|
More on the cultural
differences of reporting war, dealing with propaganda and the disparity over
words and images . - KWC A gulf in the war on
words By Jurek Martin, in The Financial Times,
March 28, 2003
It may have been a
figment of the imagination - I was listening to the radio last Saturday not
watching TV - but I thought I heard General Tommy Franks, the US commander in the
war on Iraq, take an unusually deep breath before responding to a question in
Qatar. A British TV reporter had asked him about the "blitz" of Baghdad. This is not a word, describing
indiscriminate bombing, which US journalists, steeped in Pentagon jargon about
precisely targeted missiles, would ever use. It is pejorative,
associated with Hitler, and, by extension, Saddam Hussein, not with a US
military intent on "decapitating" the regime in the capital while
sparing, to the maximum extent possible, its ordinary citizens. But its use seemed to
me just one
illustration of the measurable gulf that exists between US and foreign coverage
of the war.
This reflects not merely that it is US forces who are bearing the brunt of the
battle, thereby warranting support, and providing reporters with remarkable
facilities to portray it. It is also a commentary of cultural differences in the practise of
journalism that long predate this conflict. It may seem odd to assert this in an age
when fabulous reporting on Watergate brought down one president and polemicism in the media contributed to the
impeachment of another,
but I think mainstream US journalism has become too respectful of authority,
too inclined to take what government says at face value. There is nothing in this
country, for example, which remotely compares with BBC Radio's Today programme, a mandatory pit stop for
all in power or seeking it, in spite of its famously, even infamously,
aggressive but knowledgeable interviewing. Offended officials boycott it from
time to time, but always come back for more because it can set the agenda for
days to come. Jeremy Paxman, of BBC
TV's Newsnight, also takes no
prisoners. It is hard to imagine him signing off, as I have heard Wolf Blitzer
do on CNN, with words such as "god bless you, Mr secretary". The
concluding Paxman sneer often translates into a virtual "gedoutahere, ya
bum." It is not as if the US
media is craven in comparison. I am addicted to the comprehensive New York
Times coverage and analysis of the war, at home and abroad. And I know
something of the challenges, having been the FT's foreign editor during the
first Gulf war. But I also know from
experience that a
collective judgment sometimes seems to descend on even the best and
independent-minded news organisations, and it is susceptible to influence by those in authority. It may therefore be wondered why the
Times, and many others, significantly underplayed the extent of domestic
anti-war sentiment before the war started. Now US soldiers are in combat, it is
perhaps understandable that protests get shorter news shrift but the lesson of Vietnam is surely that
they will not go away. Suspicion may also
attach to the fistful of polls that purport to show, predictably, a surge in
support for the military and commander-in-chief. Many have been conducted on
the smallest of
statistical samples
and with the narrowest
range of questions;
and I remain puzzled by the fact that I have never met anybody who has been
polled on anything other than commercial products. It naturally suits the
Bush administration to play
the patriot card
to demean and discredit any opposition, sometimes ruthlessly and vindictively.
When Tom Daschle, dared to criticise the president for bungled diplomacy, a
perfectly defensible position, all the usual attack dogs, from the Fox network to Rush Limbaugh, were
summoned to accuse the Senate minority leader of un-Americanism. Similarly, when
Natalie Maines, marvellous lead singer of the Dixie Chicks, stepped out of
line, the group's music was suddenly dropped from country music stations owned
by the nation's biggest radio mogul. He happens to be not only an old Texas
intimate of the president but has much to gain from ongoing government
deliberations about media ownership. Little has been heard from Daschle and Ms
Maines of late. In general, the
administration can hardly complain about the coverage the war is getting at
home. "Embedding" reporters with military units in the field has
increased admiration for the troops, even, some might say, turned the media itself into a weapon of
war. The downside
risk is that the initial rapid advance, now meeting stiffer opposition, may
have encouraged the public to expect a short and relatively cost-free war. Still, as my colleague
Lionel Barber wrote earlier this week, the flood of pictures of soldiers in
action has diminished the importance of reporters in Baghdad and elsewhere not
directly subject to military control. Also US media have been generally
reluctant to show photos and footage of dead and captured GIs, sometimes at the
administration's explicit request, in sharp contrast to foreign practice and to the Internet. Friends in Europe
report saturation war coverage comparable with that in the US, but with a more
palpable tinge of scepticism, even in Britain. Unfortunate US military terminologies, such as "shock
and awe" bombing, have been greeted with some derision (and the use of the
word "blitz") and the tragic results of friendly fire given greater
play. The foreign media are not pulling for Saddam, but, reflecting their
domestic opinion and more critical habits, they are not exactly in the
patriotic trenches with George W. Bush and Tony Blair either. It is not, after
all, their war. |
