War reporting, after Iraq.

An epic event that occurred in the 2003 Iraq war was the embedding of journalists with military forces. Tumber (2005, p.371) in his chapter ‘Journalism and the war in Iraq’ notes that unlike the 1982 conflict in the Falklands where the journalists were embedded by accident with the British Task force, in 2003 the US Department of Defense in consultation with news organisations deliberately embedded journalists with various parts of the military. Although on paper this may seem, encouraging and significant to the progress of Journalism, and as acknowledging Journalism as an official entity and factor in war, whether this is a positive step for Journalism and its functions in reality is highly debateable. The Iraq war has been the most dangerous war for journalists. This disparity between how things are intended to work on paper and what actually happens is more apparent now than ever before. Why is it getting more dangerous for journalists, when the media seems to be having a positive impact on war? For example the presence of media has been a factor that established the need for precision weapons. How come NATO forces, though they are clearly more powerful on the battlefield and though they possess better technology, seem to be losing the battle on the internet? This essay seeks to answer these questions and explain certain elements that are at play in relation to the fourth estate and its role in war. In doing so it will also seek to provide an insight into a likely future of war reporting, given the existing trends and challenges faced.

There is no doubt that the 2003 Iraq war has been the most hostile war for journalists. The August 2004 news release by the INSI (International News safety Institute) reported 50 personnel killed either by hostilities or ‘friendly-fire’ accidents, the CPJ (Committee to Protect Journalists reported 17 journalists killed in the first six weeks (Tumber 2005, p. 374). “Figures from the IFJ show that the levels of killings of journalists in Gulf War II were unprecedented” (Tumber 2005, p. 375). Tumber (2005, pp.375-376) further writes that apart from the killings journalists faced a slew of injustices. They received threats, experienced expulsions and detentions, and even had their equipment confiscated from them. This was not just confined to Iraq and the war zone, in fact in there were reports of journalists in Madrid and Cairo being attacked while covering anti-war protests (IFJ, 2003a cited in Tumber, 2005, p. 375). According to John Simpson of the BBC, who is the world affairs editor and who was injured in a ‘friendly fire’ incident, the death of many journalists was because of what he expressed as the ‘ultimate act of censorship’. Simpson believed the system of embedding journalists meant that the journalists that were operating independently of the British and American troops were now potential targets (Tumber and Palmer, 2004 cited in Tumber, 2005, p. 376). Why was it that the media were being treated in such a way given the functional purpose they were serving in war? Tumber (2005, p. 371) notes that after the Vietnam War, governments as well as militaries have acknowledged the power of the media and have thus sought to ‘control’ and ‘manage’ media through different methods. The Vietnam War led to the belief that television had somehow ‘lost the war’, which in turn led to the notion that stricter controls over the media were necessary to contain information in a bid to win the hearts and minds of the public. It was this attitude that was the biggest factor in creating an extremely hostile situation for journalists in the Iraq war.
Moeller (2004, p. 72) in her chapter ‘A Moral Imagination’ writes that the American presidents in the 1950s and 1960s were consumed with not ‘losing’ countries to communism on their watch. Zelizer (2004, p. 119) in her chapter ‘When war is reduced to a photograph’ proclaims that the Vietnam War, was the war that introduced to the world the graphic images of war. This was a major factor that contributed to the awareness that was gained through the Vietnam War - that the media had tremendous power to influence the human psyche. The American presidents who were dedicated to not losing countries to communism and ultimately the Vietnam war that in many ways liberated the potential of war reporting, although it collided with the government’s agenda. Robinson (2004, p. 108) in his chapter ‘US media-state relations conclude that although the media has consistently been deferential to government positions during times of crisis and war, the media have faced and still continue to face regular attacks for being too critical of the wartime/crisis policies of the US government. Often this is done by claiming that the new media technology is affecting the balance of power between the media and the state. An example Robinson uses is the Vietnam War which was fought by the US at a time when television ownership had become widespread among in the US. Thus many sought to explain this military failure of the US defeat and having to withdraw with the term “Vietnam syndrome”, wherein domestic population were not able to tolerate casualties, at least in part due to ‘graphic and decontextualized television news coverage. President Richard Nixon argued “The Vietnam War was complicated by factors that never before occurred in America’s conduct of a war . . . More than ever before, television showed the terrible human suffering and sacrifice of war. Whatever the intention behind such relentless and literal reporting of the war, the result was a serious demoralization of the home front, raising the question whether America would ever again be able to fight an enemy abroad with unity and strength of purpose at home” (Nixon, 1978, cited in Robinson, 2004, p. 108). Carruthers (2004, p. 159) in her chapter ‘Tribalism and tribulation’ refers to the popular notion of the media “power without responsibility” which has been overused, putting to rest charges against American journalists in Vietnam who were criticised for abandoning objectivity, fuelling anti-war partisanship, and for showing no restraint in making available extremely graphic footage that showed what modern weapons could do to human flesh (Hallin, 1989, cited in Carruthers, 2004, p. 159). Although this notion is no longer prevalent, it was a popular notion, which provided a base for governments to consider heavy impositions on the media when it came to war reporting. Thus it is not hard to imagine why journalists were treated in such an insensitive and inhuman fashion in the 2003 Iraq war, despite the fact that they serve a very important function.


The 2003 Iraq war has seen shocking treatment of journalists. Tumber (2005, p. 375) sheds light on the unexplained killings of the seven journalists who were killed by the coalition forces in Basra and Baghdad in four separate incidents and how this brought upon unprecedented anger among journalists all around the world. Phillip Knightly (2003) in fact called the war in Iraq one ‘when journalists seemed to become a target’ (Knightly, 2003, cited in Tumber, 2005, p. 375). One of the most widely covered in the war in Iraq relating to media personnel was the deaths of the journalists at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad. On the 8th of April 2003 a Reuters cameraperson and a Spanish TV camera person was killed, along with for others wounded when the US troops fired on a Palestine Hotel which was the base for most of the western media in Baghdad. On that very day an Al-Jazeera cameraperson also died when the TV station’s office in the city was hit by a bomb. On that very day Abu-Dhabi TV was also hit, indicating that on that day, either purposely or by accident, all the main media headquarters both Western and Arab was attacked by the US military (Tumber and Palmer, 2004 cited in Tumber, 2005, p. 377). Therefore the media had literally come under fire by the military, this kind of attitude has left a lot to be desired but more importantly, it is vital to see the consequences that will result with this approach towards the media. Much research has been done and a lot written about what the long term implications would be on wars, government, democracy, society and even the human race as a whole given the present challenges war reporting is facing, this essay focuses more on the immediate consequences that are manifesting itself in the present reality and situation. Is this attitude and strategy beneficial for the US governments and its objectives in Iraq? Are these actions advantageous to the US government and military, and their image in the eyes of the world? These are the more pressing questions that are presenting itself at the moment and need to be answered immediately. America has acknowledged in various levels that the present war is not about territories or battlefields, but rather about winning the hearts and minds of the people.


The horrific mistreatment of journalists is setting the objectives of America back. While they seem to be largely in control of the war on the battlefields, they are losing the war on the internet. During times of war it is one opponent against the other vying for crucial positions, resources, etc. The past century has made it clearer now than ever before that propaganda is another important wing of war. It is now army, navy, air and propaganda. There are even wings of the military set up for this specific purpose. People are the most important ‘resource’ in this war, their mindsets are the most ‘crucial positions’ in this age, and the two opponents are vying for them, and America it seems is falling behind. The popular notion that a shocking number of people truly believe is that America went into Iraq for oil. Rampton and Stauber (2003) write in detail about disparities between facts and widely believed false notions. Rampton and Stauber (2003, p. 4) points out the most Americans did believe that Operation Iraqi Freedom was for a noble cause and this did include the 300,000 soldiers who risked their lives. These soldiers risked their lives truly believed that they were doing so to make the world a better place and a safer place for themselves and their loved ones. It is the mistreatment of journalists by the US forces that is helping extremists win the propaganda war. There are many aspects as to how this phenomenon has mechanised itself so successfully. The first aspect is that the current policy the US and NATO forces have with the media. Taylor (2006, p. 64) in his essay ‘Journalism under Fire: The Reporting of War and International Crisis’ sheds light on this pointing out that the official Anglo-American policy is to never discuss military events especially those involving special forces. It is thus kept out of the media even long after their deployment has ended. This was the reason there was only patchy coverage of the war against the Al-Quaeda movement in Afghanistan. This policy sometimes makes it hard to counter propaganda from extremists as the nature of this propaganda prompts questions that may not be answered due to this policy, leading the public to think it is true. This has resulted in putting the NATO forces on the back foot in the realm of propaganda thus creating a void in the media that is constantly attempted to be fed extremist propaganda in its place. Tumber (2005, p. 370) refers to Nik Gowing the main presenter and BBC world journalist who has constantly stressed upon how new technologies is blurring the distinction between the media and private citizen. In this age camcorders, digital cameras and computers enable a large number of people to capture events and this causes concerns not only for government but also for news organizations. Security forces’ finding it increasingly harder to ‘hide’ their activities is having an impact on military doctrine, strategy and practice. On the flipside governments too are facing a new propaganda war against terrorist and guerrilla groups who are using this situation, and who now have the capability to manipulate and spread images. This has resulted in broadcasters facing an incredible challenge in deciding which images to broadcast and which images to leave out, especially when they receive images that have come from unverifiable and unknown sources. What is even more challenging for broadcasters is correcting the impact of these faked images and unreliable reports simply because it can be immensely tricky and secondly because it puts the broadcaster in a very vulnerable position, causing the public and the government to question its credibility and reliability, it may even hold the prospect of facing legal action (Gowing, 2004, cited in Tumber, 2005, p. 371). Therefore broadcasters are facing tremendous challenges not just from the NATO forces and their respective governments but also from the terrorist groups. Sadly they have not been able to face these challenges with much success lately. Taylor (2006, p. 63) mentions the importance of the mass media, reiterating that the public opinion and public knowledge of countries faraway including wars and international crises are heavily dependent on them. This dependence has been widely entrusted by the public on the media without much understanding of how and under what circumstances the media work. Taylor also points out that at this crucial time after September 11, 2001 and during ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ the media has been at best confused, failing to understand in context and in relating to the complexities of this ‘new kind of war’. Thus looking at War Reporting in lieu of the present situation we can see that the present environment is not conducive struggling between the danger of being blown up and the danger of being a major instrument in a plant for propaganda, but we can also see that in lieu of these challenges faced, War Reporting is falling short and unable to rise to these new challenges. The media is not a bolt on to society in fact it is one of the four pillars used in building a democracy and serves an innately vital function. Just as a building with four pillars relies equally on each of them to hold it up, a democracy relies on the media, just as much as it relies on the judiciary, the legislature and the executive, it relies on the press. Taylor (2006, pp. 63-64) the media’s inaction to find new competitive techniques to cope with the challenges it faces along with the new forms of media and ‘citizen journalism’ is contributing to the way the world is reported, distorted and misreported at present. The degree to which these developments either help or hinder an informed public may be critical for democracy to continue to exist. Taylor (2006, p. 64) links the relationship between war, conflict and the mass media and points out how important it is to be aware of these relationships as it the essence of being an informed democratic citizen, which is essential in turn for democracy. Taylor argues that every democratic citizen not only has a right but also a responsibility to participate in political life. In order to do this it is essential that they have full and accurate information as well as a clear understanding of the issues involved. A citizen can only truly make an informed decision of what foreign policies, made by the government on behalf of its citizens, he/she wishes to endorse/oppose and ultimately it is this decision that ascertains life or death consequences. It is literally a matter of life and death. Therefore the role played by the news media in this democratic process is a highly significant one and is of utter importance.

The present mechanism is making terrorist propaganda extremely attractive, and the attitude taken towards the war reporting after the Vietnam War is a major contributor to this. When democratic nations treat its press with utter disregard creating an environment that is not conducive for the press to serve its purpose the mechanics of democracy itself changes and the void that is left does get filled by destructive propaganda simply because today there is so much propaganda just waiting to get into the system. Tumber (2005, p. 378) urges that there is no doubt that the public will suffer from the lack of reliable information. The consequences will be devastating with propaganda influencing voting citizens of a democracy. Vigilance and determination in the face of adversity is the key for the press to fight to continue to play its role in the process, but in facets like war reporting it will not be able to fight alone, it will need the assistance of the other three pillars – the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive. It will need people in the democracy as well as its governments to understand just how important the media is, if they are to keep their freedoms.





Reference list
Allan, S (2005), Journalism: Critical Issues, Open University Press, London.
Allan, S & Zelizer, B (2004), Reporting War: Journalism in Wartime, Routledge, London.
Bell, M (1995), In Harm’s Way, Hamish Hamilton, London.
Cottle, S (2006), News, Public Relations and Power, Sage, London.
Rampton, S & Stauber, J (2003), Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush’s War on Iraq, Robinson, London.