1

Madrid 2004

2

Madrid 2004

• Guardian changes colour

3

Madrid 2004

• The Times airbrushes

4

Madrid 2004

• The Telegraph airbrushes

5

6

7

What can the news actually show us?

8

9

10

Sodomized with a knife?

11

12

What can the news actually show us?

13

14

Ahmed Chalabi

• Interim oil minister in Iraq April-May 2005 and December-January 2006

• Deputy prime minister from May 2005 until May 2006.

• Pre-2003 invasion, under his guidance the Iraqi National Congress, supported by lobbyists BKSH & Associates, provided substantial info on which U.S. Intelligence based its condemnation of Saddam Hussein, including reports of weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to al-Qaeda

15

Useful material

Control Room (2004, Jehane Noujaim)

WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception (2004, Danny Schechter)

Panorama Special: In The Line of Fire (21st Nov 2004, BBC)

Al- Jazeera on war coverage http://youtu.be/NTo6dbqKlsw Al- Jazeera discusses the PoWs

http://youtu.be/mWdDMAH6Kvw 16

17

Restrepo (2010, S. Junger & T. Hetherington )

18

Restrepo

• The Korengal Valley

• Embedded with Second Platoon, B Company, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment (airborne), 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team of the U.S. Army

19

‘Grunt documentaries’

• ‘by privileging personal experience over historical awareness, these accounts construct a version of the war in which it becomes impossible to apprehend such atrocities as Haditha, Ramadi, Abu Ghraib’– Tony Grajeda 2007

20

Misrata, Libya - 20 April 2011

21

Homs, Syria - 21 February 2012

22

Homs, Syria - 22 February 2012

• Marie Colvin

• Remi Ochlik

23

24

Ofcom: Section 1• Violence and dangerous behaviour

• 1.11 Violence, its after-effects and descriptions of violence, whether verbal or physical, must be appropriately limited in programmes broadcast before the watershed … and must also be justified by the context.

• 1.12 Violence, whether verbal or physical, that is easily imitable by children in a manner that is harmful or dangerous:

– must not be featured in programmes made primarily for children unless there is strong editorial justification;

– must not be broadcast before the … unless there is editorial justification.

• 1.13 Dangerous behaviour, or the portrayal of dangerous behaviour, that is likely to be easily imitable by children in a manner that is harmful:

– must not be featured in programmes made primarily for children unless there is strong editorial justification;

– must not be broadcast before the watershed (in the case of television) … unless there is editorial justification.

25

Ofcom: Section 2

• Harm and Offence

• 2.4 Programmes must not include material (whether in individual programmes or in programmes taken together) which, taking into account the context, condones or glamorises violent, dangerous or seriously antisocial behaviour and is likely to encourage others to copy such behaviour.

• 2.5 Methods of suicide and self-harm must not be included in programmes except where they are editorially justified and are also justified by the context.

26

Questions to consider

• Why do some journalists risk their lives to get stories?

• What can the mainstream media show us? Should there be limits? Why/not?

• To what extent is it possible to separate fact from propaganda/spin?

• How complicit are journalists in this process during wartime?

• How might the demands for copy/footage/stories impact upon public knowledge?

27

28

Four forms of reportage:

1. Technical

2. Official

3. Ideological

4. Critical

29

1 - Technical

• Relates to how near or far from the conflict journalists can get

• Portability of equipment:– 'All the gadgets a reporter needs can be carried

in a single suitcase that fits in the overhead compartment of most planes'.

• (Peter Johnson, 'Media's war footing looks solid', USA Today, 17 February 2003)

• GW1 - drive for ‘newness’• GW2 – language/technology of war – ‘smart

bombs’, ‘daisy cutters’, night vision, MOABs, Patriots, etc

30

2 - Official• Journalists and the Task Force to the Falklands• Thatcher wanted to ‘manage’ journalists• Influence on type of news produced• Certain news suppressed• Misinformation?

– “The BBC had made it clear there were some things it could not reveal. If at the end of the conflict it had to confess to the public that it had deliberately misled it, rather than withheld certain information in the interests of safeguarding life, the BBC’s credibility would be gone.” (Former BBC editor)

31

3 - Ideological

• Whose side should we be on?

• How do we decide?– “When one’s nation is at war, reporting

becomes an extension of the war effort”• Max Hastings (former editor of the Telegraph and

the Evening Standard) quoting his TV reporter father’s famous line about WW2

32

4 - Critical

• Ideals of journalistic objectivity/impartiality – reporting the facts?

• Self reflective?

33

34

• WW1:• DW Griffith’s Hearts

of the World, 1918

35

• WW1:• Frank Hurley• Australia’s official war

photographer• Melded composites

36

• WW2– Radio reports central– Cecil Beaton images (often staged)– Disney/Capra films (Why We Fight)– The Empire Marketing Board film unit

37

Propaganda?

• 1st televised crisis – Suez, 1956

• PM Anthony Eden tried to use BBC for propaganda

• Vietnam (1957-1975) – myth of the body bag

• Falklands (1982) – 2 important factors:– Lobby system– Pooling system

38

Falklands

39

• Glasgow University Media Group:

• “There is no absolute unity of interest among the media, the government and the military” – 1985, War and Peace News

40

1. Many journalists like the idea of being a war reporter - ITN correspondent:

‘There was never any danger that this good wonderful war could escalate into anything like The Day After (nuclear war film). It was a good gutsy war but it was a safe gutsy war.’

2. BBC/ITN/Sky seek to be the nation’s news service, so want to appear to be in tune with national mood.

3. Normal news reporting features official sources anyway, so why would broadcasters, journalists change format now?

41

Gulf War 2

• Present attitude towards (mediated) war?

• Civilian deaths?• Surgical, precise, clean

strikes?• ‘Smart’ bombs?• Information

leakage/flow?• www.iraqbodycount.org/

42

‘Always on’ media

• 31st August 1997• 11th September 2001• 7th July 2005

• Speculation, commentary and hourly attempt to return to an authoritative summary

43

Key changes in coverage

1. Increased availability of channels to view news and many of these are not ‘home-grown’ – e.g., Fox News, CNN, BBC World, Al-Jazeera.

2. Proliferation of news channels might suggest news is increasingly important but news is expensive and the modern media seek more cost efficient soft news and entertainment (visuals over analysis?)

44

Other changes– AP & Reuters suffered financially recently – must

cover wars adequately but can’t increase subscription costs

– Satellite news channels lose ad revenue because viewers want non-stop coverage & advertisers don’t want to be associated with disasters.

– News producers cut back on foreign correspondents (lack reporters)

– The attempt to be neutral and balanced can make for boring news (Fox News vs Al-Jazeera)

– Europe’s anti-war sentiment? (Tumber & Palmer, 2004, point to the lack of space given to anti-war voices).

45

Questions to consider

• To what extent is it possible to separate the fact from the propaganda/spin?

• How complicit are journalists in this process?

• How might the demands for copy impact upon public knowledge?

46

47

• CentCom (Qatar)• $1.5m briefing centre• Plasma screens, mini studious, phone banks• Designed by Hollywood set designer, George

Allison• Platform for truth (US General Tommy Franks)• Seating arrangements reflected pecking order

48

• “When Americans wake up in the morning, they will first hear from the [Persian Gulf] region, maybe from General Tommy Franks, then later in the day, they will hear from the Pentagon, then the State Department, then later on the White House will brief.”– Suzy DeFrances, President Bush’s deputy assistant

for communications cited in Douglas Quenqua, March 24th 2003, PR Week http://www.prweekus.com/White-House-prepares-to-feed-24-hour-news-cycle/article/46713/

49

50

51

• “Photos of sleek fighter jets, rescued POWs, and smiling Iraqis cheering the arrival of U.S. troops are easy to find among Combat Camera’s public images. Photos of bombed-out Baghdad neighborhoods and so-called ‘collateral damage’ are not.” – cited in Heibert, 2003: 252

52

53

54

• [S]ome of us have led a very different existence these past weeks. A daily shuttle, hundreds of miles from the action, from a comfortable hotel to the press centre at the drab as-Sayliyah military base, home to CentCom's forward headquarters. And while we allowed ourselves to say "here at CentCom", we knew that we were being held at arm's length.

55

• We were rarely allowed to stray from the spartan warehouse with its hi-tech briefing room and cramped, woefully inadequate work-spaces. The real business of running the war was taking place in other, equally spartan warehouses some distance away in this vast, faceless facility. It is an odd way to cover a war, and some wondered if it was really worth it. – Paul Adams, 2003, ‘Reporters’ log: final thoughts’

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/world/2003/reporters_log/default.stm

56

• Iraq:– 2000-2500 reporters– 600-700 embedded (500 US journalists)

• Embeds – officially placed with military units

• Unilaterals – roving, independent journalists without military

support taking huge risks to get access to stories

57

• “The broadcast networks are complicit. With their embedded teams producing great visuals, what need is there for broader analysis from the battlefield? One British network was instrumental in getting one of its own unilateral reporters kicked out of an embed position for rocking the boat…”

58

• “…ITN, Sky and the BBC all belong to an exclusive club: the Forward Transmission Unit, based just inside Iraq and attached to the military, which allows a select few correspondents to package the war. With such extreme limits on access, why jeopardise what you've got?”– Lucy Mangan, April 7 2003, The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/apr/07/mondaymediasection.iraq 59

Dangers facing unilaterals?

• “Two weeks into this war, the constraints are tightening. Previously slack border points are now closed. Those unilateral journalists entering Iraq "illegally" do so at higher risk, with no expectation of any assistance from a coalition army warned away from them”– Lucy Mangan, April 7 2003, The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/apr/07/mondaymediasection.iraq

60

• Death of ITN journalist Terry Lloyd• Palestine Hotel attack (Reuters)• In The Line of Fire (BBC)

61

• “US forces must prove that the incident was not a deliberate attack to dissuade or prevent journalists from continuing to report on what is happening in Baghdad.”– Robert Menard, secretary–general of Paris–based Reporters

Without Borders. Cited in Ciar Bryne, April 9 2003, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/apr/09/pressandpublishing.iraqandthemedia

62

• “There’s nothing sacrosanct about a hotel with a bunch of journalists in it.”– (Retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Bernard E. Trainor, reported by

Washington Post, April 9)

63

• “If you look at what fills newspapers now, it’s the equivalent of reality TV – it’s superficial, there’s very little news reporting, there’s very little analysis, but there’s a lot of conjecture. The media thought they were going to get a one-hour-45-minute Hollywood blockbuster and it’s not like that. War is a dirty, ugly thing, and I worry about it being dignified as ‘infotainment’”– (Air Marshall Burridge, Daily Telegraph, April 7 2003)

64

How should journalists show the reality of warfare?

• Clip from C4 show “Iraq: The Hidden Story”65

The ‘fog’ of war

• The Guardian: April 11, 2003

• See this link for claims and denials at the time– http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/apr/

11/pressandpublishing.marketingandpr

66

Questions to consider

• To what extent is it possible to separate the fact from the propaganda?

• How complicit are journalists in this process?

• How might the demands for copy impact upon public knowledge?

• Can embedded journalism be balanced?

67

• ‘The most obvious casualty has been the distinction between warrior and correspondent. First-person plural is now the pronoun of choice, whether subconscious or not. Take Mark Franchetti in the Sunday Times: "Back in Kuwait, as we had edged towards the border ready for the advance, we had been dozing in our assault vehicle... [Now] we were racing across the lunar landscape in attack formation...To the occasional stunned shepherds, we invaders must have seemed like ghosts out of a Mad Max movie.”’– Lucy Mangan, April 7 2003, The Guardian

68

• Sometimes the urge to identify subsumes gender. A report by Sarah Oliver in the Mail on Sunday opened with the arresting line: "We rode at dawn, the men of the 1st Royal Irish," before going on to describe how "our column thundered through the Rumailah oilfield" and closed with the news that "Last night we were holding 37 officers, 277 men and expecting another 200".’– Lucy Mangan, April 7 2003, The Guardian

69

Questions?

1. So we have ‘nowness’, we have immediate coverage, we have words and images but what do we know about war?

2. Should war reporting be for information or an extension of the war effort?

3. As viewers we can watch the news non-stop – does this mean that we understand the news as a construction (as provisional, disputed, happening as journalists speak)?

4. Does news become reduced to narrative with points of closure – do we stop viewing when the statue is pulled down? When do we start to watch again, or really listen, or even think?

5. How long did our interest in Iraq last? Are we concerned with it today? Should we be?

70

• How does the press cover war today?

71

Additional resources

• David Leigh, 2003, ‘False Witness’- examples of military disinformation and the media. Available at – http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/

0,2763,929319,00.html

• Report of faked war report from Sky News. Actual footage available at: – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3078693.stm

72

The DA-Notice system

• http://www.dnotice.org.uk/

73

Non-voluntary alternatives

• Criminal lawOfficial Secrets Act(s) Terrorism Act 2000/2006Prosecution follows publication

74

• Tension between free speech and national security/media and government

• DA-Notice system is voluntary and extra legal

• Arrangement between government and media not to publish certain information

75

Free Speech

• Various theories justifying free speech – ‘free speech as an argument from democracy’ most relevant here

• Not an absolute right – national security is a legitimate reason for limiting free speech

76

DA-Notices: Still Useful?

• No the internet has increasingly changed the way the

public accesses news and information increased information available in the ‘public domain’

(international news, war bloggers, www.arrse.co.uk)

• YesSystem still useful for old technology – hard copy print

media, radio & television (also have internet platforms that need policing)

Represents an alterative conciliatory approach

77

78

Princely PR

• Caroline Gammell, March 1 2008, The Telegraph, ‘How the Prince Harry blackout was broken’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1580111/How-the-Prince-Harry-blackout-was-broken.html

• Non attributed, March 2, 2008, The Independent, ‘The people's prince: with Harry in Afghanistan. Dog of war or PR pawn?’ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-peoples-prince-with-harry-in-afghanistan-dog-of-war-or-pr-pawn-790323.html

• Peter McKay, March 2 2008, Mail, ‘Prince Harry in Afghanistan: Oh! What a lovely PR stunt’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-524341/Prince-Harry-Afghanistan-Oh-What-lovely-PR-stunt.html

• Peter Wilby, March 3 2008, The Guardian, ‘'Harry's war' - it's just a blatant PR stunt’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/mar/03/royalsandthemedia.pressandpublishing

79