Professional Documents
Culture Documents
com/group/Shetubondhon/message/5224
March 20, 2003
By Rezwan-ul-Alam, Ph.D.
Introduction: Media's love for bad news is wel-known. The Iraq crisis
has been in the news for months and we are sitting agape to watch the
climax. with the whole world's eyes set on unfolding tragedy in Iraq,
war reporting is likely to be more dynamic as rival news
organizations engage themselves in their own battle of news. It will
take some time to learn how war reporters have been gathering news on
Iraq war; however, a look into the past examples may shed some light
as to how war had been covered previously. Perhaps objective
reporting when it comes to war is one of the biggest challenge before
the media. Reporting from Iraq will show, if the media is still a
prisoner of past practices or the information age has got better of
it. This write-up, hurriedly compiled, attempts to put military-media
relations during war in the historical context.
The general trends: Writers and journalists generally agree that the
pen is mightier than the sword. On the other hand, the war leaders,
generals and the rank and file saw the criticism of war by writers as
an act of treason. General William Tecumseh Sherman is regarded as
one of the most notorious critics of the press. He banished newspaper
correspondents from his lines in the American Civil War and
threatened summary punishment for anyone who published information
about his forces. General Sherman believed that there was a direct
relationship between censorship and military victory and argued that
the press should have no rights during war (in Frank and William,
1995). It is in this context the American journalist Lippmann
commented: "Military censorship is the simplest form of barrier
between the public and the event" (1921:43).
Military and media groups differed in the way each framed its vision
of the role of the press, with the result that the two groups had
separate notions of the boundaries of appropriate practices for
journalists during war. While media respondent emphasised their roles
as watchdogs or chroniclers of history, military respondents noted
the media's function as "force multipliers" to boost morale or
confound the enemy. Reporters saw their jobs as interpreters of
events, while some military respondents believed reporters should
give facts without interpretation.
The British perspective about the Gulf War and media propaganda has
been more critical. As Taylor (1992:268) observed: "Despite the
existence of well over a thousand journalists in the Gulf from a wide
variety of news gathering organisations with different editorial
styles and journalistic practices, they were all essentially
dependent upon the coalition military for their principal source of
information about the progress of the war. It was monopoly in the
disguise of pluralism."
Making case studies of the Vietnam war, the invasion of Grenada, the
invasion of Panama, and the Gulf war, Thrall (1996) refuted the
conventional wisdom that the military was primarily responsible for
press restrictions in recent American conflicts.
The odd couple: The fact that bringing military and the media into a
closer relationship is frought with challenges is evident from a
report by Aukofer and Lawrence (1995) titled "Amercia's Team: The Odd
couple – A Report on the Relationship Between the Media and the
Military". This report, which has become the standard text for public
affairs throughout the U.S. military, includes a series of
recommendations that both news organisations and the military can use
to improve coverage and better inform the American people.
The report, however, also shows that the attitude of the U.S.
military towards the media has not improved much. In the report,
Aukofer and Lawrence (1995) quoted the remark of an Air Force Major
who said: "Journalists are self-serving by nature, compensated based
upon copy-inch published, and focused solely upon their self-
aggrandising ego and the increase in circulation their sensationalism
spawned. The visual medium (TV) is the worst of the bunch."
The report showed that the military has a strong disregard for the
media. In ranking its confidence in various institutions, the
military ranked themselves first in confidence, followed by the U.S.
Supreme Court, the medical profession and major educational
institutions. Newspaper were in 9th place, with the U.S. Congress and
television news at the bottom of the ratings (Aukofer and Lawrence,
1995).