Media and War

The role of mass media is forever changing within the society in which we live. It is impossible to say, to any degree of certainty, what role media plays versus what role it should play. We can, however, examine media coverage of various events and determine whether they are filling a “watchdog” capacity, or critiquing the government and leaders of a society, or are filling in more as a support, supplying the propaganda and articles that create the society that people should believe in.

Which role should media play? In an ideal world, the media would be completely unbiased, and would simply report the facts. However, in any world where humans, and therefore feelings, are present it is impossible to keep all opinion out of any piece.

During war time, the role of media professionals is even more under suspicion. If journalists are too involved in supporting the war, they are criticized, but if they are questioning the government they are also challenged.

One of the best ways for journalists to make sure they are getting the full story, or at least the story they are meant to hear, is to work as an embedded journalist. Embedded journalists actually spend their time in the war zone and with the people that they are covering. A lot of time this still leads to stories that are affected by the people with which they are working. This can be difficult, but Lt. Col. Craig Whiteside with the U.S. Army said that a lot of these journalists and photographers can become close friends. He spoke fondly of one particular photographer. “He had more combat experience than I did,” Whiteside said. Not only that, but using only a generator from the local village, he was able to upload his pictures for the paper of the next day. Whiteside talked about how much this meant to journalistic coverage of the war. Embedded journalists are looking for the story that focuses on things that are going wrong, Whiteside said, and he would have journalists embedded with him that would find some sort of corruption and run with it, completely ignoring all the progress that was being made. He also talked about how the Army, and any group, worked to spin the stories in a way that would be the most beneficial to them. He also talked about how he doesn’t mind reading negative reports of action in Iraq, because the journalists are only reporting what they see, which, according to him, is far less than what is actually happening.

Coverage of war is especially important because they take place overseas, so all the information about what is happening must be garnered from war coverage presented by the media. It is impossible to know all of what is happening around the world, but many try to do so buy watching or reading the news. News programs from different countries, however, present different viewpoints.

It is interesting to watch the change in media coverage over the course of our current “War on Terror.” On September 11, 2001, when the terrorist first occurred, nearly all of the media coverage was of the mindset that justice must be served. Now, however, over seven years later, the attitude about the war has taken on a negative light, which is prevalent in popular media. For example, in an article entitled “Bush: U.S. feels ‘quiet, unyielding anger’" on September 12, 2001, author Ian Chrisopher McCaleb of CNN talked about President Bush’s odyssey, and the difficult day that he has had to endure along with the American people. Though the article has a somber air, as it is concerning a tragedy in our nation, it also has a somewhat optimistic air. It concerns what will happen next, and what President Bush is planning in order to reassure the people of the United States that this tragedy will not go unanswered. Years into the war, however, and CNN publishes the article “Obama: U.S. to withdraw most Iraqi troops by August 2010” written on February 27, 2009. This is different to start with, because it covers the speech of a different president, but also the tone of the article is different. There is still some hopefulness, but now it is not for justice but instead to the end of what was started years before. The author does present quotes from both the democratic and republican sides of the congress, but the quotes that he chose from John McCain as a Republican senator, helped to show even Republicans are looking forward to an end of the war, and the movements that are going to be made under the administration of Barack Obama. The real question to examine however is whether the media has propagated this sentiment in the people, or whether they are simply reporting what people want to see and hear.

In his article called “Metacoverage of Mediated Wars: How the Press Formed the Role of Media and of Military News Management in the Iraq Wars of 1991 and 2003” in the academic journal American Behavioral Scientist, Frank Esser compared the coverage of war to the coverage of political campaigns. He said that they are similar because “they are both mediated events and rely on media and public relations/publicity channels to mobilize support, generate interest, convey information, legitimize action, and communicate with the public.” This is interesting because it also nearly impossible to cover a political election season (which essentially turns into a war) without some sort of bias. Voters want to know about their own candidate, yes, but they also want to know about the faults of the other candidate. In many war situations, particularly in the beginning, people want to hear the good parts about their country, and the faults of the country they are fighting against.

Another change over the years is the type of journalism, which allows us more one-sided but more immediate access to news. The emergence of blogs has created a huge impact on the media community. It has created a world where anyone can essentially be a journalist and present the news that they wish people to see. Often these bloggers are looked down upon by traditional journalists, but in his article “News-the blogger war” for the Valley Advocate, Mark Roessler, talked about how bloggers can be just as influential as traditional media outlets. He says that both sides are losing out in this battle between them because “by trying to marginalize bloggers, traditional media have missed what could be the remedy for slumping sales and status. And by trying so hard to command respect as independent pioneers, many bloggers have argued themselves out of what they're really after: a job.”

Other countries also look at the media inside of our country, however, and talk about that. They cover events in our country different than we do, yes, but they also comment on our commentary. In an article called “Pentagon plans propaganda war” for the BBC, Tom Carver covers a story about “underhanded tactics” that George Bush and the American press will talk over the course of the war on terror. This article was written in 2002, when a lot of Americans were still reeling from the terrorist attacks. The article was not one that would have appeared in most American newspapers of the time, but it could, and most certainly has, appeared in a similar form today. In fact, it has. In an article for SalemNews.com entitled “War Reporting and Propaganda in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Tim King wrote that we are still being accused of propaganda. Now, however, news media is being accused of covering too much death and the bad side of the stories. So, instead of being charged with being too gullible, journalists are being blamed for being too critical. Not only is the role of media in war hard to define, but it is also constantly changing in the eyes of the public.