Have Journalists become the New Target in the War on Terror?
Written by Nargess Moballeghi
Wednesday, 06 February 2008
The job of journalists covering modern conflicts, such as the 2003 Iraq War
and its aftermath, has changed irrevocably since World War II and even the
Vietnam War.
Although technological advances must clearly be taken into consideration, the
practice of embedding journalists in war zones has played the most significant
part in this change.
The 2003 Iraq War is different to those that have gone before it because there
are now undoubtedly two very distinct types of journalist - unilaterals and
embeds.
Embedment first came to prominence during the NATO strikes against Kosovo in
1999. As the word suggests, reporters are implanted in a military unit, which
does have obvious advantages. Embeds undeniably capture footage that would be
impossible to obtain if they were working independently.
There is much to be said for seeing war through the eyes of the troops - it adds
realism to a subject that the viewing public can become all too easily
desensitized to. Indeed, the military would argue that it is a win-win situation
for journalists because it couples maximum exposure to the action with maximum
protection from the danger.
This is no doubt true, but the concern must be that if all journalists are
embedded with allied troops, viewers and readers alike will only ever be exposed
to prejudiced reporting. Embeds can become sympathetic, even if it is only
subconsciously, towards soldiers who they rely on for protection and form close
bonds with, no matter how hard they may try to remain impartial.
Writing in the UK newspaper The Observer, a matter of weeks after coalition
forces invaded Iraq in 2003, Phillip Knightley said: “I believe that the
traditional relationship between the military and the media - one of restrained
hostility - has broken down, and the US administration has decided its attitude
to war correspondents is the same as that set out by President Bush when
declaring war on terrorists: 'You're either with us or without us.'”
This places correspondents in a difficult position, as witnessed during both
Persian Gulf Wars. Journalists who rejected the offer of being embedded and
instead chose to work as unilaterals, ran the risk of their reporting being
construed as activity of “military significance”.
As journalists at both the Al-Jazeera compound in Kabul and the Palestine Hotel
in Baghdad found to their cost, this leaves unilaterals susceptible to attack
from both insurgents and allied forces, especially if they are reporting from
the enemy's side.
Knightley went so far as to say: “Iraq [2003] will go down as the war when
journalists seemed to become a target."
The abduction and execution of Daniel Pearl, a reporter for The Wall Street
Journal, certainly seems to support the view that identifying yourself as
"press" will not get you out of trouble like it used to, indeed, it may do quite
the opposite.
Although media organizations are more safety-conscious than ever before, the
dangers faced by their correspondents are also greater than they have ever been.
Stewart Purvis, who was in charge of ITN when reporter Terry Lloyd was killed by
friendly fire, wrote in The Guardian newspaper:
"Until a decade ago news teams went off to war with little or no special
clothing or training. The Bosnian war changed all that. Now reporters and crews
have to undergo compulsory and regular safety training and they are provided
with flak jackets, helmets and, where appropriate, armored cars and security
escorts.”
Nik Gowing adopts a different perspective to the issue of increased risks. He
attributes the fact that today's war correspondents face greater dangers than
their predecessors to the huge technological advances that have been made over
the past few years:
“The new, insidious development is that because of the impact of our real-time
capability to bear witness immediately, we are being actively targeted by
warriors, warlords and forces of even the most highly developed governments who
do not want us to see what they are doing.”
Chris Cramer, former managing director of CNN International, has taken this
theory a step further. He believes it is inevitable that reporters will become
victims of the effectiveness of their own equipment, with the possibility of
kidnappers holding networks to ransom and threatening to kill hostages if
footage of their actions is not broadcast.
On a similar note, Rodney Pinder, director of the International News Safety
Institute (INSI), believes that the kidnap and murder of journalists is the best
form of censorship. It is risk-free for insurgents because it silences that
particular journalist and scares his or her colleagues.
What is undeniable is the fact that more journalists and media support workers
were killed in 2005 than in any previous year (INSI). 147 journalists lost their
life and it is important to note that 72 of those killed were Iraqi, as western
media organizations rely heavily on national correspondents.
There are parallels to be drawn between Vietnam and the 2003 Iraq War, as seen
by Knightley's description of the former conflict:
"It became a war like no other, a war with no front line, no easily identifiable
enemy, no simply defined cause…"
However, there are major differences between the ways correspondents carried out
their work. The Vietnam War is generally regarded as a watershed in the history
of war reporting. There are several reasons for this. Perhaps most importantly,
it was the first war to be played out on television.
This unsurprisingly changed the nature of war coverage because it gave reports
immediacy that newspapers were not able to provide. Secondly, it was the last
time war correspondents would be able to go where they pleased without being
censored.
In The First Casualty, Knightley says that although reports were censored in
World War II, some journalists believe they were actually better informed.
Correspondent Drew Middleton said:
"As long as all copy was submitted to censors before transmission, people in the
field [during World War II], from generals down, felt free to discuss top secret
material with reporters. On three trips to Vietnam I found generals and everyone
else far more wary of talking to reporters precisely because there was no
censorship."
During the Vietnam War, as long as reporters had the desire (and often, the
required courage) to unearth contentious details, it was possible for them to
convey that information to the public. However, this freedom was not used to its
full advantage - in 1967, half of all Americans still had no idea what Vietnam
was about (Knightley).
Although the Pentagon did not impose censorship, they did mount a huge PR
campaign. Unfortunately, when editors were faced with conflicting reports from
their correspondents in the field and the Pentagon, they more often than not
printed the latter's version of events because they feared being branded
"unpatriotic" if they revealed facts that were damaging to the US.
Much has changed since Vietnam, not least the military, who have become much
more media-savvy. Many argue that the military have always regarded the media as
another arm of their own operation, and they have become more attuned to the
pivotal role the media play in shaping people's perceptions.
During the First Persian Gulf War, the US and the UK put a "pool system" in
place. Under this arrangement, a limited number of correspondents were allowed
supervised access to predetermined locations and then expected to make their
reports available to their colleagues.
A number of veteran war correspondents, such as John Fisk, decided not to join
the pool, insisting that they should be free to find their own stories. The
price they paid for this defiance was exclusion from military briefings and
difficulty accessing information that was made readily available to embeds.
Logistically, it has never been easier for independent reporters to gain access
to war zones, but that does not mean there aren't other obstructions in their
way. Commenting on the barriers faced by independent reporters, John Donvan, who
is also a unilateral, noted:
"The Iraqis saw journalists as part of an invading force. And the invaders - the
coalition forces - saw unilaterals as having no business on their battlefield.
There was no neutral ground."
Although the practice of embedding journalists with troops is a double-edged
sword, it is important to remember that there are worse options. During the
Falklands War for example, the British Ministry of Defense imposed stringent
controls on media reports. Worst of all, only British correspondents were
permitted to join the task force so there was no room for neutral reporting, the
right to which should be a cornerstone of a democracy.
New York Times journalist, Sydney H Schanberg, summed up the situation
modern-day war correspondents find themselves in when he said: "Embedded means
you're there. It also means you're stuck."
Gowing observed, "such arrangements are a Faustian bargain." That is to say, the
short-term gains of unrestrained access do not always outweigh the long-term
harm caused by biased reporting.
Although dramatic footage may attract viewers, subjective reporting has damaging
and lasting effects. This situation is almost impossible to avoid when you are
completely reliant on the unit you are embedded with for both protection and
information.
Sadly, the stereotype of the daring war correspondent, who goes to extreme
lengths to find the truth and a good story, seems to be one consigned to
history.
Source: Press TV
Be first to comment this article
Write Comment
Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article.
Comments posted are the sole opinion of the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of AIM.
