|
Reviewed
by Rasha El Ibiary, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne
Kamalipour, Yahya R.
and Snow, Nancy (eds.) War, Media and Propaganda: A Global Perspective.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2004. Paperback. 280
pages. ISBN: 0-7425-3562-2. $27.95.
Yahya Kamalipour and Nancy
Snow's anthology "War, Media and Propaganda" sheds light from
diverse perspectives on some aspects of the media's role, willing or not,
in fulfilling propaganda and public diplomacy targets in wartime, and
questions the limits and determinants of such a wartime power relationship
with a special focus on television coverage of the latest US-led invasion
of Iraq, 2003.
Both Douglas Kellner and Daya Kishan Thussu detail the significant role
of US television networks in serving the American foreign policy war agenda.
Starting with a brief description of Rupert's Murdoch's transnational
TV empire as well as Murdoch's multiple statements about the war's potential
to "fuel an economic boom in the West" and his "unconditional
endorsement" of US and UK leaders' military action, Thussu provides
evidence of a strong and decisive media backing for the "Republican
Cause."
"Murdoch's media acted as frontline cheerleaders for US military
action in Iraq," she says, adding that media played a crucial role
"in preparing and then retaining public opinion in favor of the invasion."
Kellner also strongly criticizes the way US broadcasting networks constructed
the war as "providing a conduit for Bush administration and Pentagon
propaganda."
Murdoch's dominance of many global media markets, however, did not extend
to the Arab world, where newly born Arabic TV networks transmitted images
of pain, death, and destruction. While providing several specific examples
of "distorted" war coverage, Kellner does not miss the contrast
between the US networks framing of the invasion as "Operation Iraqi
Freedom" or "War in Iraq" and the Arab networks showing
it as an "invasion" and "occupation" of Iraq. Mahboub
E. Hashem concurs with Kellner, adding that the Arab media did not fail
to draw critical comparisons between the "legitimate" Palestinian
struggle against the "illegitimate" Israeli occupation of their
lands, noting that "the Iraqis and Palestinians were seen as 'freedom
fighters,' 'resistance forces,' 'Mujahideen,' or 'Fedayeen.'"
This challenge intensified with the many instances of contradictions between
what the coalition media "said" and what the Arab networks "showed,"
according to Kellner. While Donald Rumsfeld was describing the bombardment
as "the most precise in history … aimed at military not civilian
targets," Arab as well as many global networks "focused on civilian
casualties and presented painful spectacles of Iraqi suffering."
Hashem as well says that the Arab channels "showed Iraqi residential
neighborhoods, hospitals and schools that where hit by the so-called smart
weapons." Another example, adds Kellner, was the British and US claim
in the first days of war that the cities of Umm Qasr and Basra had been
captured, while "television images showed quite the opposite."
Thus did the Arab networks challenge the Americans by constantly showing
images of death and destruction, contradicting perceived victories, drawing
comparisons between the Iraqi and Palestinian cases, and putting Americans
and Israelis in one camp as a single enemy.
A striking example of US media distortion was the story of saving Private
Jessica Lynch "presented in the form of an entertainment show, drawing
visual techniques borrowed from Hollywood," says Thussu. The infotainment
event of rescuing Lynch from Iraqi captors by US Special Forces was widely
exposed after a BBC documentary "showed that Iraqi doctors had looked
after her."
Kellner also highlighted the "embedding" of war reporters, doubting
their "ability to be objective" as they solely depended on the
protection of "coalition" military, lived with troops, and signed
a "rigorous set of restrictions on their reporting." Roland
Paul Larson, who was embedded with the military escorts, agrees with Kellner.
In his chapter, Larson describes the "bonding" relationship
that is established with the soldiers throughout the war. "We were
all Americans in a foreign land and in danger. It was quite difficult
not to psychologically surround the wagons and see yourself as an us against
a them." However, though Larson admits that "bonding" with
the soldiers was a "potential source of professional complications,"
he concludes. "It never seriously affected my reporting," clarifying
that his "obligations as a journalist" never intertwined with
his "friendship for a soldier."
This explains why he thinks the bonding was "positive", as "soldiers
became helpful and forthcoming with information and opinions." Larson's
position, however, cannot be generalized on all "embedded" reporters,
as he accompanied a supporting division, where news was scarce. Larson
seems to miss, however, that the scarcity of news was not only due to
censorship and propaganda techniques practiced by the military but also
his tunnel vision of the war. The embedding or "bonding," by
its very nature, not only put him in one camp with the fighting soldiers,
but also made him miss the war he was supposed to attend.
In contrast to Larson, Dana Hull of the San Jose Mercury News refused
to be "embedded" with the soldiers she was supposed to report
on. "I wanted to spend as much time as possible with Iraqi civilians,
talking with them about their lives over the past decade in their homes
and schools and mosques." Hull, then, chose to report the aftermath
of the war, where news distortion and manipulation seem to have continued,
though on a grudgingly lower scale.
The killing by US soldiers of a 12-year-old Iraqi boy while playing on
his roof is the most significant of the several instances of media disinformation
that Hull mentions. Hull first saw the story on Al Jazeera but tuning
into other Arab and western channels found nothing. She rushed to the
boy's house. The family said the boy had gone to play on the roof by night
and when one of the soldiers saw him, he fired more than five bullets,
ignoring a neighbor's loud call, "Baby!! Baby! Don't shoot!!"
Hull was surprised to discover that she was the only western journalist
to visit the family.
The relative freedom of movement and reporting that Hull as opposed to
Larson enjoyed allowed her to show Western audiences a different facet
of war -- the human impact. Hull's relative freedom, however, did not
prevent the US army from disclaiming any responsibility for the child's
death and for other "atrocities" committed throughout the war.
The fact that Al Jazeera covered the event in a timely fashion illustrates
the continued challenge presented by influential Arab networks to the
US manipulation and monopoly of news.
One explanation for such an attitude on the part of the US and British
armies and elements of the US and British media is provided in a chapter
by Karim H. Karim. Karim highlights what he believes to be four dominant
stereotypes about Arabs in the Western/American media, namely "greed,
barbarism, lust and violence," commenting that "basic western
notions" about Muslims' characteristics date back centuries and still
determine the media frameworks for the portrayal of events involving Muslims
today.
According to Karim, scholars also played a significant role in the Western
media misrepresentation of Arabs and Muslims. While some academics, such
as Samuel Huntington and Benjamin Barber, considered Muslims as "the
new major threat to the West," others, such as Bernard Lewis and
Ellie Kedourie, "[acted] more as propagandists than academics,"
as they attempted to show that "militants among contemporary Muslims
are present-day incarnations of terrorists from the beginning of Muslim
history." The mass media, rather than objectively bringing those
views into question and reporting their relation to truth, adopted them
as "frameworks in their reporting about Muslims," adds Karim.
Kamalipour and Snow's book seems to have met its goal of "denouncing
terrorism, in all forms, including war, and promoting cooperation among
regional and international organizations." Combining various viewpoints
from Eastern and Western countries, it successfully provides a constructive
dialogue on the critical wartime role of the mass media. As well as highlighting
major obstacles to critical coverage, new wartime features of television
coverage, and challenges to the journalists' role, it provides explanations
and suggests solutions aimed at bridging the widening gap between East
and West.
|