasions. 6. Military and the Media The military has had a link with the media. One of the reasons is that to mobilize public opinion and support is primary for any military exercise to be successful. The military needs funding as much as media needs information. History is about information on military exploits than on any other part of the human life. Therefore, when media needs information that will be shocked and inspired the public it has to be from the military. And if military exercises have to continue it needs 'sponsorship' from the common man. The military is a large scale sponsored sport like any other activity. The only thing is that this is a game that every one of us plays with our lives. Or rather, we allow somebody to play with our lives and hard earned money. In order to get this sponsorship, military activity needs to have a stamp of authenticity and support from the common man who sponsors the whole event. The first casualty to war is the truth, said Senator Hiram Johnson. Necessarily, the military has to find supporters to take this idea to the common man or citizen. Who else can do the job better than the media They too want a high profile drama once in a while to boost their business and war is one such event when everybody tunes in to their TV sets or picks up the local paper for the latest news; to find where we are, with reference to the war. This makes it more interesting case than a football world cup and generates considerable amount of interest in the public minds. A war is business for everybody (Shah, 2005). From the man who makes dog sheds to the person who churns out coffins. Everybody has a business to take care when war breaks out. The media has a special interest in it because one, its business grows during war; and two, it is the one that maintains the war by ensuring the war is funded properly. The scenario is a mutually beneficial parasitical relationship between the media and the military. During wars, the media expands and develops. Remember most media empires took their birth during one war or another; or at least grew remarkably during wars. The military needs the media to support its fund flow and continue to exist. And when the military achieves, they are gung-ho about the whole incident, like the arrest of Saddam. On the other hand, wars are literally won or lost because of media support. Much of the loss in the Vietnam War happened due to the media (Brown, 2002). When the media portrays a way as a losing battle, the military can hardly continue. Public opinions in this age are very critical for any military venture to succeed. Managing the media is something that most of the war managers certainly need, when the war ensues (Knightley, 2001). When the Gulf War broke out, we were fed with the media feeds that the military and the media thought right for the consumption of the public. There is also lateral thinking on the issue. Like the intervention in Somalia is pictured as something that has happened beyond what was said in the media (Robinson, 2001). 7. Conclusion The relationship between the media and the military is one of togetherness. Together, they create mankind and its nations; they create the political powers and thirst to win; the victory that will leave hundreds and thousand of people dead and war torn. They are the people for their own business ends promote war; their own business ends promote the military and military gadgets (Lobe, 2003). However, for the large scale brain washing that is normally embarked by media, military adventures in this world would not have been a possibility if not for violent incidents and terrorism (Kellner, 2004). Military might takes a different shape in terrorism. It is known fact that violence breeds violence. Neither would the military stop a violent response nor would terrorism end; violence would breed violence and the media would fuel it. Bibliography Anup Shah, 31 Mar 2005, War Propaganda and the Media, Global Issues, retrieved at: http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Military.asp Arwa Damon and Jomana Karadsheh, 19 Jul 2006, UN Envoy: end Iraqi Tragedy, CNN.com retrieved at: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/19/iraq.main/index.html British Government, Sep 2002, Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, retrieved at: http://www.number10.gov.uk/files/pdf/iraqdossier.pdf CNN, 2004, Struggle for Iraq: War in Iraq, retrieved at: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/struggle.iraq/index.html Douglas Kellner, 2004, 9/11, Spectacles of Terror, and Media Manipulation:A Critique of Jihadist and Bush Media Politics, retrieved at: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/911terrorspectaclemedia.pdf Herman and Chomsky, 1988, Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books, excerpts retrieved at: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html Jim Lobe, 3 Oct 2003, The Hazards of Watching Fox News, Alternet, retrieved at: http://www.alternet.org/story/16892 Jeffrey Steinberg, 2003, Behind the Iraq Dossier Hoax: The intelligence was cooked in Israel, Executive Intelligence Review retrieved at: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3007neocon_hoax.html Kundami, A., 2004, 'Wired for War: Military Technology and the Politics of Fear', Race & Class, 46(1): 116-25. Lewis, J., 2004,. 'Television, Public Opinion and the War in Iraq: The Case of Britain', International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 16(3): 295- 310. Taylor, Bailkey, Wallbank, Jewsbury, Lewis, Hackett, 1992, Civilizations past and present, Chapter 29, South and East Asia-1815-1914, Schaffer Library of Drug Policy, retrieved at: http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/heroin/opiwar1.htm Patrick Cockburn, 24/25 July 2004, The struggle for Iraq is Just Beginning, counterpunch retrieved at: http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick07242004.html Philip Knightley, 4 Oct 2001, The disinformation campaign, The Guardian Unlimited, relieved at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4270014,00.html PIPA, 5 Oct 2003, Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War, Docbug retrieved at: http://www.docbug.com/blog/archives/000047.html Robin Brown, 2002, Clausewitz in the Age of Al-jazeera: Rethinking of the Military-Media Relationship, HARVARD SYMPOSIUM: RESTLESS SEARCHLIGHT: THE MEDIA AND TERRORISM, retrieved at: http://www.apsanet.org/polcomm/APSA%20Papers/Brown.pdf Robinson, P. (2001). 'Operation Restore Hope and the Illusion of New Media Driven Intervention', Political Studies, 49(5): 941-56. Robinson, P., Brown, R., Goddard, P., and, Parry, K. (2005), 'War and Media', Media, Culture & Society, 27(6): 951-59. Sanderson Beck, 2003, Chomsky and Zinn on US Imperialism, retrieved at: http://www.san.beck.org/GPJ32-Chomsky.html Read More