A rchive Date
[ 22-03-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Mass Media ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/stanway.html
TV war is hardly the whole story
By PAUL STANWAY - Edmonton Sun
March 22, 2003
As you sit in front of your television set and watch the fascinating "real time" coverage from reporters with American and British forces inside and around Iraq, you may be tempted to feel that you know more about this conflict than any which has gone before. That's what you're being told.
Well, take it from an old cynic: You don't know anything.
The anchors at CNN, ABC, BBC and all the other networks with reporters and camera folk "embedded" in combat units have been gushing about the "historic importance" of live coverage from the front, and those pictures do indeed represent a real advance in the technical coverage of war. They also give the talking heads of broadcast journalism something to rattle on about for the many hours when nothing much is happening. But I hope for their sakes that they don't actually believe this represents a quantum leap in the accurate coverage of war.
I covered my first conflict with a pen and notebook and my last with a laptop computer. The advances in technology made things a lot easier. Reporters used to spend far more time trying to file stories than actually writing or reporting. Just getting a telephone line could take many frustrating hours.
(During the 1990 Romanian revolution I spent eight hours and numerous bribes getting a call back to Canada, only to be told by an editor who thought he was having a bad day that he was too busy organizing coverage of a serious traffic accident and I'd have to call back in 10 minutes. It took me another six hours and several more bribes to re-establish contact.)
Trust me, I appreciate the technology and hard work necessary to enable journalists to do live television coverage from a war zone. But don't be persuaded that this seemingly instant coverage or apparent openness automatically cuts through the fog of war and adds accuracy and credibility to the reporting. It just makes it a whole lot quicker.
Truth, as they say, is the first casualty of war, and I doubt very much that Gulf War 2 is going to be much different in that regard. In fact, allowing reporters to file reports from the front may do more to confuse than enlighten. The little pictures won't necessarily help you figure out the big picture. That's not why the U.S. is allowing this to happen.
We live in an age of mass communication, and public opinion and propaganda are far more important than ever before in human history. The U.S. was unable to prosecute the Vietnam War to its fullest ability and to a successful conclusion because of the impact of television reporting. It was, by modern standards, slow and restricted by available technology (it often took 48 hours for film to reach the U.S.), but it had such an impact on public opinion that it changed the way the war was conducted and eventually influenced the outcome.
No government since then has wanted to repeat that experience. In the Falklands War the British allowed correspondents to accompany the troops but the reporting was heavily censored and restricted. Coverage of military operations during the first Gulf War was along much the same lines, with the addition of elaborate briefings (complete with video footage of bombs destroying buildings). In both conflicts the media complained bitterly about the restrictions, but that was of little consequence. The military and PR advantages of controlling coverage far outweighed any squawking from the press.
It's already apparent that Gulf War 2 will be very different. For starters, there is no doubt about the outcome of this war. Washington is convinced it is in control and has little to lose from extensive, positive coverage of military operations. If there are nasty surprises, you can expect a swift change of tactics.
The coverage is also clearly an attempt to influence the people, the leadership and the military of Iraq. It is being harnessed as a PR weapon meant to overawe, demoralize and hopefully shorten the conflict.
But as for helping us figure out the big picture, I think U.S. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld said it all when he was asked by a rather obtuse reporter why the opening phase of the war wasn't following "the plan" the media had been talking about. "You don't have the plan," said Rumsfeld. "And I feel very good about that."
My guess is that he's still feeling very good.
Letters to the editor should be sent to letters@edm.sunpub.com.
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|