Journalism as a crusade.

It is a widely acknowledged fact that Journalism today is being suffocated although there is a lot of debate as to what degree this suffocation is occurring. To answer the question as to whether Journalism should be a trade or a crusade it is essential for us to answer some other questions. What was the motive and reason Journalism was started for in the first place? In time what sort of role has it come to play in our way of life? What are the consequences to our way of life if it ceases to serve the function it was set out to in the first place? Today it seems like a dangerous change in the ethics of Journalism is easily gaining acceptance. Editors seem to think it is completely ethical and acceptable to give readers what they want rather than informing them of what they need to be aware off. Hallin (1996, p. 254) in his chapter ‘Commercialism and professionalism in the American news media’ discusses extensively whether this attitude would lead to an age of multiple voices and thereby more democracy or a decline of public life. Hallin (1996, p. 247) makes a study of these recent changes explaining them through two different schools of thought, the readership theory and the stockholder theory. The readership theory quite benevolently claims that given the decline in newspaper readership the Journalists must give the ‘customers’ what they want, at least to integrate social interest into the public once again, if nothing else. The stockholders theory states that with the present norm of selling stocks and ‘public’ ownership, Journalism should be treated like any other business. This change in ethics has devastating effects on Journalism and thereby its purpose in society as Belsey and Chadwick (1998, p. 10) in their chapter ‘Ethics and politics of the media’ point out that “‘Do not lie’ is not equivalent to ‘Tell the truth’. Lying as everyone knows from daily-life situations, can be avoided by silence, vagueness or changing the subject, which suggests that not lying is an insufficient ethical principle, in both daily life and Journalism. A newspaper might just keep quiet about facts which could produce embarrassment for a cause it supports.”

Therefore coming to the above questions there is very little debate that Journalism was set up to enable democracy. Journalism is commonly referred to as the fourth estate of democracy equating it to as much a part of the democratic process as the Executive, the Judiciary, or the Legislative. The function it serves is that of a watchdog. Frost (2000, p. 24) points out that the most important role of the media is to facilitate political discussion and to keep the public informed, as a democratic society that votes needs to be well informed. Frost explains that in most of the western world people are too lazy, busy, cynical and preoccupied for political debate but that should not be a reason not to continue to strive for the ideal and this can only be facilitated by the press. Frost (2000, p. 27) concludes that “when we talk about a free media we are not necessarily talking about the media’s right to publish anything they like, but that people, including journalists, should have the right to spread information and ideas which can be justified morally in order to support the public’s right to know. In other words, information published in the public interest, not merely information to sate the public’s curiosity or desire to be entertained. This means that any pressure brought to bear on a person and his or her right to hold and disseminate ideas and information (whether from government agencies, proprietors, threats or bribes from outside agencies, including advertisers’ pressure) damages the citizen’s ability to have access to as wide a range of views on a subject as he or she desires.” Unfortunately these ideals have been heavily compromised on various levels for example when it comes to hiring journalists it is the organization that does so. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p. 264) found that while some employers preferred individuals with Journalism majors, other employers preferred majors in liberal arts and more specifically in American studies. They also observed that in the present system, the role journalists see themselves in, had a major impact on the content they produce. If they see their role as disseminating information or adversaries to the powerful it will express itself in the content they produce. Therefore if this role is determined by the owners and the organisation, then it is the owners and the organisation that has a large influence on the content. Another fundamental aspect that conflicts with the voters’ right to know in a democracy is that the laws set up in many democracies do not allow journalists to do their job and restricts them from being watchdogs. Belsey and Chadwick (1998, p. 6) note that the media in Britain are heavily restricted by criminal laws of official secrets, obscenity, blasphemy, and sedition. They are also restricted on reporting on things like Irish terrorist groups and their alleged supporters by the civil laws of libel and the breach of confidence. They also mention the judge-made law of contempt of court. Belsey and Chadwick (1998, p. 6) also mention that apart from just these laws that restrict and suffocate Journalism there is a general attitude and culture in the judiciary to be unsympathetic to the idea of a free press and the democratic principle of freedom of information, and are quite committed to trying to gag the media using prior restraints of interlocutory injunctions. This is a legal move virtually impossible in the United States. This sort of environment makes it hard for journalists to ascertain what is ethical and what is unethical and often this phenomenon is used as an instrument to make the powerful more powerful and the weak, weaker. As Belsey and Chadwick (1998, p. 9) points out the journalist’s conflict with honesty, noting that a journalist must certainly be honest in their activities whether it be reporting or investigating, but sometimes it is essential that the journalist go undercover, especially when it comes to something like public corruption which can only be investigated under cover with the journalist pretending to be someone else making a corrupt deal. The same applies when there is a war and the journalist discovers something that could potentially harm the war effort. Another aspect where an ethical conflict arises that Belsey and Chadwick (1998, p. 9) point out to is privacy, a journalist may genuinely have the highest regard for an individual’s right to privacy and yet claim that certain information about a politician does not merit this right. Yet another aspect Belsey and Chadwick (1998, p. 9) talk about is the broadcasting ban on terrorism posing the questions, “Even if some aspects of the ban can be defended, is it fair or in the interests of democracy to extend it to archive material of genuine historical and political interest? Or is it reasonable to prevent the broadcasting of the actual speaking voice of an alleged terrorist supporter while allowing him or her to be shown on film with an actor reading synchronised words? It is not difficult to think that wherever the line should be drawn it should not be drawn here. But the general problem remains, both in this and many other cases. Moreover, however much effort is put into drawing clear lines in a code of conduct, it is the individual journalist who will come face to face with very difficult dilemmas, and have to make moral choices. No code can anticipate every situation.” Another prominent way in which a voter’s right to information is being heavily compromised in the present mechanics of Journalism is in regard to time and deadlines given to journalists. The way the time factor has manifested itself in the present system is critical. Journalists today are faced with harsher deadlines than ever before with little time to get a story. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p. 262) informs us that as journalists are racing against time they begin to favour readily available sources like corporations. This would lead to a culture of favouring certain types of sources over a period of time. Davies (2008, p. 69) sheds light on this explaining that these days the sole imperative for journalists is not getting an accurate insight into a story but rather to file their stories in as immediately as they possibly can simply because the present situation demands that. Therefore they spend very little time on a story and much more little or no time on checking the accuracy of the information or the legitimacy of the source, and it is in exactly this kind of situation that rapid repackaging takes place. Davies (2008, p. 64) reiterates that ascertaining the truth is one of the primary functions of Journalism arguing that the object of Journalism itself is truth and central to this objective is the responsibility of checking and therefore by taking time away we are indeed taking truth away as well. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, pp. 268-269) notes that sources with political and economic power have tremendous potential to influence news in a system where journalists bank on readily available sources. These sources usually hire regular staff for the sole purpose of getting information to the media quickly. Thus the media is dominated by these ‘official’ sources that influence and involve themselves in issues rather than events. Journalists are expected to provide the same amount of news day in and day out even if it is a slow news day this creates an increasing dependence on public relations practitioners and journalists get conditioned and revert to accepting their news rather than come up with enterprising stories. This has a dire effect on democracy as it is not only undemocratic that the economic and political elite dictate the news and views in the media but more dangerously the weak has no voice and may begin to feel that their views are socially unacceptable. News, issues and events that are in line with media routines have a much greater chance of being covered than those that are not in line with such routines. Therefore the reality is that news that is not in the reporters beat, or events and issues where there is no good footage available will go unreported (Shoemaker and Reese 1996, p. 265). Thus the principle of equality that is so essential for democracy is missing. On the contrary it has the potential to develop into a system that accommodates tyranny of a certain sect of society. The effect of this on democracy would be devastating. Shoemaker and Reese (1996) examines the extent to which minorities are underrepresented not only in the media but also in a democracy, concluding that the more a minority has acclimated itself or an individual from a minority has acculturated himself/herself to the ways of the majority, the better his/her prospects and socio-economic level is. An example they illustrate to give us an insight is the fact that there are more television characters with high status jobs than there are with low status jobs. They also note that in an elite medium there are less or no workers similar to its general population, concluding that the more the media criticizes the government, the more the government tries to control the media (Shoemaker and Reese 1996).

Thus for democracy to function it is essential that its fourth estate the press and more importantly a free press serves the purpose it is meant to serve. It is for this reason that laws cannot have bearing on it rather vice versa, it must be able to provide a reasonable inventory as to whether the law of the land is being implemented in the spirit it was written in. Belsey and Chadwick (1998, p. 6) mention that the need for media freedom has been recognised in various conventions and charters of the human rights and also in the First Amendment to the constitution of the United states of America. Belsey and Chadwick (1998, pp. 8-9) explains that unlike other professionals like health-care professionals, who due to malpractice can cause a lot more serious harm, journalists’ invading privacy is not as harmful, although there are exceptions. But given the nature of Journalism, journalists cannot be penalised for malpractice. More importantly given that laws often conflict with ethics and journalists trying to do their job and the fact that the press is such a vital part of a democratic society, journalists can do without having to be fearful of repercussions. Belsey and Chadwick (1998, p. 9) exclaim that the idea that a journalist must have a license to practice journalism and be faced with the possibility that his/her licence will be removed for violating a code of conduct is most definitely too draconian. More importantly it is an anti-democratic solution to the problem of media malpractice and would enable democracy being undermined even more than it would have been by the malpractice.

Given that it is anti-democratic to have laws that restrict and bind the ‘free press’, especially at the level it exists at present and given that in the dynamics and mechanics of a democracy it is essential to have a free press, there can only be one solution. It is the journalists who need to be ethical. Belsey and Chadwick (1998, p. 5) points out that the issue of quality is still inescapable. Quality journalism that does not rob the public of their right to knowledge, facilitating political discussion is as important to democracy as a press that is not bound by the law of the land. “A free and vigorous press and other organs of mass media and mass communications are agreed to be among the essential ingredients of a healthy democracy. (We include the word ‘vigorous’ because it is clear that freedom is not sufficient: a press could be free yet timid or torpid.)” (Belsey and Chadwick 1998, p. 6). They also debate whether the law can act as a mechanism of quality control or whether it should be the ethical code or the moral responsibility of journalists, concluding that regardless of the law having control over the press or not Journalists are still required to be ethical. They point out that in the present system with the law restricting the press the media are still capable of offending without straying beyond the law in ways like inaccuracy, lies, distortions, bias, propaganda, favouritism, sensationalism, trivialisation, lapses of taste, vulgarity, sleaze, sexism, racism, homophobia, personal attacks, smears, character assassination, cheque-book journalism, deception, betrayal of confidences and invasions of privacy. They further acknowledge that in the United States where the law is less restrictive, ethical debate between both the practitioners of Journalism and theoreticians is widespread, lively and widely accepted as the norm (Belsey and Chadwick 1998, pp. 6-8). Frost (2000, pp. 28-29) draws the contrast between France and Sweden pointing out that “in France, the law covers a wide range of issues that are dealt with by other countries in their press codes of ethical conduct. It is no surprise therefore that France, with its tough constitution and laws, has a limited code of journalistic conduct whilst Sweden, which has practically no legislation in the area of ethical media activity, has a strong code and regulatory media council that is taken very seriously by practitioners.” Thus imposing laws on the media makes the media less ethical whereas the lesser laws are imposed on the media the stronger code of ethics is followed and given that it is in a democracies interest to have a free press it is definitely the only way. The media is then governed by its code that enables it to stand up against the powerful and stand up for the weak, rather than being dictated to, and used as an instrument by the political and economic elite.

In truth any government or regime that does not allow the press to operate freely cannot be called a democracy. As Frost (2000, p. 25) rightly points out that any political system that does not allow the participation of all its citizens or for that matter a political system that does not require the participation of all its citizens through the ballot box would not require a free media. A free media in such a system would potentially be a voice of dissent that is likely to cause disruption in the society more than anything else, as it is unlikely that it would be of any use to the citizens themselves unless they are seeking to introduce democracy by trying to change the government. In this sense it is not accurate to call a government that does not allow a free press to facilitate participation from all citizens a democracy. Left only to the participation of the political and economic elite it will only make the rich, richer and the powerful, more powerful and this will happen at the expense of the poor and the weak that would continue to plummet into an even direr situation. This is most definitely contrary to the principles of democracy. Davies (2008, p. 73) points out that in the present circumstance news produced can be reliable and effective to its readers only if the outside providers of news are giving an effective and reliable account. The consequences will change the nature of Journalism itself and have considerable impact on what democracy will be described as. As far as the question as to whether Journalism should be a trade or a crusade and should journalists have a moral responsibility to take a stand for the weak and oppressed against the powerful, it is evident that if they do not do so we have to redefine what democracy is and democracy would cease to mean and be what it has been.

REFERENCE LIST

Bell, M (1995), In Harm’s Way, Hamish Hamilton, London.

Belsey, A & Chadwick, R (1998), Ethical Issues In Journalism And The Media, Routledge, London.

Bernstein, C & Woodward, B (1974), All The President’s Men, Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, New York.

Curran, J & Gurevitch, M (1996), Mass Media and Society, Arnold, London.

Davies, N (2008), Flat Earth News: An Award-winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda, Chatto & Windus, London.

Frost, C (2000), Media Ethics And Self-Regulation, Longman, London.

McNair, B (1998), The sociology of Journalism, Arnold, London.

Palast, G (2003), The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, Robinson, London.

Shoemaker, P & Reese, S (1996), Mediating the Message: Theories of Influence on

Mass Media Content, Longman, New York.

Spark, D (2003), Investigative Reporting, Focal Press, Oxford.

Sunstein, C (2001), ‘Exposure To Other View Points is Vital to Democracy’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Viewed 27 October 2008, .

What are the advantages and disadvantages of the use of military deception through the media?

Sun Tzu wrote in a Chinese military treatise The Art Of War, “All warfare is deception. There is no place where espionage is not used. Offer the enemy bait to lure him.” A book that influenced Napoleon, Operation desert storm, Mao Zedong, General Vo Nguyen Giap, Baron Antoine-Henri Jomini and General Douglas McArthur (Tzu., Griffith, [translator], 1971). Handel (1982, p. 122) in his chapter ‘Intelligence and Deception’ explains that it is necessary and essential to consider deception as a rational in war as it multiplies the strength of the deceiver. Therefore while it may be popular notion to view military deception as unethical, immoral and maybe even cowardly, military deception in truth is a very legitimate and important part of war (Smith 1991, p. 70). Handel (1982, p. 122) in fact points out that while in civilian affairs deception and its forms like fraud or cheating are punishable by law or informally punishable by sanctions (including losing reputation and credibility), this is however not the case in war. This is true in international politics as well in a lesser degree, with each state having their own norms and morality. Handel (1982, p. 122) argues that in international politics and more frequently in war, deception is rewarded by greater success and achievements. Daniel and Herbig (1982, p. 155) defines deception as “the deliberate misinterpretation of reality done to gain a competitive advantage.” They note that this phenomenon of military deception is one of tactics and strategy that is extensively used, yet is seldom ever acknowledged, and if ever acknowledged it is done so only long after the conflict has ended. They point out that it is only in the last few years that America and Britain have declassified their files on their World War II deception activities. But this attitude is largely due to the nature of deception and the way it works rather than that of conscience arising from “unethical” means. As Daniel and Herbig (1982, p. 155) points out that the nature of deception is such that it does involve the keeping of secrets and thereby negating access to and withholding information. This cannot take away anything from deception being an age old and legitimate aspect of war. This essay however will deal with using the media as an instrument of military deception and the consequences it might produce.

First it would serve well to look at some essential facets of deception. A good place to start would be to look at the ways in which deception can be used in war. Handel (1982, pp. 124-128) describes vividly the different ways through which deception is employed by militaries. Handel (1992, p. 124) talks about violating the principle of concentration of forces wherein the deception campaign is set up such that it aims to mislead the enemy’s attention making him focus his forces in the wrong place. The most famous example of this is the allied deception plans which diverted the focus of the Germans on to Norway and Pas de Calais as prospective landings for the invasion and succeeded in getting their attention away from Normandy (Handel 1982, p. 125). Another similar type of deception is violating the principle of economy of force, which involves enticing the opponent to waste its resources like weapons, man power, ammunition, time etc on non-existent targets or in unimportant directions. The British employed this strategy in the battle of Britain against the Germans causing them to attack non-existent airfields and factories by interfering with the German electronic navigation aids and setting up phoney targets. Another type of deception is to surprise the opponent, creating a situation that would catch them off-guard. This is usually done by cultivating political and economic relations first, like Hitler’s ploys with Russia until the eve of Barbarossa in June 1941 (Handel 1982, p. 125). Conditioning the opponent also is a ploy to gain the surprise element like the jammed the British radar stations, enabling the German battle cruisers to break out of the English Channel, the German radar officers increased the intensity of the jamming slowly till the British radar was useless. Disguising preparations as military manoeuvres was a ploy used by the Soviet in the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 (Handel 1982, p. 126). These types of deception campaigns are quite complex and can be devastating to the opponent, now add the new factor in the equation, the media with its potential for communication. This magnifies the potential of these deception campaigns and ways in which it can be disguised.

In researching for this topic I found very little literature on it, but the media is an integral part of the military’s apparatus for information warfare, public diplomacy and thereby even in deception strategies. Although the last one is much less acknowledged by either the press or the military, it is undeniable that the press has been at the very least an instrument in this military apparatus. Furthermore deception strategies through the media are extremely subtle and merge at a deep level. This is due to the nature of, deception and camouflage, and the nature of the way the media works, making it highly effective. Paletz (1994, p. 282) in is chapter ‘Just Deserts?’ points out that “The Gulf War revealed technology’s potential for inaccuracy and exploitation, inherent in instantaneous transmission of events without editing, contextualizing, or framing by reporters. Televised briefings were a particular concern. The military briefers were able to bypass reporters and communicate their point of view directly to the public.” O’Heffernan (1994, p. 234) in his chapter ‘A Mutual Exploitation Model of Media Influence in U.S. Foreign Policy’ further illustrates that the military briefings of the military for the press were a great hit with the audience pointing out that all around the world audiences were caught up by images of modern technological war happening live, to such an extent that their daily routines - when they slept, ate and worked - was centred around “watching the war”. The Media O’Heffernan (1994, p. 234) says not only provided vital information but also great entertainment and often the line between the two disappeared. Therefore looking at what Paletz expresses in relation to O’Heffernan we can see that the media had developed a system which the military did manage to manipulate, as a matter of fact O’Heffernan (1994, p. 234) concludes that “As long as the information supported government policy and was useful to its action, and as long as the entertainment drew audiences that could be sold to advertisers, both parties benefited.” The media was definitely being used as an instrument in the military apparatus and this did include military deception as O’Heffernan (1994, p. 234) expresses that the media organisations in the gulf war protested not only against censorship and intimidation but also against the outright disinformation from the coalition briefer. Smith (1991, p. 136) writes that the media did feel damaged and misled. The press felt like they had been misused. But looking at the bigger picture O’Heffernan (1994, p. 235) concludes that the media and the government were in a two way relationship and it was not only the government that was using the media but also the media exploiting the government in what he called “Mutual exploitation”. O’Heffernan (1994, p. 235) writes “ A team from Georgia Tech initiated a series of interviews of senior foreign policy and defence officials during the Gulf War, probing their responses to the coverage, their consumption of media, and their internal paradigm of the media-government relationship and of the impact of media on their paradigm of national security. This followed an earlier set of interviews with Journalists and officials in the United States and the former Soviet Union probing the same questions in the context of U.S.-Soviet relations.

When data from both sets of studies were examined together, the mutual exploitation theme quickly emerged. Both sets of actors acknowledged attempting to use, or using, the other. Both sets of actors could readily detail incidents in which media and government exploited each other with policy impacts, and both sets of actors described their perception of the relationships as one of both sides using each other for their own benefit. The questions asked focused on the following points:

· Did the Gulf War coverage change policy makers’ perception of the use of the media in the policy process?

· Did the Gulf War coverage change their perception of the media’s impact on public opinion and the decisions of other nation’s governments?

· Did the Gulf War coverage affect how policy-makers used the media?”

This seemingly shocking fact does raise important questions about the Press, the Government and Democracy. The Press is supposed to be the Fourth Estate of Democracy, acting as a watchdog. It may seem that the dynamics and the mechanics on how a democracy functions might be heavily upset if this basic principle is taken out of the equation. The questions that dominated the debates throughout the Gulf War in context to the media-government relationship were if the role of the media is one of a neutral observer or should it support the government in their military endeavours. Should the media try and influence the government on foreign policy matters or is that a realm the media should stay out of. But more importantly is the media being controlled or even influenced by the government, and should this be allowed during conflict (O’Heffernan 1994, p. 235). O’Heffernan (1994, p. 234) asks a thought provoking question “If both the media and the government benefited from the war’s coverage – that is, were able to exploit each other – why the controversy?” It is this same principle that may be applied in a broader context that may provide an explanation as to whether the government should be allowed to control the press during conflict. Willcox (2005, p. 39) speaks about western military leaders being at a disadvantage because of the free and independent British press as opposed to their counterparts of despotic regimes state controlled-media. Willcox explains that this provides a sort of a paradox for western propagandists propagating the values and benefits of democracy and freedom. This phenomenon has always been an issue. During the Second World War the British public and their government had to face a revaluation of their own moral standards. The military as well as the public were in a quandary, faced with a situation of having to give up their traditional gentlemanly concepts inherent to British national character in order to safeguard democracy a situation that is self-contradictory. Similar kinds of challenges were faced by General De la Billiere giving the British military no other choice but to adopt a Draconian attitude towards the press. Thus an open and democratic society is at a disadvantage with a democratic media during war (Willcox 2005, p. 39). Consequently it can be argued that in a war, the dynamics and mechanics of democracy are different, shedding some light on that question of whether the government should be allowed to control the press during conflict. Smith (1991, p. 70) reiterates that while it is unethical and wrong to deceive the media during peacetime during wartime however, withholding information so as to deceive and enemy is quite different. Therefore while it may not seem democratic that the government control the press, just as does not seem democratic that the media is shirking its watchdog function and rather being “exploited” willingly, and furthermore not acknowledging to the public that it is an instrument of military deception, just like the military does not acknowledge that it uses the media for military deception, in truth it is a system that counters the disadvantage faced by a democratic society from a democratic press. Thus one wonders if two wrongs make a right, negating each other as this phenomenon may not seem democratic in spirit it certainly is in truth. Acknowledging this truth and more importantly allowing it not only counters the disadvantage but additionally provides for an advantage to the military. The military can now use this system as camouflage for deception, as it is likely that the opponent may have access to the coverage as well. A ploy that has been used by NATO forces lately. This is highly advantageous as the trust of the existing system and media is used as camouflage, the opponent is highly unlikely to doubt that the military would risk lying to the people they are defending only for a small chance of deceiving the enemy. Taylor (1998, p. 135) refers to this while talking about Schwarzkopf’s strategies in the Gulf War, quoting Schwarzkopf:

“We knew that we were going to establish air superiority immediately so, on 17 January, whoosh, it started. I mean because we needed all of that time.... So the day we launched the offensive campaign, that was the day we started moving west.” (Schwarzkopf, cited in Taylor, 1998, p. 135).

Taylor (1998, p. 135) points out that the General’s reference to moving west was suggesting that he was planning to attack from the Saudi-Kuwait border moving left into southern Iraq, so as to deceive the enemy. Smith (1991, p. 70) mentions that Schwarzkopf had to deceive the enemy by deceiving a large number of Journalists from various nations. Smith also goes on to say that while the ground campaign was initiated Schwarzkopf enforced a news embargo on the media, as it was clear Saddam Hussein and his top military officers had been watching CNN as well as other media sources. Thus the media was providing direct inputs into the enemy camp through CNN, BBC and other media sources (Smith 1991, p. 70).

If we are to make a realistic justification of military deception and its advantages and disadvantages it is necessary to look at other overt reasons that deception is used. One of the reasons that deception is used is because an opposition is stronger. Handel (1982, pp. 122-124) explains that in order to compensate for numerical or other inferiority a side may use deception and the element of surprise to try and equal the deficit. Therefore the weaker or more at a disadvantage, a side is the more incentive they have to resort to deception. In recent times although the allied forces have not been at a disadvantage numerically or in terms of technology and warfare, they have been times where they have been in disadvantageous positions on account of its democratic press, which could have been incentive to adopt deceptive means as discussed earlier. But there are other reasons as well. Handel (1982, p. 122) points out that deception amplifies the available strength of a state enabling it use its force more economically, by achieving its aims more quickly at a lower cost. In recent times though there has been no real evidence to indicate that this has been a motive for deception. Another factor that Handel (1982, p. 122) cites as a motivation for deception is fewer casualties. This has been a factor that has motivated deception campaigns in recent times. Smith (1991, p. 71) points out that the primary reason an amphibious operation was not conducted by Schwarzkopf was to save lives. Schwarzkopf avoided what would have become a bloody fight across the ocean beach though the advantages surprise were part of his calculations, Smith argues that the primary reason was to save lives. As a matter of fact fewer casualties were a major factor in most of Schwarzkopf’s planning in the Gulf War. Taylor (1998, p. 134) points out that the memories of returning with body bags from South East Asia, a war that Schwarzkopf was a part of, created fears about heavy troop casualties in the Gulf War. This prompted American military planners to allow as much preparatory destruction of enemy positions as possible by the Air force. Taylor (1998, p. 135) provides us with the insight that Schwarzkopf occasionally worried about keeping his promise to the American people which was to try and achieve the absolute minimum number of casualties from the allied forces. Schwarzkopf claimed that minimum casualties were his objective all along. An objective he achieved. Thereby it may be justified that military deception, even through the media is advantageous.

Although it is an essential advantageous activity when done right, Handel (1982, p. 122) points out that there have been many times when deception has failed, or failed in achieving its intended objectives. There have also been occasion when deception has been counterproductive. Whaley (1982, p. 190) in his chapter ‘Toward a General Theory of Deception’ speaks about counter-deception arguing that in theory counter-deception, like deception is possible always and in every case. Whaley concludes by saying that counter deception – the detection of deception – is successfully done by masters of deception, proving themselves to be the best detectors of deception. Therefore it must be noted that deception and especially deception through the media is a highly skilful task, and one that always involves taking a gamble, with a lot at stake. Furthermore the attitude of hiding from or deceiving the media makes the public increasingly vulnerable to speculations, which may end up benefiting enemy propaganda that is not necessarily true. Taylor (2006, p. 64) in his chapter ‘Journalism under Fire: The Reporting of War and International Crisis’ sheds light on the Anglo-American policy to never discuss military events especially those involving special forces, thereby keeping out of the media long after their deployment ended, which was the reason there was only patchy coverage of the war against the Al-Quaeda movement in Afghanistan. This attitude and policy does make it much harder to counter enemy propaganda as the nature of such propaganda may be designed to answer such question that this policy does not allow, thereby misleading the public to be true. Thus deception through media can also be highly disadvantageous if these factors are not taken care of skilfully.

In conclusion it may be said that deception is a legitimate and essential aspect of war, and deception through the media by a democratic free press may be argued to be as essential a factor to war as deception is. Furthermore deception through the media is justified by the reasons it is employed namely to overcome situations where you are at a disadvantage or weaker, to make it quicker and at a lower cost, and most importantly to avoid casualties, or for fewer casualties. While deception through the media does bring about the above mentioned advantages, it must be remembered that is also has the potential to be highly disadvantages.

REFERENCE LIST

Atkinson, R (1993), Crusade, The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War, Houghton Mifflin Company, New York.

Paletz, D & Bennett, L (1994), Taken by Storm, The Media, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Gulf War, The University of Chicago Press, London.

Brown, B & Shukman, D (1991), All Necessary Means, BBC Books, London.

Cottle, S (2006), News, Public Relations and Power, Sage, London.

Freedman, L & Karsh, E (1994), The Gulf Conflict 1990-1991, Diplomacy and War in the New World Order, Faber and Faber, London.

Gooch, J & Perlmutter, A (1982), Military Deception and Strategic Surprise, Frank Cass, London.

Hiro, D (2003), Desert Shield to Desert Storm, Authors Choice Press, New York.

Joint Doctrine for Command and Control Warfare (1996), viewed 18 March 2009, http://www.iwar.org.uk/rma/resources/c4i/jp3_13_1.pdf

Macarthur, J (2004), Second Front, Censorship and Propaganda in the 1991 Gulf War, University of California Press, London.

Mendelson, J (1988), Covert Warfare: Basic Deception and the Normandy Invasion, Garland Publishing, London.

Mendelson, J (1988), Covert Warfare: Cover and Deception by the Royal Air Force in World War II, Garland Publishing, London.

Morrison, D (1992), Television and the Gulf War, John Libbey, London.

Safty, A (1992), From Camp David to the Gulf, Black Rose Books, New York.

Simpson, J (1991), From the House of War, Hutchinson, London.

Smith, H (1992), The Media and the Gulf War: The Press and Democracy in Wartime, Seven Locks Press, Washington D.C.

Smith, P (1991), How CNN fought the War: A View from Inside, Carol Publishing Group, New York.

Taylor, P (1998), War and the Media: Propaganda and Persuasion in the Gulf War, Manchester University Press, Manchester.

Tzu, S. Griffith, S (translator), (1971), The Art of War, Oxford University Press, London.

U.S. News & World Report (1992), Triumph Without Victory, Random House, Toronto.

Willcox, D (2005), Propaganda, the Press and Conflict: The Gulf War and Kosovo, Routledge, London.

Joint Doctrine for Command and Control Warfare (1996), viewed 18 March 2009, http://www.iwar.org.uk/rma/resources/c4i/jp3_13_1.pdf

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.

Enterprise Journalism with reference to the Shoemaker and Reese model.

The degree to which enterprise Journalism is being shunned today is shocking. In researching for this topic, it is evident that the mechanism of today’s Journalism and the environment in which it exists, is not only diminishing enterprise Journalism but is suffocating it to such an extent that it may soon stop existing. Davies (2008, p. 73) points out that the news produced in the present circumstances can be effective and reliable to its readers only if the outside suppliers of news are giving an effective and reliable account. The consequences will change the nature of Journalism itself and have considerable impact on what democracy will be described as. Events, issues and news that are in line with media routines have a much greater chance of being covered than those that are not in line with such routines. Therefore such realities as news that is not in the reporters beat, issues and events where there is no good footage available may go unreported (Shoemaker and Reese 1996, p. 265). This essay is intended to describe how the mechanism and environment in which Journalism exists, is one that suffocates it of truth.


It is first essential that we look at enterprise Journalism. There are certain innate realities faced by enterprise Journalism simply because of its nature, very little or nothing can be done about these realities. Enterprise Journalism is usually done on grass root levels and therefore may not merit enough interest from the masses. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p. 270) concluded that the larger the area covered by a medium more its contents would be required to be standardized. Given the varying interests and tastes of the people messages must also be broadened along with geographic area, and therefore the content is unlikely to take chances and make innovations. Shoemaker and Reese (1996) also describes in detail the deep impact the ideology of the ruling elite in the influence of media content in chapter 9 ‘The influence of ideology‘, this will be discussed a little later but it is also further summarized and theorized in chapter 11, where Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p. 270) ascertain that factors like cultural significance, a better political system and a higher economy causes one country to appear more in the less privileged countries’ mass media. Therefore a significant factor for establishing the criteria for newsworthiness is economic political and cultural significance. This comes in the way of enterprise Journalism as grass root news sources and other unconventional news sources may be overlooked in the effort to cover more significant countries. Enterprise Journalism therefore is something that is posed by a lot of challenges inherent to its nature, but to add to this it faces many more overwhelming external challenges that have systematically established themselves in stages and spheres in the media to create an hostile environment and system. Therefore we need to look at some of these seemingly overwhelming challenges and more importantly who it is that is most responsible for this dire situation.


To understand these factors and the functional way in which it manifests itself, let us begin with the more apparent factors that keep Journalists from pursuing sources they would want and rather make due with what is more readily available. Today there seems to be a change in the ethics in Journalism with editors wanting to give the people what they want rather than what they need to be aware off. Hallin (1996, p.254) in his chapter ‘Commercialism and professionalism in the American news media’ discusses whether this kind of attitude could lead to a decline of public life or an age of multiple voices and more democracy. Hallin (1996, p.247) reviews the recent changes and explains them through two schools of thought, the readership theory and the stockholder theory. The readership theory claims that as a response to the decline in newspaper readership the Journalists must give the ‘customers’ what they want. The stockholder theory indicates that since the trend of ‘public’ ownership has become the norm with the selling of stocks, the media can be treated as any business for the sole purpose of profit. Another factor that restricts enterprise Journalism is the fact that they are not given the opportunity to go to places where they would be able to find unconventional sources as Davies (2008, p.56) explains that in present times it is common that budding Journalists after a Journalism degree are filled with hopes and enthusiasm of how they are going to impact society and use their unique creativity to make the masses aware, only to end up in a production line in a news factory chained to a keyboard working out trivia and clichés to fill the newspaper. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.161) suggests that the present trends question the top-down organization structure as it is extremely restricting Journalists and the traditional freedom they have had and needed for Journalism. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.145) resound the fact that the economic objectives of the company are intensified by the stockholder form of ownership, and that the resulting larger firms tend to take fewer risks than the smaller ones. This is a negative thing for enterprise Journalism, which by nature needs to invest in creative ideas of Journalists. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.267) also ascertained that according to the present model, middle level media personnel like editors pay more attention to the organization’s goals and thereby necessarily the business side of the organization, than reporters who care more for their sources thereby bringing about constant conflict between editors and reporters. Therefore when there is a conflict between an organization’s need to make profits and its editorial routine an editor who controls both may make the argument to side with the business side of the organization claiming it is more immediate. Given that economic factors take precedence over ethical factors it becomes largely about satisfying consumer needs. This results in a pattern as Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.269) conclude that with a media organization striving to promote itself within a target audience, the more they become tuned and prominently reflect content that are of interest to that particular target audience. This further develops into a pattern wherein programming that attracts the right audience for the advertisers are produced and preferred and programming that does not attract the right audience may be abandoned.



The justifications for the manifestations of these patterns are not solely economic but the time factor is also as significant. A major reason that enterprise Journalism is fast diminishing is simply because there is no time for it in today’s production process of news. There are so many readily available sources and coupled with the fact that Journalists are not given enough time to practically do any investigating or checking even on how much of the information handed to them is true. As Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.262) points out that readily available sources like corporations may result in Journalists favoring them as sources as Journalists are racing against time. This will result in favoring certain types of sources over a period of time. Davies (2008, p.69) illuminates the danger of this situation explaining that for all Journalists these days the sole imperative is not getting an accurate insight into a given story but rather the only concern they can possibly be worried about is to file their stories as immediately as possible, as the present situation demands so. Therefore they spend very less time with their work and much less time if any at all on checking out the accuracy of the information or the legitimacy of the source, this is exactly the kind of environment where rapid repackaging takes place. Davies (2008, p.64) also illustrates that ascertaining truth is one of the primary functions of Journalism, arguing that the object of Journalism itself is truth and central to this objective is the function of checking thereby by taking time away we are taking truth away as well. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, pp.268-269) reflect that sources with economic and political power have the potential to influence the news in a system where Journalists bank on readily available sources, these sources generally hire regular staff exclusively to get information to the media quickly. The media is thus dominated by “official” sources, that influence and involve themselves in issues rather than events. Journalists are also expected to provide the same amount of news on a slow news day and because of an increasing dependence on public relations practitioners may revert to accepting their news rather than come up with enterprising stories. A shocking piece of research by Davies (2008, pp.52-53) gives us an insight into the level at which these readily available sources influence news content and the amount of it that makes the news. What Davies did was commission specialist researchers from the department of Journalism at Cardiff University to take four prestigious newspapers and sample the stories that made it as news. The researchers found that 60% of the stories that made the news was completely or to a large degree out of wire copy and PR material, while 20% of clearly showed elements of wire copy where material had been added, they were unable to ascertain the source of about 8% of the material leaving only 12% of the news, that was actually produced by the reporters. Another elusive reason that enterprise Journalism is diminishing is because Journalists cover events more than they do issues, as this more easily justified given the nature of issues and events, furthermore cover events has in itself been made a routine (Shoemaker and Reese 1996, p.266).


The extent to which enterprise Journalism is being diminished makes it apparent that there are more forces at play than mere economical factors and time constraints. There are other less noticeable yet more prominent factors that challenge enterprise Journalism. The environment that Journalists have to work with discourage enterprise Journalism. Ownership is quite an influential factor in the creation of this environment whether it is negative or positive towards enterprise Journalism. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.166) observed that media scholars had paid close attention to many companies being owned by one person or one entity and concluded that absentee owners tend not to take an aggressive news approach or a strict editorial policy, which resulted in the community interests taking a back seat to corporate and economic factors. McNair (1998, p.24) lists three ways in which ownership dominance influences the working of the media. He notes that the first category is done through economic measures in quite a direct way by disregarding unwanted or inconvenient stories. The second category is done through political means, pointing out that even the governments of the most liberal countries impose laws and censoring measures on the media in a bid to regulate the media and sometimes even intimidate them. The third category that is used as a means to dominate the media is cultural where the Journalists recruited or promoted to influential positions are from a minority and privileged sector of society and have come to form value systems that in line with the ideologies of the dominant groups of society namely the economic, political and cultural elites. This is the kind of environment where enterprise Journalism goes from being hard to nearly impossible. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.169) says that for an organization to establish and maintain control it is essential for the organization to socialize its workers to the routines and in cases of handling situations that have not yet been manipulated into a convenient set of routines then the organization enforces the reporter to act and maybe even think in a certain way. This is done through reinforcement and a reward system while there may even be cases where those that do not comply are either demoted or fired. Given that the control is established through reinforcement both positive and negative, it influences a reporter at a very deep level and he may also feel like changing his ideology because he honestly feels that’s the ‘truth’. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.265) arrives at a number of conclusions that link reporters from the routines, which are significant to enterprise Journalism. They point out that the longer an individual works for an organization that much more socialized is the individual to the policies of that organization. They also point out that the more a reporter adapt to the routines of the organization the more their work is likely to be used which actually changes what Journalism is and what its function is. They also came up with the hypothesis that the more a reporter incorporates the routines of the organization and as part of his work the more professional he is thought of by his co-workers. Venturing a little bit deeper, leads us into another set of factors that form a bridge between all these factors and the final set. It is the organization that hires a Journalist, what is the basis of this selection process Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.264) found that some employers preferred those with majors in Journalism, while other employers wanted those with majors in liberal arts, more specifically American studies. They also ascertained those who had different “communication” college degrees produced different content than those who had other majors. Another important attribute that in the present system they highlighted is that the role Journalists see themselves in largely impacts the content they produce. Therefore whether they see themselves as disseminating information or interpreting to the masses what others do, or as adversaries to the powerful, it will express itself in their content, thus if these roles are defined to them by the owners and the organization, it is that entity that has a large influence on the content. The most serious danger right now to enterprise Journalism is from what Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.266) call “pack Journalism”, which is the causes different Journalists to share their ideas looking mainly for each other’s confirmation about news judgments and to observe each other, this is mainly due to editors that question the coverage of a story that is different from another news organizations coverage of that story. Therefore the more Journalists read each others story and depend on their counterparts for confirmation, the harder it is going to be for a Journalist to take up a story that would be enterprising.


Finally the last set of factors that it leads up to deals with how this situation came about, in spite of the fact that Journalism in theory was meant to combat these exact patterns in society. One could say it is lack of vigilance and that may have played a role in some part, but it takes a lot to put the way such a prominent field as Journalism functions in exactly the opposite direction it set out. Shoemaker and Reese (1996) establish the most influential factor is the economic and political elite that subtly brought about a system that insulates them and ensures that things stay they way they are. This coupled with the quickly changing kind of ownership of media organizations create a strong shell that forms a concrete basis so that spheres in the between not only stay the same but also continue to move in the direction it is currently moving. Shoemaker and Reese (1996) illuminates the fact that ultimately it is the owner that has the power in a media organization even though it flows down in parts to those below him. They also shed light on the fact that a large percentage of news comes from governmental and business sources, or what is termed as “official” channels. Individual sources, which are essential for enterprise Journalism have little access or knowledge of dealing with the media. They also examine how minorities are underrepresented, and conclude that the more a minority has acculturated to the majority the better his/her prospects and socio-economic level is. They mention that there are more people with high status than low status jobs in television characters. They note that in an elite medium there are less or no workers similar to its general population. They point out that the more a country’s government faces criticism from the media the more the media is tried to be controlled by the government.


Therefore enterprise Journalism is fast moving towards extinction and the challenges it faces are huge and at a deep level, to survive it would have to face the richest and the most powerful, not to mention them that make the laws. It is very likely that if it does not survive then there will have to be a new definition of democracy that the then media can be a fourth estate too, I do not see the media being a fourth estate to what we now define as democracy, if enterprise Journalism is lost forever.










Reference list

Curran, J & Gurevitch, M (1996), Mass Media and Society, Arnold, London.
Davies, N (2008), Flat Earth News: An Award-winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda, Chatto & Windus, London.
McNair, B (1998), The sociology of Journalism, Arnold, London.
Schlesinger, P (1978), Putting ‘reality’ together BBC News, Constable, London.
Shoemaker, P & Reese, S (1996), Mediating the Message: Theories of Influence on
Mass Media Content, Longman, New York.
Sunstein, C (2001), ‘Exposure To Other View Points is Vital to Democracy’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Viewed 27 October 2008, .

We have nothing to Fear but Fear Itself.

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. These words by Franklin D Roosevelt in an inaugural address during The Great Depression hold as good today as they did then, a time when terror has become the sole weapon of the unjust. I write this in the recent bomb blasts in my home city Bangalore, a place I believe is one of the most peaceful places to live in on God's green earth. Just like anything else to put an end to terrorism it is vital that we understand it, its dynamics, its weapons, its weak points and what would be the best policy and plan of action for accomplishing the job at hand.

A good start would be at looking at the factors involved which would essentially be the answers to those 5 universal questions…. Who?, To whom?, With what?, Why?, What effect? (Which), and How (to solve)? Therefore the factors involved are 1) the terrorists, 2) the people they wish to terrorize, 3) Fear, 4) To promote radical ideas, 5) The outcome and 6) The government/administration/people.

As it is vital that we understand the nature of terrorism, it will also help us gain some insight into its dynamics. First unlike war where the attack is to large degree on soldiers and others in the war, the people intended to be attacked by terrorists are civilians, innocent civilians without arms to defend themselves. While war in itself is too harsh for the human psyche at most times it is widely acknowledged as necessary most of the time, and so there has always been an element of honour and respect, for example war is first declared before it starts, the civilians are usually given a chance to get out of harm’s way, messengers and ambassadors are spared etc. Terrorism on the other hand is below all this, there is no element of honour, terrorism essentially involves "cheap shots" and playing dirty. There is no declaration before an attack, there are various declarations after the attack, and they depend largely on the element of surprise and catching defenceless people of guard. The fact that these terrorists have to stoop to such levels is testament that these people believe that they don't stand a chance in a fair fight; they cannot choose to declare or go to war because they know that in such a case they will lose and so must resort to these measures. It is evident thus that they believe Fear is their only weapon and their only way is scaring their way into a victory. Thus these people place a lot of emphasis on fear. Fear which we discussed was one of the factors is not only a factor for us, the people trying to be terrorized but also a factor for them as well since they are putting a lot of emphasis on it and it is in fact fear that has caused them to choose such a cowardice means of combat rather than a face to face war. It is tragic that a woman lost her life yesterday in the serial bomb blasts in Bangalore 9 bombs exploded in a matter of 20 minutes in various parts of the city. The amount of lives that were lost was 1, while 19 were injured, again let me remind you there were 9 bombs that exploded in 9 different places. Given the facts of the evidence or if you read almost any article in the newspaper or the internet or see any TV report you will see that the evidence, the location of the bombs, the time it happened etc was not to kill or injure but rather mainly to instill fear, If you think the reason behind this is because terrorists are compassionate, think again, these terrorists care not for their own lives and are willing to blow it up literarily as long as it blows up the lives of others as well, The reason behind this is again fear, fear of retaliation. Terrorists are afraid of a strong retaliation as this means they lose their elements of surprise and may have to fight people with arms rather than spring surprise attacks on innocent defenceless civilians. It is essentially because of this that they choose terrorism and not military combat as they understand that they're odds with an army are very poor. Terror organizations from the Middle East have said that the world trade centre of New York was chosen rather than other targets as it might've elicited too much of a retaliation. Now there are bombs being planted and found in plenty all over India, the reason is these bombs are planted without detonators, I mean really to have to be so badly faced against such odds that you have to plant bombs without detonators cause you are afraid of the reaction if they would burst, in an effort to bring fear, that's pathetic. What are the citizens of the country now supposed to feel fear out of compassion to these utterly vain attempts?

Therefore now let us look at the outcome. While the bomb blasts on the US embassy in the last decade was something that did cause concern, it was of good outcome and success for the terrorists, but 9/11 was what one would think as they're biggest failure! To us it was a priceless loss of innocent citizens, where there can be no recompensation, but to them who have no care or concern for anything human much less human life it was an utter failure since all they really care about is the reaction, that ideally for them should be -ok we'll back off and listen and be ruled by you, just don't kill us like this. Thankfully the reaction they got was nothing like it, rather what they ended up with was alarming as far as their cause is concerned simply because it purged all they're safe havens something they strongly believed would never happen. Thus rather than ending up with more territory and power to control they lost most of that which they had and are staring at complete extinction. Therefore 9/11 was they're biggest failure as they got that equation of "enough lives and damage to cause fear but not enough to bring about an aggressive response" completely wrong! A mistake it looks like they are going to pay for by possible extinction of the whole network. This was a shock as terrorism also involves propaganda to the locals for new recruits, and for this it is essential for them to portray that the odds are with them something that they did in Afghanistan when they claimed that all the technology in America could never match to the advantage they had of the terrain and knowledge of the terrain in Afghanistan. This proved to be false and a lie, and possibly a fatal injury to the morale and claims that the Terrorists possessed. The turn in the story has not only not taken the way they hoped it would but also turned drastically in the way they really did not want it to and did not even consider a possibility, they're backs now are against the wall and we can see it in the level of aggression. Previous to 9/11 and even in the first years of the war they were very aggressive and even boasted at how strong they're network is and how it is no match for the "white devil". Now it is more of an appeal to the world that the "white devil" is truly a devil and must be defeated and so please do what it requires for them to be defeated. The odds are truly stacked against the terrorists and the reason is simply because of the path they have chosen to take. They have put too much emphasis on fear, they have banked on it unconditionally and they're faith in its power has failed them now that they have no control of people through fear; it is time for them to fear. The big bully's biggest fear is that he wouldn't be feared. They're ways have not worked and they are looking at the end. This reinstates once again that the ways of the civilized to be more powerful than the ways of the barbarian, as had they resorted to the pen rather than the sword, fought for their causes through media or journalistic or other civilized means rather than blindly bank on fear and the sword they would have increased their chances multifold.

The reason we as civilized people have such an advantage and the reason choosing the barbaric way of life puts one drastically against the current and the odds is because we as citizens have a right and a responsibility and use it. When we are threatened in the way we are by terrorists we have a right to say we will not be afraid that is in fact our responsibility to say that we are not threatened and by doing so we do not condone their behaviour. When this happens in the global way that it has been happening they are faced with the end. We have a responsibility to boldly ask and demand for our rights and our freedoms! This is the only way we can escape from tyranny and thus we must maintain our freedom vigilantly, because the tyrants don't suddenly come upon us, they sneak up on us, like Hitler sneaked up on Germany, like the Taliban and the Al Qaeda sneaked up on the Afghanistan people. The Afghanistan people and their culture before the Taliban were very hospitable. They are a deeply hospitable people they found it hard to assertive. The Taliban sneaked upon them, assuming a Robin Hood type, take from the rich Soviets and give to the poor kind of disguise and then take from America and give to the poor kind of disguise. Today this lie is totally cleared as they see who really gives to them and who robs from them. But the terrorists sneaked up on them, and they refused to see it till it was too late. We must defend our freedom at all costs and this we must do vigilantly. Freedom is not free and we need to resist tyranny and we need to be brave and we need to face fear so that the tides turn cause really fear is all they have. I have always been very proud of the Bangalore attitude, a photo in the Times Of India showed a group of Bangaloreans in a mall standing a little away from a member of a bomb squad trying to dismantle a bomb and filming it with their mobile phones, instead of getting the hell out of there as fast as they could, its an image like that, that causes a terrorist to fear when he/she sees it. We must be vigilant and brave. It took the death of 2751 people to deal with the situation in Afghanistan, had it been done when the US embassy was targeted it could've been avoided. This is why it is essential for us to be vigilant and intolerant to these methods because what is at stake is human life the more we become intolerant to these methods the smaller the margin of error become in that equation of "enough to cause fear but not enough to provoke retaliation". We must strive to close the gap and bring the status quo to any attempt to cause fear is enough to take action. So that they're backs are really to the wall. What is at stake here is innocent human life and we have nothing to fear.