by Daniel Syah
The
role of the media in war and conflict has for a long time been an important
part of media research, partly as a result of humanitarian consequences but
also because of its inherent political and economic importance on a global
level. Example of war journalism is
during Iraq war. War journalism is more focus on conflict arena, two parties
and one goal (win) war. The conflict was portrayed as the USA versus Iraq, more
precisely, George W. Bush versus Saddam Hussein. This is epitomized by
Newsweek’s cover on 30 September 2002 with portraits of Hussein and Bush and,
between them, the headline is ‘Who Will
Win?’. It presumes that the only two actors are Bush and Hussein and they
have the same incompatible goal is win the war.
War journalism made wars opaque or secret. This point is
probably the most closely related to how journalists act as an extension of the
Department of Defense by parroting official statements and obeyed to the news
agenda set by the DoD’s Public Affairs Office. The reasons for the US invasion
of Iraq were kept secret, and most reporters echoed the official weapons of
mass destruction and regime change arguments. The extent to which there were
cover-ups and secrecy has become clearer since then with evidence that relevant
intelligence information had been kept from Congress and the American people,
that there was a deliberate misinformation campaign, that the Iraq–Al-Qaeda
link was fabricated.
In war journalism, journalists always used
propaganda in their news. This is perhaps most easily seen in journalists
covering the military beat. It comes out clearly when we see that the number of
US soldiers is meticulously counted and reported, whereas the number of Iraqi
dead is based on guesswork. Furthermore, there is sloppiness in distinguishing
between Iraqi civilians, soldiers and freedom fighters. It is as if it doesn’t
really matter who was killed since they are just Iraqis. ‘Roadside Blasts Kill
U.S. GI, 11 Iraqis’ offers typical coverage ‘bombings’ killed a U.S. soldier
and at least 11 Iraqis’. The story goes on to offer a few details about the
soldier, but makes no attempt to discuss the Iraqi victims.
In
the other hand, Peace journalism is
more focused to explore conflict formation, x parties, y goals, z issues. This
view assumes a wider perspective of the conflict, looking at Bush and Hussein,
as well as the various persons and groups within their governments and states,
political and military allies, the military-industrial complex, the Kurdish
minority in Iraq, United Nations weapons inspectors, French and German heads of
state, protestors opposed to the invasion Peace Journalism also examines each
party’s goals and issues. For Bush, an analysis would question if Bush’s goal
was really to deflect the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, or if it
had something to do with securing oil for ‘the American way of life’, landing
big contracts for corporations or building up a long-term American military
presence in the Middle East. Issues Bush was facing included decreased
popularity, a lagging economy and possibly a psychosis of fear induced by
September 11.
Peace journalism generally ‘win,
win’ orientation. This orientation considers that if the parties work
together they can enhance both their positions. Regarding oil, one possibility
would have been for Iraq to give the USA full access to its reserves, ensuring
the American supply and allowing Iraq to maintain control over it, even making
a profit from the sales. In this way, the USA would be assured of its oil
supply and Saddam Hussein would retain control of his oil fields. This proposal
was actually suggested by Hussein prior to the invasion, but was ignored. If
mainstream journalism had the win-win orientation, a very different public
discourse would have ensued around the above proposals, potentially avoiding an
American invasion.
In
the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, there was a lack of coverage in the
mainstream media of the anti-war protests that took place worldwide. The 15
February 2003 anti-war protests were the largest one ever on record with
estimates varying from eight to 30 million protestors worldwide. Such a huge
event received relatively little coverage, particularly in the USA.
Furthermore, there was little coverage of the protesters’ point of view and
their arguments against this specific war and war in general. A search in the
New York Times (NYT) archive for the terms ‘protest’ and ‘Iraq’ for the month
of February 2003 yielded six stories covering the national protests on 15
February 2003, six covering the protests abroad and one story giving both the
domestic and international perspective. All these stories appeared on 16
February 2003.
Peace
proposals and anti-war protestors could have received more serious coverage.
Iraq, the United Nations, France and Germany all made proposals to prevent war
and violence, but these were not given much credit by the American press. Had
they considered these alternatives more seriously, perhaps the administration
would have been more deliberate in its decision to invade Iraq. Peace journalism is focus on invisible
effects of violence like trauma and glory, damage to structure or culture.
There is almost no coverage of structural or cultural violence. The extent of
this type of reporting is on post-traumatic stress disorder of returning
soldiers. Mainstream media has almost no stories on the damage done to family
structures, to cultural institutions, the implications of a disrupted school
education and other else.
No comments:
Post a Comment