Media and War

This is a reaction to Rules of Engagement: Journalism and War by Stuart Allan and Barbie Zelizer from the Book "A Media Studies Reader" edited by Kevin Williams. The text is discussing the struggles of journalists trying to tell a story during wartime with as much truth as possible. The difficulties of choosing sides, providing an unbiased story, and cover all relevant perspectives basically during hell on earth. A battlefield is continuously chaotic with things constantly happening and changing all around, making a job that was already complicated, ten times even more so. "When we find ourselves in very difficult situations, it's of our own choosing, but what is at stake is the need to tell people as much of the truth as you can." -john Burns Chief foreign corespondent for The New York Times. The very basic manner in which a journalist conducts themselves needs to be thought of before entering a war-zone. To lean towards patriotism and only providing one side of the story would be in direct violation of what journalists believe in, to provide factual, truthful, clear, and honest news from all perspectives. Allan and Zelizer analyze that when a journalist is assigned a story that conflicts with their own personal beliefs, that reporter will put aside their feelings in a professional manner as to not skew truth. "Journalists are expected to function variously during war; to be present enough to respond to what is happening, yet absent enough to stay safe, to be sufficiently authoritative so as to provide reliable information, yet open to cracks and fissures in the complicated truth-claims that unfold; to remain passionate about the undermining of human dignity that accompanies war, yet impartial and distanced enough to see the strategies that attach themselves to circumstances with always more than one side." To try and accomplish all of these goals/standards, during war is quite possibly on the hardest jobs out there. They go on to show how these ideals were put to the test during the recent Iraqi war when US and UK forces had journalists embedded within the soldiers on the front lines. "Embedding" might be a good way to capture the most vivid images and capture the action of a battle, however it rarely gives the public a full view of what is going on during the entire conflict. Often having reporters with soldiers provides the military with and instant PR service for the 24/7 media network to broadcast all around the world. Correspondents unfortunately begin to start using phrases like "we," and "us."

During the day and age that we now live in with 24/7/365 news where news networks compete for the most viewership, the best way to gain a larger audience is to have the most recent, breaking news. Typically whoever gets the most current, news-breaking news out there wins, but the problem with this strategy is that eventually news corporations who are out to win, sometimes will rush a story on the air without fact checking 100% of the sources, causing false information to be streamed to millions around the world. No where was the most recently evident that in the media's coverage of the Iraq war which was started in 2003 with false claims of Iraq's army and revered republican guard, preparing chemical and biological weapons for use against American troops. Along with claims that Saddam Hussein was hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction. In an interview with CNBC's Tina Brown, she talks about how the Bush Administration put a climate of fear or at least made journalists feel unpatriotic if they did not report in a manner which benefited the United States's point of view. When asked by CNN's Christiane Amanpour if she thought that there was any story that she felt she was unable to report, Brown replied "It's not a question of couldn't do it, it's a question of tone, It's a question of being rigorous. It's really a question of really asking the question. All of the entire body politic in my view, whether it's the administration, the intelligence, the journalists, whoever, didn't not ask enough questions for instance, about weapons of mass destruction. I mean, it looks like this was disinformation at the highest levels." Disinformation is false journalism in it's highest regard. Providing untrue, vague, and/or misleading information is exactly the type of reporting that has no place in media today. However channels like Fox News tend to broadcast news in a different tone that say a network like CNN. Fox news has it's own style of patriotic, and partisan delivery of story's during the main conflicts of the Iraq War. By referring to U.S. and British troops as "us," "we," "hero," and "liberators," ensuring that America was always fighting evil, dominating those who threaten american lives, and ensuring that the good guys always win. These view points stuck a chord with most republican ideals which led to Fox news running with a continuos theme of "irreflective, triumphalist style."

Reporting the news during war is extremely difficult, however I feel that in order to do so on a large scale, journalists must agree to try as best as possible during a major conflict to adhere to certain ethical guidelines. To ensure that the entire story is shown, being based on factual evidence without changing details or providing only one side of the argument. Journalists must provide the most newsworthy and critical information to the public as fast as possible without jeopardizing the truth. It is a very fine line that all reporters must walk, however a necessary one, to bring attention to conflicts that matter on a global scale to those who without the media, would have little to zero knowledge of the plights of those who cannot stand up for themselves. The best way to educate the public is to inform them on all that is happening, give them the facts in a clear manner and help them to form an intellectual unbiased opinion.