Workshops
Comparing News Coverage in the Iraq War
Organized by the
International Academy for TV Arts and Sciences (IATAS)
12 December, 2003.
Based on the screening of the four nominees of the Emmy Awards competition for news coverage, this workshop focused on the differences and the similarities of the recent coverage of the war in Iraq. A comparison was made between coalition forces countries’ coverage and coverage of TV stations in non-warring countries.
Content
Programme
-
Moderators: Georges Leclere, executive director, IATAS and Fred Cohen, president, IATAS
1. "The Fall of Saddam"
-
ITN, London, for Channel Four News, UK
2. "Radioactive ammunitions: deployed again despite scientists' warnings"
3. "Gulf War II"
-
Associated Press Television News, UK
4. "20 Heures: Evening news - loooting at Baghdad Museum"
^top
Report
This interactive seminar, chaired by Georges LECLERE and Fred COHEN, was presented in two one and a half hour sessions. Four Emmy award winning news coverage excerpts were viewed, discussed and ranked during the first session. A comparative and interactive discussion about the media coverage of the war in Iraq was covered during the second session and emphasis was placed on the differences and similarities of this coverage worldwide.
At the beginning of the first session, rules and procedures of the News Emmy awards were explained so the analysis of the news coverage during the Iraq war could be put in a proper international context. The news excerpt that was preferred amongst participants was the German report due to its comprehensive nature as a piece of investigative journalism. Though it was commented that each report had very similar content and footage of the war, the use of these nominees excerpts provided a solid platform to commence a constructive dialogue during the second session.
The discussion was opened by Fred Cohen, President of the International TV Academy, who indicated that although it is important to encourage excellence in journalism, it is necessary to differentiate between real news and deceptive news coverage. He said in war, truth is the main casualty; and we must remain openminded and not simple minded.
Participants raised the point that 24-hour news tended to lower news standards due to its many limitations. For example, every 30 minutes fresh material had to be found for a programme with 24-hour coverage.
In some cases, the formatting of the report could be compared to US entertainment or sports television programmes. For example, in Africa some people would record news reports of the Iraq war and present the footage like a movie, charging people to watch it.
An Arab participant mentioned that the footage in each excerpt portrayed anarchy in Iraq. This footage was seen as one-sided due to the fact that the humanitarian ramifications of the Iraq war, such as the lack of electricity and water, were not seen as fundamental aspects of the war even though such images were just as accessible as other footage. It was suggested that more footage taken in Iraq from the Iraq journalistic perspective should have been used by broadcasters due to their understanding of the taboos of the war.
During the second part of the workshop, the concept of embedded journalism was discussed at great length. Some commented that the idea of embedding journalists with US soldiers provided for a totally new, multifaceted concept. Participants suggested that the Pentagon had reintroduced the concept of embedded journalism into mainstream media, thereby narrowing the perspective of the Iraq war.
Journalists were seen to be ‘in bed’ with coalition forces. For this reason embedded journalism was viewed as a tool used for propaganda and a reflection of media, corporations and governmental agendas partially because it only provided a snapshot of an issue. Also, the fact that the military were, to an extent, in control of which news organizations could join them and when footage could be filmed also limited the scope of footage reported. Such limited access to information was arguably used to glorify the US military position and in many cases reporters were covering their unit and not the whole war.
This style of news coverage was seen as one-sided because it was only well-resourced major news organizations who can afford to have journalists embedded, especially during the aftermath of the war. Arab journalists mentioned that access to news with US soldiers was more restricted to them than to US or UK reporters. This was a grave concern for many developing countries and certain parts of Africa and Asia who only had access to television reports of the Iraq war from major news broadcasters, for example CNN and BBC, which provided a very US perspective.
Participants raised the fact that when major networks carry signals outside domestic borders and influence global opinions they have the responsibility to cover all international perspectives. This is especially the case in regards to news coverage affecting youth perspectives of the war. A Canadian participant suggested that the media must take into account articles in the Nuremberg rules when presenting images that may incite hatred.
A Beirut participant suggested that censorship is two-fold: embedded journalism restricts the content of information reported on; and secondly, anchors must tailor their reports to those embedded in their editorial rooms. It was suggested that the cultural divide must be viewed as a terminology divide and that viewers must not be misled. Broadcast information must portray the world as a dialogue of civilisation so that terminology can be redefined by more than just the UK and US perspective.
Georges Leclere, the moderator of the workshop, provided examples of Sanji Gupta from CNN and Chip Read from NBC who portrayed the dual responsibilities and ethical dilemmas journalists can have when embedded. It was suggested that this responsibility not only extended to humanitarian aid where it can be provided, it also extended to respecting the instinctive reactions of the soldiers in extreme war conditions.
This analysis extended into a discussion on journalists becoming military targets due to their association with US soldiers. A Palestinian journalist enforced the opinion that embedded journalists were seen to be joining allied forces.
Leclere noted that the reasoning for the Pentagon to reintroduce embedded journalism proved to be a headache for US soldiers due to their responsibility towards protecting journalists and preventing the disclosure of military strategies.
It was mentioned that US networks had a seven-second reporting delay that was implemented in case of a casualty during the reporting so that broadcasters could suppress the news and blame it on a technical difficulty. This point opened dialogue relating to the extent that horrific images are shown during the war and whether they should be censored or not.
In one example an image of a body picked up and thrown out of a truck was shown on Arab television but not Western television. It was suggested that war is graphic and should be portrayed as such. It is not a Hollywood production and should not be pictured as patriotic. The media should stop playing the role of big brother and give the audience the choice of seeing the reality of war which is opposite to military and social purpose. Because so much of what we see are images of dead Iraqis and no dead US soldiers, this clearly demonstrates that the US is choosing not to show any of the dual realities of war.
This discussion was followed by the comment that because viewers are beginning to see that the quality of news reporting on the Iraq war was so similar and limited reflecting US policy and revealing coverage from a military campaign aspect, even in the US, many people were beginning to access the Internet for their information instead of mainstream media.
Fred Cohen closed by stating that part of the responsibility is a visual and verbal
literacy and understanding of the media. He emphasised that it is necessary to learn to access
all sources of media and know how to read this information critically
^top
Notes for a Broadcasters' Action plan
- Although the comparison was limited to four nominees in the Emmy Awards’ News competition of 2003, - all from Western media, two from Coalition countries, two from non-warring countries - the discussion raised the issue of one-sidedness in war reporting.
- Examples were given of differences between Arab and Western television news services.
- The case of embedded journalism was discussed and criticized.
- The main lessons from the discussion are the need to access multiple information sources, to increase media literacy among viewers, to defend journalistic independence and to promote international standards of good journalism.
Guillaume Chenevière, Executive Director of the WEMF
Resources
^top
|
