|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
||
Watching the Bombs Fall: An Analysis of Media Coverage of the Second Gulf War
by Wendy Kozol
JULY 28, 2003--In Oberlin, as well as around the world, many of us were glued to our television sets this past spring when the United States began bombing Baghdad. Who and what determined the images we saw, and the images we didn't see, as we watched those bombs drop and listened to the embedded reporters? For Americans dependent on the popular media for information, the mainstream news media have long played a crucial role in shaping notions of citizenship, sovereignty, and global politics. As we continue to read newspapers and magazines, and watch television broadcasts about the ongoing war, we need to consider the media's role in "manufacturing consent" (Herman and Chomsky).
In examining American media coverage, it is helpful to first recognize the limited number of news organizations that disseminate information around the world. Four wire services--the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, and Agènce France-Presse--are the primary sources of international news and, not surprisingly, exercise a great deal of control in establishing news agendas (Shulman, 108-109). In addition, the rise of 24-hour cable-news services, such as CNN, has had a significant impact on news reporting in the last decade. Although CNN began broadcasting in 1980, it gained its preeminent position within the media during the first Gulf War. During the bombing of Baghdad in 1991, telephone reports from Peter Arnett and other journalists made CNN's fortune, despite the fact that these reports offered very little actual information about the war. The drama of journalists broadcasting from the war zone increased CNN's ratings by 27.1 percent. As a result, advertising rates of $3,500 per 30-second spot shot up to more than $20,000 per spot (Rabinovitz and Jeffords, 2).
Today, several cable channels offer 24-hour news coverage, including MSNBC and Fox. In addition, Internet sites provide readers with extended news coverage. This increase in news outlets generates an ever-greater need for something to talk about, and war--with its action, technology, violence, and most importantly, its clearly identifiable good guys and bad guys--always makes good copy.
In addition to Western news sources, the Arab satellite news network al-Jazeera (launched in 1996, and now featuring 24-hour broadcasting) has in recent years become more widely available and more prominent. al-Jazeera’s coverage of the war in Iraq has offered images and news stories not seen on mainstream American media, most notably in extensive coverage of Iraqi casualties. During the first weeks of the war, this contrasted with the American news media's coverage that showed only casualties among American and coalition forces. Even now, American media continues to be slow in representing Iraqi dead and wounded. Many who opposed the war have praised al-Jazeera for providing alternative perspectives. Not surprisingly, Americans who support the Bush administration's policies have accused the network of aiding the enemy. Determining how much this reporting offers an alternative perspective, however, necessitates further analysis, since like the other networks, al-Jazeera is constrained by market considerations and access to news sources. As events in Iraq continue to unfold, it will be important to observe the similarities and differences in coverage between Western and non-Western news sources like al-Jazeera, and to see how alternative representations fare in both the Middle East and the United States.
Censorship is always a critical issue when the media is reporting military actions. Access to troops in war zones and pre-publication censorship has varied from strict control during World War II and the first Gulf War to open access in Vietnam (Moeller). In 1991, during Operation Desert Storm, the U.S. military imposed strict censorship that prevented journalists from traveling alone in war zones, denied them access to certain areas, instituted press pools, and reviewed all news reports prior to publication or broadcast (see essays in Jeffords and Rabinovitz). In the current conflict, the Pentagon has taken the opposite approach, establishing a system of embedded reporters. This turned out to be a brilliant public relations move for the military, as reporters narrated the war from the perspective of troops that were often engaged in battle with an unseen enemy. While many reporters praised the military for this accessibility, they were also dependent upon the soldiers for transportation, food, housing, and most importantly, protection. We must ask to what degree reporters can provide objective perspectives when not only their livelihood but also their lives are dependent on the subjects of their news reports.
Embedded reporters may appear to be more aligned with the military than reporters who covered previous wars, but, in fact, media have always collaborated with the military and have rarely functioned independently. One reason for this is that reporters lose access to their sources if they venture too far out of bounds. A more important reason for this collaboration, however, is that news organizations function within, rather than outside, other cultural, political, and social systems.
In addition to the embedded reporters, news reporting of this war depended on daily briefings by Centcom (the central command of military operations in Qatar). These briefings, covered live by CNN and widely reported elsewhere in the media, contained sophisticated visual displays and discussions of technology and troop movements. Notably, the Pentagon’s narrative of the war completely ignored Iraqi casualties, especially during the first weeks of the war. Ignoring Iraqi civilians makes it easier to leave unquestioned the moral and political significance of this military conflict (Gusterson). Arguments from the U.S. media about lack of access to this information, however, are not credible, since al-Jazeera and other international news organizations were reporting Iraqi casualty figures. After the fall of Baghdad, the media began to include information about civilian casualties in their reports, but their focus has remained primarily on American soldiers and their struggles against hostile Iraqi populations.
Television news coverage during the weeks of declared war followed a conventional format of anchors turning to experts to explain military strategy. Retired generals stood on giant maps of Iraq that looked like colossal board games. Their status as military leaders lent authority to their claims of expertise, which extended to discussions of the Middle East and the "Arab mind." News programs rarely sought out experts from the Middle East who could provide more complex explanations of this region. Instead, the former generals used the Bush administration's rhetoric to describe the troops as liberators and praise the democratic aims of the mission. Details of troop movements and strategies further deflected attention from the devastation wrought by massive bombing campaigns in all of Iraq's major cities.
Cameras then switched to the embedded reporters who, themselves appearing intrepid in flak jackets and military gear, related detailed accounts of the troops' daily experiences. On numerous occasions, reporters broadcasted during exchanges of gunfire, providing particularly vivid testimony to the heroism of both the troops and the reporters. This exclusive gaze at mostly male soldiers in combat promoted U.S. military and political objectives through gendered ideals of security, prowess, and courage. Photojournalists frequently took close-up pictures of male soldiers holding guns, carrying wounded comrades, or patrolling streets. Photographing war from the perspective of American soldiers visualized the heroic actions of soldiers, as well as their often-painful struggles to cope with the horrors of war. Many of these images show a range of complex emotional and physical responses. Within a context that uncritically accepted the Bush administration's justifications for war, however, these photographs reinforced a gendered ideal of nationalism that links patriotism and national security to the heroism of these male soldiers. For example Time Magazine published a photograph titled "Victim of Anarchy" that created an intimate perspective on war though a close-up of an African American soldier aiding a wounded Iraqi man (April 21, 200). This image of U.S. military benevolence deploys racial and gender ideals of American heroism and Arab defeat in a politically salient message about the legitimacy of the United States' invasion of Iraq. <cont. ...>
1 | 2
Please send comments, questions, and suggestions about Oberlin Online news and feature articles to online.news@oberlin.edu.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
