Media Propaganda

How News is Reported on War and Terrorism After the war in 1960’s and 1970’s in Vietnam a plan was developed to report media coverage differently. This plan was first tested in the first Gulf war in 1991, in small scales. Press pools were used to control information and maintain restrictions on how media coverage flowed. These changes were made due to the inexperienced and raw coverage of the Vietnam war. People who had televisions experienced uncensored imagery, despite the attempts to restriction. These images had a massive impact on the outcome of war whilst media was supporting the war coverage. Vietnam War had the most gripping news images that were ever published in the public eye. Images such as the naked young girl running down the road, whilst her flesh was burning from the napalm that had engulfed her. This image still remains a memory to many. (Tynan, 2011). No War had ever been reported as graphically as Vietnam resulting in a great lesson learnt by the US Military, and mistakes of media coverage changed. During the Gulf War these lessons were assimilated. Prior to the Gulf war the military experimented in barring media coverage altogether. For 72 hours no media was allowed to report after the invasion of the Caribbean Island of Grenada in 1983, which resulted in a media outcry, of “do anything, no one is watching”. Media protests arose due to the denial of access, resulting in the next evolution of military management. A system called the press pool was born, where a small group of reporters were allowed access to gather information, that was shared later with the press outside the pool. The pool journalist still had no access for 24hours and only saw the aftermath of what had occurred. During the Gulf war the pool press was completely active, strictly controlled and was given limited access to the combat zones, a process called the security review. Approximately 50 journalists were allowed access, to the press pool whilst the non- press pool journalists were forced to wait around their hotels and collect media briefings. As the war continued the pool press journalists increased. Sydney Schanberg of the New York Times, argued that the hard news of war reporting had been taken out and replaced by soft news, such as how the soldiers were coping with weather conditions, how planes were refilled in mid-air, etc. The pooling method of reporting became official Pentagon Policy in 1984, by the Sidle Commission. Sidle argued that the safety and security of troops was good enough reason to limit the numbers of reporters sent to the battle grounds. Restrictions on reporting were followed, failure to do so resulted in explosion of journalists(Tynan, 2011). Governments and armies are always seeking to control the media coverage from negative news, however the Committee to protect Journalists formed in 1998 continues to advocate to fight against censorship, violence and imprisonment against the media ( Cooper, 2004).

Journalists Missing the Real Story Press pools had their negative impact of missing the story, according to John Pilger’s interview on the ABC radio National’s. The organization of press pools resulted in journalists not being complete in their story. For example 200,000 Iraqis were killed, most at night and many buried alive in their trenches. However the public had the impression by the media coverage that the casualties were few and a surgical type strike war had occurred with great victory (Tynan, 2011). The Observer reported 65 per cent of the public supported the use of surgical strikes against countries of concealing terrorists (Pilger, 2001). The Military controlled the journalist through the usage of pools and censorship requirements, Resulting in many misleading Fabricated reports and images. For example a so called Kuwaiti nurse named Nayirah informed the US Congress that she witnessed Iraqi soldiers taking premature babies from humid cribs, causing outrage amongst the Western audience. It was later revealed this report was all a stunt by the Public Relations company Hill & Knowlton for a fee of $US11 million, creating the most planned public relations campaign in history. It was later discovered that Nayirah was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador of the USA (Tynan, 2011). Media bias exposed in 2003 Gulf War, revealed Spin doctoring, staged photo opportunities, misinformation and distorting of language (Schwartz, 2003).

Changes in Analyzing Media Wars The Gulf War 2 experienced many changes, compared to the Gulf War 1 in 1991, in the way media coverage was portrayed. Communication technologies influenced the flow and reporting that was available around the globe. A huge outpour of information was provided through the internet and TV, that conveyed the notion of Big Brother, as people watched ongoing surveillance of war. Television would portray war in a sense of suspense, drama and excitement, almost like a Hollywood scene with captions “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. Civil War saw the start of still photography, World War 1, radio increased. World War 2, Leaders of Parliament used the radio to directly speak to the public. The Vietnam War was known as the television war. In 2003 the arrival of Rupert Murdoch’s Fox cable network, was viewed as the most powerful pro coalition voice among all the mainstream media groups. This network was responsible for the anti-war movement. At times ridiculing and then ignoring, leading the way for other networks to see war as inevitable. Murdoch’s network placed a forty eight hour countdown clock on the corner of the screen while President Bush was giving a final warning to Saddam Hussein. Murdoch’s newspapers around the globe editorial in favor of George W Bush’s agenda against the protests movement attached to many continents opposing the approaching war. The anti-war movement failed relating in victory for the coalition and military success. Murdoch’s media empire had a massive influence in supporting, rationalizing and justifying war. (Schwartz, 2003). The public sphere is a crucial part of the democratic society and it’s ever changing nature is forced by consumer capitalism. Some journalist use the traditional way of thinking about society, while other journalists have a postmodern view (Mckee, 2004). The lack of security censorship, especially through the internet news, is placing pressure on news media (Azeez, 2009). Civil War saw the start of still photography, World War 1, radio increased. World War 2, Leaders of Parliament used the radio to directly speak to the public. The Vietnam War was known as the television war. In 2003 the arrival of Rupert Murdoch’s Fox cable network, was viewed as the most powerful pro coalition voice among all the mainstream media groups. This network was responsible for the anti-war movement. At times ridiculing and then ignoring, leading the way for other networks to see war as inevitable. Murdoch’s network placed a forty eight hour countdown clock on the corner of the screen while President Bush was giving a final warning to Saddam Hussein. Murdoch’s newspapers around the globe editorial in favor of George W Bush’s agenda against the protests movement attached to many continents opposing the approaching war. The anti-war movement failed relating in victory for the coalition and military success. Murdoch’s media empire had a massive influence in supporting, rationalizing and justifying war. (Schwartz, 2003). The public sphere is a crucial part of the democratic society and it’s ever changing nature is forced by consumer capitalism. Some journalist use the traditional way of thinking about society, while other journalists have a postmodern view (Mckee, 2004). The lack of security censorship, especially through the internet news, is placing pressure on news media (Azeez, 2009).

How Journalists view War on Terror How Journalists view War on Terror