Media and War

All is fair in love and war.

Or so the saying goes.

The age-old excuse for deception and trickery does not apply to journalists. It is the media’s duty to maintain a balanced and unbiased approach to news, even –and perhaps especially –in times of war.

During the current war in Iraq, much has been made of the mainstream media’s preconceived notions and agenda-driven reporting.

Retired Gen. Richard Sanchez spoke to a group of journalists in Oct. 2007, and addressed his concerns regarding media coverage of the war.

“My assessment is that your profession, to some extent, has strayed from (its) ethical standards and allowed external agendas to manipulate what the American public sees on TV, what they read in our newspapers and what they see on the web,” Sanchez said. “For some of you, just like some of our politicians, the truth is of little to no value if it does not fit your own preconceived notions, biases and agendas.”

Sanchez’ point was hammered home the next morning when many media outlets failed to report on that portion of his speech. Rather, they focused on the second half of his lecture –a criticism of the Bush administration’s policy and performance in the Iraq war.

Lt. Col. Craig Whiteside expressed similar apprehensions about journalists embedded with his unit.

“Reporters show up looking for a story,” Whiteside said, “not the one you are offering. If they see it, don’t even stand in their way. Just start damage control.”

Recently, those stories are focusing on unpopular decisions and actions by the military, leading to claims of sensationalism and an anti-war bias. The media takes a lot of blame for hampering the nation’s morale and turning many American’s against the war; ironic, because before the war began, reporters were criticized for being too patriotic.

Journalists are human too. When the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 occurred, every American was affected psychologically, even journalists. However, those personal sentiments sometimes leaked into newspaper stories, radio spots and news broadcasts. The unbalanced stories that hinged on propaganda caught the attention of international media outlets.

Nick Higham wrote for BBC in Nov. 2001: “No conflict since World War II has so engaged the American people, whose horror at the destruction of the Twin Towers and loathing of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden have been assiduously stoked by President Bush's morale-boosting speeches. That makes it difficult for news organisations committed in theory to objective, dispassionate reporting.”

Now, nearly six years after the war began, the media is taking heat for backing off their original position.

Michael Ryan of the Houston Chronicle wrote about the irresponsibility of the media in an Aug. 2005 column: “The news media are failing to acknowledge their own responsibility for the invasion of Iraq, even as they report with glee Cindy Sheehan's antiwar protest outside George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford. Americans are told all about Sheehan's son, Casey, a soldier killed in Iraq, and her call for the president to explain his reasons for invading Iraq and to outline his plan to leave. But the news media ought to explain why they broke their moral covenant with the American people to provide complete, balanced, fair and accurate information about the charge to war.”

Ryan said the media was caught up in the Bush administration’s highly-promoted strategy and propaganda. Some of the nation’s most prominent newspapers, Ryan said, looked back on their coverage and realized where they went wrong.

“The (New York) Times acknowledged that it relied too heavily on self-interested sources who were committed to regime change in Iraq, and that stories about dire claims got prominent display, while follow-up stories did not,” Ryan explained. “Howard Kurtz, who analyzed The Washington Post's coverage, reports that his newspaper seldom published on the front page stories that challenged the Bush administration. The result was coverage that ‘in hindsight looks strikingly one-sided at times'.”

Hindsight, however, did not reach back far enough to stop the unethical practices in Iraq before they started.

The concern of a media bias is not unique to the Iraq war. Donald Kirk, a correspondent in both Vietnam and Korea, said the criticism of the current war pales in comparison to Vietnam, and there is nowhere near the same anti-war passion on the home front.

“Vietnam was a very strange and difficult war to cover,” Kirk said. “The media was never really behind the war. It seemed being critical was almost fashionable.”

Since when is news supposed to be trend-setting?

No part of the pursuit of fair and balanced coverage should make a detour for unfounded and unsubstantiated reporting.

So, why are journalists letting ethical and moral considerations become obsolete?

Sanchez and Whiteside acknowledge the increasing pressure on reporters to produce stories people will read, and produce them quickly. That is still not an excuse for false or misleading news.

“For some, it seems that as long as you get a front page story there is little or no regard for the ‘collateral damage’ you will cause,” Sanchez said. “Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct.”

The reckless abandon with which journalists, according to Sanchez, pursue front-page stories is amplified with the technology of the day.

Sanchez recognizes the ability and near-necessity to publish information immediately via the internet, makes complete reporting more difficult than ever. He also sees the standard for journalists slipping in exchange for quick headlines.

“Given the near instantaneous ability to report actions on the ground,” Sanchez said, “the responsibility to accurately and truthfully report takes on an unprecedented importance. The speculative and often uninformed initial reporting that characterizes our media appears to be rapidly becoming the standard of the industry.”

Whiteside also spoke to the capabilities journalists have today. He said a photographer who traveled with his unit would use a satellite phone to upload his pictures from the most rural corners of Iraq. Photos of the day’s events could run in U.S. newspapers by morning.

Whiteside said it was amazing to see the possibilities technology had to offer, but also frightening. He shuttered at the thought of a dead soldier being pictured in a newspaper or on the internet before his family could be notified.

Sanchez also let the audience think about how their stories affect, and potentially compromise,
the military’s goals. “Your assessments become conventional wisdom and nearly impossible to change,” he said.

Despite all of the poor journalism practices, Whiteside said there is one group the reporters have not affected: the soldiers.

Sources:
Lt. Col. Craig Whiteside, guest speaker
Donald Kirk, guest speaker
Gen. Richard Sanchez, http://www.aina.org/news/20071016110235.htm
http://www.militaryreporters.org/sanchez_101207.html
Nick Higham, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1654062.stm
Michael Ryan, http://www.aina.org/news/20050829112757.htm