Watching the Bombs Fall: An Analysis of Media Coverage of the Second Gulf War by Wendy Kozol
		1 | 2 <cont. ...> In the present Gulf War, as in the 1991 conflict, mainstream news media typically have presented a racialized threat to U.S. national security by, variously, Arab madmen, Islamic fundamentalists, and terrorists. The primary focus in the coverage leading up to this war was Saddam Hussein. American journalists often represent other countries as being at odds with the United States by focusing almost exclusively on their head of state. This was also apparent, for example, in the late 1990s coverage of the Balkans, when news reports focused on Slobodan Milosevic as the "tinhorn dictator" of Serbia. This strategy contrasts the democratic West with uncivilized and brutal dictatorships. While extensive evidence exists about the brutality and torture that occurred in the regimes of both Hussein and Milosevic, this monolithic gaze nonetheless simplifies the tremendously complex histories of these countries and the issues they now face. Instead of exploring these issues, however, reporters routinely used the same language as Colin Powell, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and others within the administration to characterize Hussein as a brutal dictator building weapons of mass destruction. One notable example is Time’s April 21, 2003, cover, which featured a picture of Saddam Hussein with a red X through his face. On the editorial page Time reproduced its May 1945 cover of Adolph Hitler using the same format. Comparing Hussein to Hitler (a common strategy in media coverage of both Gulf Wars) ignores the history of European colonization in the Middle East and how that complex history affects recent events and conflicts. Ignoring colonialism also allows the media to characterize Arab opposition to the United States as irrational Islamic fanaticism. Finally, associating Hussein with Hitler evokes the Holocaust and reinforces the United States' alliance with Israel (Shohat, 149-150). When other Iraqi leaders began appearing in the news more frequently after the bombing started and Hussein disappeared, the American media trivialized or ridiculed these leaders, describing them as liars or as lacking any real power. This had an emasculating effect on their images. This narrative of failed leadership, however, has proven problematic in recent months as opposition to U.S. occupation in Iraq has intensified. American media representations of civilian Iraqis during the first weeks of war and immediately after the fall of Baghdad typically featured crowds of angry men participating in demonstrations or engaged in rampant looting. Pictures of massive demonstrations by religious Iraqis or those protesting the U.S. presence visualized rhetorical claims of an Arab and/or Islamic fanaticism threatening the West. These images also reproduced standard conventions in the U.S. news media that represent Third World countries exclusively as places of violence and social unrest. This racialized perspective relies on a menacing masculinity, evident most clearly when American photojournalists covering demonstrations pull in close to crowds of angry men yelling and raising their fists. Such close-ups not only visualize chaos and danger but also contrast with the other main representation of masculinity--pictures of American soldiers who, at least as shown by the media, are orderly and in control. If depictions of the nation’s military actions have depended on ideals of race and gender, pictures of innocent victims likewise have depended on idealized notions of identity. Throughout the 20th century, photojournalists have routinely turned to pictures of mothers and children to represent the impact of war on civilians. This convention appears in coverage of wars ranging from the Spanish Civil War to Kosovo. Photographs of women holding very small children resonate with Western Christian iconography of the Madonna and child. Such pictures are often used to visualize those we are fighting to rescue and to elicit sympathy or even empathy. Curiously, there were few such Madonna and child images in the coverage of this conflict before the fall of Baghdad. After the fall, a growing number of such pictures began to appear. A more common depiction of Iraqi women, however, features them wearing the hijab (head scarf) and other religious clothing. In contrast to the pictures that show crowds of angry men, images of women frequently depict them standing in front of their homes with one or two children. Presenting these women alone, or with only their children, ignores their affiliations with other women, family members, or communities. Instead, these pictures turn Iraqi women into essentialized symbols of the religious and cultural "other." Iraq's treatment of women, both before and after Hussein took power, is a complex history in which women's legal, social, political, and cultural rights have been both established and contested. The narrow range of images of Iraqi women that appeared in American news media ignores that history and instead reproduces the Orientalizing image of Muslim women as victims of a barbaric, premodern, religious patriarchy. Such images further reinforce claims about America's "civilizing" mission. We saw a similar instance of this in the news coverage of Afghanistan in 2001. There, news reporters eagerly sought pictures of women taking off their burquas (head-to-toe garments with grid mesh with which to see through). Reportedly some even payed women to (re)enact these events (Smith). To claim unveiling as an act of modernization and liberation, however, ignores the complex and varied religious politics of veiling in different Muslim countries as well as efforts by Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and secular Arab women in the Middle East to secure women’s human rights (Saliba; Shohat). Media coverage of the Iraqi war has not been monolithic or ideologically fixed. Indeed as public sentiment changes, and as news reporters learn more about operations in Iraq and raise more questions about weapons of mass destruction, we will continue to see shifts and modifications in news reportage. It is important to note, however, the persistence of certain representational strategies from one military conflict to the next. These strategies include the simplification of complex social and political histories, the demonization of male enemies, the absence of reporting on non-American casualties, and the representation of Arab (or other Third World) women as backward and in need of American and/or Western liberation. The point is not to dismiss the horrific violence experienced by Iraqis under Saddam Hussein. Nor do we want to ignore the myriad struggles of Iraqi women and men to create decent lives for themselves. Rather, we need to demand images and reporting that give us a better understanding of the history and politics of Iraq and of the Iraqi people's efforts to build their nation within a framework that is meaningful to them, rather than to us. The mainstream media, however, are vast cultural institutions whose economic and political constraints leave little reason for optimism regarding a radical rethinking of news coverage. Many people, therefore, have turned to alternative news sources that may offer different perspectives. My own experience of the two Gulf Wars demonstrates the changes in access to alternative news sources that have occurred during the past decade. In 1991, I was working at a public university with a very conservative student population that held demonstrations in favor of the war. I remember being frustrated by the lack of access to news outlets other than the mainstream media. In contrast, today a greater variety of news sources exists, thanks to e-mail and other Internet services. Listservs generate their own information and circulate published reports from news organizations around the world. In addition, both alternative and mainstream news organizations have developed web sites. Finally, satellite technology has created greater access to international television news programs. At Oberlin, many faculty members and students can monitor web sites from around the world and can watch television news from various countries, depending on their satellite access and language skills. Access to the Internet and to satellite TV, however, is still restricted by economic resources. This fact raises several questions about alternative, progressive, and radical news organizations. How many Americans have access to these sources? Of those with access, how many seek out different kinds of information? Moreover, how does the ideological perspective of these alternative and radical news sources differ from that of the mainstream sources? Finally, will the growth of alternative news outlets put pressure on mainstream media, or will these outlets remain fringe resources for small audiences? References
		Please send comments, questions, and suggestions about Oberlin Online news and feature articles to online.news@oberlin.edu.