Truth-First Casualty of War

By Josh Rugema

The truth, as they say, is the first casualty in war. This has never been brought home more clearly than in the present war. All the major Western news organizations, the ones that hector us relentlessly about the divine mission of journalism, have thrown all principle out of the window by allowing their coverage to be sensationalized.

A clap of thunder and a flash of light, is all you see on CNN nowadays as US warships and fighter jets bomb Iraq. This is interspersed with speeches from a fire-breathing Iraqi information minister and CENTCOM generals. It is great entertainment to the uncritical media: a local AM station tells listeners to expect "fireworks" from the Gulf; a CBS broadcaster alerts his audience that the bulletin might be interrupted should there be something "dramatic" in the Gulf.
The drama being played out in the Gulf war theatre has full-house attendance: several thousand international correspondents have set base in various parts of Iraq and neighboring countries, tapes rolling to film the unfolding action.

Yet, the outcome of the Iraq conflict will be influenced by the way it is reported. From the look of things, shimmers of light have been shining on some of the targets hit by the US, mainly because journalists are determinedly hanging on in Baghdad.

Journalists' exit warrant

It is not clear how long it will be before they are forced out – either by Mr... Hussein feeling they have overstayed his welcome – or threatened by US aerial bombardment.

The latter is the most likely scenario, as President Bush has already signed the journalists' exit warrant. When and if that happens, the coverage of the war will be greatly limited, as the Pentagon will be left to feed TV footage to the millions of TV reels.

The journalists covering the conflict are presently getting access to fighter jets on bombing missions, what renowned British correspondent, Robert Fisk, says will only result in "the kind of coverage that every reporter and every general wants: a few facts, good pictures and nothing dirty to make the viewers throw up on the breakfast table."

The non-tragic perception of the conflict by the local AM station, is just but a manifestation of the unconscious manner in which journalists fall victim to politics and their spin-doctors' manipulations. Al-Jazera is perfect example.

And they are not alone. Last week, Germany called for a "quick" resolution of the conflict. This echoes France and Russia's words, which ring emptily in the face of the men and women in uniform.

And there will be no quick-fix measures for Iraq; the anguish of its citizens and the pain of US military men and women who will lose their lives will live much longer after the war is over.

But the images that could provide a human face to the conflict are not forthcoming; modern warfare is fought in the media and the US will be loathe to lose this one. It is a bitter lesson we learnt in Vietnam. So much for all the heady fiction about painless, surgical, video-game war. And so much for truth.

By allowing journalists access to the battle front, and enthusiastically giving access whenever they could, the US military encouraged media coverage of unparalleled honesty. The results were disastrous for the military.

AP photographer Nick Ut captured the image of a little girl, Kim Phuc, her clothes seared from her body by a Napalm bomb, running screaming from her burning village. Her arms were outstretched in terror and pain.

The photo epitomized the agony of the Vietnamese, the weak and the innocent were not spared. The photo went on to win a Pulitzer Prize but it cost Richard Nixon the presidency. The American public, horrified at the sufferance its politicians were exporting abroad, could not support the war.

Such defining moments have been lacking in recent conflicts, mainly due to military restrictions on the media: Gulf War perfected these limits in 1991; Afghanistan moved the curbs to a new pitch in 2001.

By presenting the raids on Iraq as specifically targeting Saddam Hussein and his coterie of advisers, the media is being hoodwinked into presenting the conflict as a hunt for phantom figures patrolling the Arabian desert, easy to pick from miles away.

"I can see now," reflects Roy Greenslade, in a foreword to Richard Keeble's Secret State, Silent Press, "That our coverage (of the 1991 Gulf war) in the Mirror was built on disgust of the Iraqi position on Kuwait.

Apart from media's myth-making ability, such as the presentation of the Iraq army as "battle-hardened," says Greenslade the media ensured popular endorsement for the 1991 war. CNN was re-born as a result of the Gulf War.

Military jargon

"It was pathetically weak," Greenslade wrote of the Iraq army in last week's The Guardian of London. "Journalists had accepted the word of official briefers, just as they did on almost every matter in the lead-up to war."

Worse still, Greenslade adds, journalists appeared unable or unwilling to challenge what they were told by official briefers.

There is grave danger if we were to believe everything we are told by Baghdad or for that matter Washington or London. There is a bit of honesty in the military jargon, this time around; collateral damage is not be used to describe civilian casualties. We have only been told that such casualties will be minimized. Exactly how, no one knows.

"The way wars are reported in the Western media follows a depressingly predictable pattern," explains Phillip Knightley, author of The First Casualty, A History of War Reporting.

"Stage one, the crisis; stage two, the demonisation of the enemy's leader; stage three, the demonisation of the enemy as individuals; and stage four, atrocities."

We have witnessed all these stages, and now grave atrocities are being committed on the Iraqi people by the Iraqi government. The media has to relay images of sufferance and pain, for wars are about death and dying. Only then will citizens of the world have a chance to evaluate what the US and the UK are doing – in their name – and judge them. We cannot judge what our nation is doing based on UN opposition and US resentment overseas. It is ironic that only when its own soldiers are captured and killed that the Saddam regime begins waxing indignant about "humane" treatment of Iraqis and appealing to International law. The jury is out, the fate of this war will be judged in the broadcasting studios just as the 1991 Gulf war.