War

Reporting
Submitted to: Sir Naveed

Sulaiman Safdar
Contents
What is war reporting? ................................................................................................................................. 2
History of war reporting: .............................................................................................................................. 2
The Early Beginnings of the Modern War Correspondent .................................................... 2
John Bell: the First War Correspondent .................................................................................... 3
Digital coverage of war: ................................................................................................................................ 4
EMBEDDED JOURNALISM ............................................................................................................................. 4
Criticism on embedded journalism: .......................................................................................................... 4
Conflict zones: ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Afghanistan War ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Pakistan: .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Libya: ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Libyan journalists started to report the news, express opinions, and criticize politicians like never before. .. 8
Background: Libya’s Media Landscape .................................................................................................. 9
Attack on the Media since 2011 ............................................................................................................. 10
Killings and Attempted Killings ........................................................................................................... 11
Attacks on Media Offices and Facilities ............................................................................................ 12
Iraq: ......................................................................................................................................................... 12
Iraq War Media Reporting, Journalism and Propaganda.................................................................... 12
War Reporting and Journalism ............................................................................................................... 13
Majority of Foreign Militants are Saudi, not Iranian .............................................................................. 15
Urging Support of Troops Regardless of Views on the War ................................................................... 15
Captured Soldiers .................................................................................................................................... 15
Sanitizing The Horrors of War ................................................................................................................. 15
Bombing the Media ................................................................................................................................ 16
U.S. Army Sent Fake Iraq Letters To U.S. Media Outlets ........................................................................ 16
PR Firm, Hired By Pentagon, Pay Iraqi Newspapers to Plant Pro-American Articles, Secretly Written by
US Military............................................................................................................................................... 17
What is war reporting?
War reporting is, by definition, a branch of journalism that requires the journalist, commonly
known as a war correspondent, to relocate to the country where a ragingwar or a conflict-ridden
situation arises and cover it, thus providing the media with stories, pictures and videos from
the war zone.

History of war reporting:

Men have been reporting their wars almost as long as they have fighting them. The first
prehistoric cave drawings depicted hunters bringing down wild animals, and spoken accounts of
battles, large and small, formed the starting point for the oral tradition of history. All native
cultures have mythologized warfare and glorified warriors, often giving them divine status. The
Greek poet Homer’s epic works, The Odyssey and The Iliad, recounted the Trojan War and its
aftermath, and The Song of Roland told of the Moorish invasion of Europe. The greatest of all
writers, William Shakespeare, memorialized England’s dynastic wars in his plays, and John
Milton’s epic poem Paradise Lost depicted the armies of God and the armies of Satan arranged
“in dubious battle on the plains of heaven.” Even Jesus, the ultimate peace-giver, was shown in
the Gospels driving the moneylenders from the temple at the point of a whip.

The Early Beginnings of the Modern War Correspondent

The profession of war correspondent, however, is a comparatively new development in human
history. Scholars have long debated the identity of the first such correspondent. Candidates as
varied and ancient as the Greek historian Thucydides, who wrote about the Peloponnesian War
in 424 bc, and Roman emperor Julius Caesar, who described his conquest of Gaul in 55 bc,
have been advanced—although in both cases, the authors’ chronicles were written several
years after the wars themselves. William Watts, the probable author of a 17th-century account
of Swedish King Gustavus Adolphus’s campaigns during the Thirty Years’ War, is another
frequently mentioned candidate. But Watts’s anonymous reports, published in a pamphlet
entitled the Swedish Intelligencer, came several months after the events themselves, and Watts
composed them in London, far from the scene of the European fighting.

Two early 19th-century newspaper reporters, Henry Crabb Robinson of the London Times and
Charles Lewis Gruneison of the London Morning Post, have been put forward as early war
correspondents. Robinson, a barrister by profession, accepted an offer from the Times to
relocate to Altona, Germany, in 1807 and send back reports of French emperor Napoleon
Bonaparte’s 1807 campaign. With the help of a friendly German editor, Robinson poured over
public documents and mingled with the social elite to send back accounts, mostly rumors, of
Napoleon’s progress on the continent. Datelined “From the Banks of the Elbe,” Robinson’s
articles added little real detail to the hearsay gossip, and he made no attempt to reach the
battlefield, reporting on the Battle of Friedland, for example, six days after it occurred.

The next year, Robinson headed south to report on the Spanish revolution “from the shores of
the Bay of Biscay.” Again he arranged with a local editor to use already published news reports
as the basis for his articles, and he was not even aware that the Battle of Corunna had taken
place until he went to dinner one night and found the dining hall deserted. “Have you not heard,
sir?” a waiter asked. “The French are come; they are fighting.” Robinson walked down to the
harbor and climbed aboard a ship, where he reported hearing the sound of cannons “come from
the hills about three miles from Corunna.” He later observed English wounded and French
prisoners brought into the city, but he missed completely the death of English commander Sir
John Moore in the battle.

Gruneison also went to Spain, three decades later, to report on the ongoing Carlist revolt. More
industrious than Robinson, Gruneison accompanied the British Legion and attached himself to
the headquarters of King Don Carlos. Although a music critic by training, Gruneison proved to
be an industrious reporter, going to the scene of the Battle of Villar de los Navarros and several
smaller actions. After one encounter, he personally managed to prevent the massacre of
prisoners by prevailing on the Spanish commander as a fellow Mason to spare the men’s lives.
After the Battle of Retuerta, Gruneison was arrested on suspicion of being a spy, and narrowly
missed being executed. Returning to England, he later served as the newspaper’s Paris
correspondent, organizing a carrier pigeon service between the French capital and London. He
saw no further fighting.

John Bell: the First War Correspondent

Perhaps the best candidate for the honor of first war correspondent is London Oracle reporter
John Bell, who reported on the Duke of York’s European campaign in 1794. Bell, who owned
the newspaper, embarked for Flanders in April of that year to report on the British expeditionary
force that had landed in the Netherlands to cooperate with the Allies against the revolutionary
French. Announcing his attention to “establish a chain of regular correspondents with every part
of the Allied army, and to take every possible method of obtaining French papers with more
regularity and dispatch than has hitherto been practicable,” Bell described his motives in words
that could have been written by professional war correspondents a century later: “As I shall, for
some time, be in the very neighborhood of the contending armies, it is my intention to send you
a regular and faithful diary of whatever passes worthy the attention of your readers. I shall write
frequently in the field, or under the first hedge that affords me safe retreat; and therefore must
be satisfied with facts, without ornament or exaggerated coloring, which on such occasions is
too frequently adopted in the diurnal publications.”

In contrast to Robinson, Bell eschewed the safety of cities for the authenticity of the battlefront,
witnessing one British cannonade from a nearby tower and finding himself in the midst of the
action during the Battle of Courtray, on May 17-18, 1794. His vivid account of the battle, written
on the field, described “the confusion of unhappy defeat” and pictured the soldiers staggering
away “with fatigue almost insupportable.” Bell’s scoop of the British defeat at Courtray preceded
the official announcement by two days, and he later predicted the imminent fall of Ypres,
warning that “if Ypres falls, I think all of this part of the country is lost.”

In some ways, Bell was the first celebrity war correspondent. His departure for the front was
widely publicized, and in an era when most newspaper columns were uncredited, Bell’s name
was prominently featured above his battle reports and often at the end of the articles as well.
The Oracleitself was quick to trumpet the correspondent’s scoops, crowing: “The other
newspapers will, as usual, copy our intelligence tomorrow.” The British government complained
predictably about Bell’s implicit criticism of its efforts, and rival newspapers criticized his
“contradictory and false rumors” as the work of a “vagabond Jacobin.” By the end of the year,
Bell was forced to sell the Oracle to settle the debts he had run up while covering the war.
Digital coverage of war:
• Korean war 1950: the first war covered by television

• Vietnam war 1961: Introduced graphic images of war

• Gulf War 1991: Cable images 24 hours a day. The CNN war.

• Iraq war 2003: Internet, broadband,interactive maps , websites with live video

EMBEDDED JOURNALISM
. It refers to news reporters attached to military units involved in armed conflicts

. This term coined in the media coverage of Iraq invasion 2003

. 775 reporters and photographers traveled with military in Iraq

. Those journalists signed contracts not to report info that could compromise unit position, future
mission, and classified weapons

Criticism on embedded journalism:

. Embedded journalism are considered controversial

. Considered propaganda campaign

. An effort to keep reporters away from civilians and sympathetic to invaders

. Alternate term ‘Inbedded Journalism’ or “Inbeds”

. Documentaries, “ The War you Don’t See” and “ War made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep
Spinning us to Death”

Conflict zones:
Afghanistan War
Began back in 2001.

Taliban had controlled most of the country since 1996 but they were overthrown in November 2001 by
British and American armed forces, as well as lots of Afghan fighters from a group called the Northern
Alliance.

Why was there a war?

• During the time that the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, they allowed an organization called al-
Qaeda to have training camps there.
 • In September 2001, nearly 3,000 people were killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The United
States believed that Osama Bin Laden - who was the head of al-Qaeda - was the man behind
these attacks.

• In October 2001, the USA began bombing Afghanistan. They targeted bin Laden's al-Qaeda
fighters and also the Taliban.

• In November 2001, the Northern Alliance took control of the Afghan capital Kabul. They were
being helped by the US and other countries that agreed with it, including the UK.

• The Taliban were quickly driven out of the capital city, Kabul, but even today Afghanistan
remains a dangerous place.

• It was in 2011, ten years after the war in Afghanistan began that Osama bin Laden was
eventually found by American soldiers in Pakistan, where he was shot and killed.

Media In war Invasion:

• It is claimed that Afghan media is independent, yet there are many issues that have to be dealt
with to really make it free and independent in the true sense of the word. At the same time, the
international media active in Afghanistan has also played a role that cannot be neglected at all.

• Both national and international media has disclosed to the people the real nature of the war and
the parties to the conflict. It has brought to the people, the events and the incidents with their
details and their horrors.

• Analyzing these incidents and events, it would not be difficult for the people of Afghanistan to
understand their true enemy and friend.

• It is also crucial that media must make the people know about their true enemies and their true
friends so that they must be able to choose the better between them.

• The media reports and the analysis have clearly shown to the people of Afghanistan that they
have been highly influenced by Taliban and their actions. Though, they have been the victims of
the war as a whole, the role and activities of Taliban have proved to be more deadly for them.

• When the war in Afghanistan started, the tone of the stories that reporters filed was generally
neutral,” says Michel Haigh, associate professor of communications at Penn State. “However,
over time, and as casualties increased, the coverage became more negative.”

• In 2003, as the media began to focus more on the conflict in Iraq, reporters for the New York
Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times wrote less than 20 stories about
Afghanistan.

Pakistan:
Columnist Gp Capt SULTAN M HALI discusses how propaganda can be used effectively during war.

“Journalists will say that war is too important to be left to generals. Reporting of war is too important to
be left to reporters. Soldiers need to get involved in this.”

-Maj Gen Patrick Brady - 1990

(former Public Relations Chief of US Army)

The revolution in information technology, from the transistor through widespread digitization, deeply
networked communications, as well as, the revolutionary changes in the employment of airpower have
profoundly influenced analysts and planners and has completely changed the conduct of war.

The Gulf War afforded the world its first glimpse of the future of warfare. Millions around the globe
were treated to precision-guided bombs annihilating targets in downtown Baghdad, learned of satellite
uplinks from the battlefield that provided real-time connectivity, and applauded the ability of Stealth
aircraft to ensure aerial dominance. Everyone seemed to understand that something was different
about this “Video-game war”. There was much more to the spectacle than the one provided by previous
wars. How much of it was real and how much rigged, are discussed below. More recently India’s use —
or rather abuse — of the media to dupe its own people during the Kargil Crisis is a case in point. The
important thing to note is that the revolutions in the field of information technology have caused the
media to have a much greater impact on operations. Thus it is imperative to take a closer look at the
intricate relationship between the military and the media, and to understand the role of media in war.

The Military And The Media : Who Needs Whom?

The question here arises: who needs whom? Does the media need the military or does the military need
the media? The answer is, however, not that simple. Throughout history both institutions have been at
odds with each other. The military is perennially popular, but is at its best in battle and functions like a
conditioned athlete. However, it too, has its share of incompetence. So when the military makes
mistakes, they can be monumental. Besides territory, a large number of lives can be lost.

The military are disciplined, hierarchical and live within a homogenous, closed culture that can be —and
often is — hostile to outsiders.

The news media, are often unpopular with the brass, for they function independently, without rules,
regulations, or even a Code of Conduct except for some that are self-imposed. The media’s Newspapers,
Radio, TV and Cable have a variety of interests of their own and set goals to be achieved. They have their
fulsome share of rogues, incompetents and avaricious vultures. Yet at their best, the media provide the
nation with a vital service it can get nowhere else. It is one of the pillars of the state.

When the two institutions meet during a conflict, clashes are inevitable. The media wants to tell the
story, and the military wants to win the war and keep casualties to a minimum. The media wants
freedom, no censorship, total access and the capability to get their stories out to their audiences
quickly. The military on the other hand, wants control. The greatest fear of a military commander in a
pre-invasion scenario is that something might leak out that would tip off the enemy. Otherwise, too,
surprise is the most potent weapon in the Commander’s armoury. On the other hand, the media fears
that the military might stifle news coverage for enhancing their public image or cover up their mistakes.
Those are fundamental differences that will never change. At times the military and the patriotic media
also have worked together in harmony but usually animosity tarnishes their relationship. There is
definitely a need for better understanding between the two. A perfect co-operative union of the media
and the military is likely impossible, given the differences in missions and personalities but there are
wise head in both institutions who recognize the mutual need. The media is hungry for stories while the
military need to tell their story. Above all they need public support. The media can tell their story and if
there is a rapport and understanding, they can tell it well and effectively. Both institutions will work
better during the tension and the fog of war if they learn to get along in peacetime.

During the wartime when there is a life and death struggle for the military, personally as well as
institutionally, patriotism comes to their rescue instinctively and through their long training. Civil media
totally lacks such training and has nothing personal at stake. Self-aggrandizement seems to be the raison
d’etre of most. War is good for the media business. Despite the excessive costs of sending
correspondents for coverage, using expensive satellite equipment and airtime, armed conflict is
precisely the type of event on which the media thrives. This is an alarming situation and something must
be done during peacetime to remove this dichotomy.

It is for the civil media to come forward with the remedy. And for the military to provide its own media
to fill the gap and, more importantly to serve as the role model.

Media As A Force Multiplier

Many military leaders have become aware that news media coverage of their operations can be a force
multiplier. Impressed by Gen. Walt Boomer’s example of encouraging favourable news media coverage
of the US Marines in the Gulf War - to the point where most observers agree that the Marines received
more credit than they deserved, mostly at the expense of the US Army - many military leaders have
come to the conclusion that media

In wartime, the media serve a variety of roles. With information, they can convey a sense of the fighting
to a public divorced from its actual horrors or, with entertainment, they can provide a sense of relief or
escape to a public more directly involved such as in a blockade or bombing campaign.

Just because they mediate information about the progress of a war to the public, the media can serve
not just as providers of ‘straight’ news and information but also as agents of propaganda and
disinformation. This is because the very processes by which war reports are gathered at source,
packaged by journalists and disseminated to a wider audience are subject to a wide spectrum of
influences ranging from battlefield censorship to broadcasting standards, deception and disinformation
campaigns, official information policy and propaganda. These are indeed the pollutants which constitute
that overworked idiom: “The Fog of War”.

Journalists have a front seat at the making of history and it is tragic that by the time the historians
become involved ‘that first rough draft of history’ provided by the journalists has been so widely
disseminated by the mass media that it becomes extremely difficult to dislodge the pollutants that
caused the fog of war.

Conclusion

After assimilating the role of the media in war, and getting a glimpse of the impact of technology on
news reporting, the role played by media in two recent conflicts, it must raise questions in our mind that
whereas the military trains hard and well to achieve its goals and reach a level of specialization yet we
call upon the media, which is perhaps the only career which starts its profession with zero specialization
and most reporters don’t know the difference between a company and a brigade, a destroyer and a
Fleet Tanker or an F-16 and M-16, to tell the story of the military. This is all the more valid in view of the
general level of education in our country.

That makes it all the more imperative for building greater harmony and understanding. We will keep
shooting ourselves in the foot if we don’t realize the potentials of media as a force multiplier and a
weapon of war. Failure to recognize and counter enemy usage of media could lead to avoidable military
failures. We must realize that decisions are no longer based on events but on how the events are
presented. So we must lay greater emphasis on the role of media in war and train for it in peacetime.

Libya:
Libyan journalists started to report the news, express opinions, and criticize politicians
like never before.

In the first year after the 2011 uprising, private newspapers and magazines proliferated in
a climate of newly found freedom. The number of Libyan satellite TV stations
broadcasting from inside and outside Libya increased from two at the end of the Gaddafi
era to more than 50. The number of publications rose from four daily newspapers and a
few specialized publications to dozens of publications. Suddenly journalists were publicly
debating substantive political issues that hitherto few had dared to discuss even in
whispers.

However this flourishing media now finds its new freedoms under threat as heavily
armed militias have brought the post-Gaddafi state to its knees. Key institutions,
including the judiciary, police and army, have collapsed in some major cities including
Benghazi and Derna. Officials are powerless to maintain security, or to apprehend or
prosecute those who commit crimes, including murders and assassinations. Militia
members have benefited from near immunity against prosecution since 2011, and very
few cases have gone to court.

The impact of the deteriorating political and security situation on Libya’s media has been
profound. The media landscape has become polarized, chaotic, politicized, and violent.

This report documents attacks against journalists and the offices and facilities of media
outlets since the 2011 uprising, including threats, assaults, kidnappings, and killings and
addresses the failure of the government to protect journalists and the media, and hold
perpetrators of attacks on them accountable. Human Rights Watch is not aware of a
single instance in which officials prosecuted a perpetrator of an attack against a journalist
or media outlet since 2011. The report also documents criminal prosecutions of
journalists for defamation and libel, on the basis of problematic laws that continue to
unduly restrict freedom of expression.
Between mid-2012 and November 2014, Human Rights Watch documented at least 91
cases of threats and assaults against journalists, including against at least 14 female
journalists and media workers. This figure includes 30 cases of kidnappings or short-term
arbitrary detentions of journalists, mainly by militias, and eight killings of reporters. In a
few cases, the journalists may have been unintentionally injured or killed while reporting
on violent incidents. But in most cases documented by Human Rights Watch it was clear
that armed groups targeted journalists to punish or censor their reporting. In the same
period at least ten journalists fled the country after being attacked or threatened. Human
Rights Watch also documented 26 cases of armed attacks against the offices of television
and radio stations.

Journalists also continue to face legal hazards not only because sweeping Gaddafi-era
laws restricting press freedom have not been repealed but also on account of newer laws
restricting freedom of expression promulgated by Libya’s interim authorities since the
end of 2011. Prosecutors have pressed criminal charges against journalists and civilians
have pursued lawsuits against them for slander, insult, and libel.

Journalists have not been immune from the violence as militias have attacked media
headquarters and homes of journalists and forced several journalists and media
professionals to flee the country.

Background: Libya’s Media Landscape

uring his 42 years in power, Muammar Gaddafi used the media to propagate his political
and social views, which he codified in the mid-1970s in the Green Book. That manifesto
included a set of basic principles to govern citizens’ rights and responsibilities and the
basic functioning of the state.

In the Green Book chapter on the media, Gaddafi dismissed the notion of press freedom
as a byproduct of the “problem of democracy,” and laid out the framework that shaped
Libya’s repressive media policies for more than three decades. His premise was that the
media is a tool to advance a group’s ideas, pushing aside any individual right to free
speech and opinion.

The press is a means of expression for society: it is not a means of expression for private
individuals or corporate bodies. Therefore, logically and democratically, it should not
belong to either one of them.
The democratic press is that which is issued by a People's Committee, comprising all the
groups of society. Only in this case, and not otherwise, will the press or any other
information medium be democratic, expressing the viewpoints of the whole society, and
representing all its groups.

The Gaddafi government owned most of Libya’s print and broadcast media and imposed
strict controls on them. The government also tightly controlled its official state news
agency, Jamahiriya News Agency (JANA)

Attack on the Media since 2011

Watch recorded, between September 2012 and November 2014, at least 91 cases of
threats and assaults against journalists, including at least 14 cases of threats against female
journalists. Among these 91 cases were at least 26 armed attacks against the offices of
television and radio stations including some attacks in which assailants used heavy
weapons; 30 kidnappings or short-term arbitrary detentions mostly by militias; and eight
fatal attacks against members of the press.

All journalists interviewed for this report told Human Rights Watch they resorted to self-
censorship in their reporting as a consequence of attacks, threats, and other forms of
intimidation. Ten journalists told Human Rights Watch they felt compelled to leave Libya
after repeated attacks against them. Human Rights Watch knows of tens of other
journalists now living outside of Libya after repeated threats.

All but one of the 40 journalists and media workers interviewed said they had been
threatened, harassed, or intimidated by armed groups or militias at least once. All
complained about a lack of professionalism, increased politicization, and what they saw
as an increase in hate speech and incitement to violence by supporters of various
opposing factions.

According to Reporters Without Borders, a non-governmental organization that

monitors the “negative impact of conflicts on freedom of information and its
protagonists,” Libya slipped six positions in 2013, from 131 down to 137 out of 180
countries. The group also says journalists in Libya are “censoring themselves again”
because they are exposed to multiple threats, including “repeated arrests, intimidation,
arbitrary detention, and torture.”

In their 2014 round-up, Reporters Without Borders considered Eastern Libya among the
five most dangerous areas for journalists worldwide. The NGO reported that throughout
the country in 2014, 97 journalists had been threatened or attacked; 43 had fled the
country; 29 had been kidnapped, and four had been killed.
The Committee to Protect Journalists, another non-governmental organization that
monitors attacks on journalists worldwide, said the Libyan government has not been
willing or able to control the militias that attack journalists, and states “the greatest
threats to journalists came from the government's inability to protect them.”

Of the journalists interviewed for this report who said they had received threats or
suffered attacks only a few said they had ever filed a complaint with the police or the
prosecutor’s office. None thought that the institutions of government would or could
protect them and hold perpetrators accountable. Most preferred not to report the
incident at all, as they did not believe the authorities to be capable of responding
effectively and they believed that filing a complaint could put them at risk of retribution.

Human Rights Watch did not learn of a single arrest, much less a prosecution, for any of
the attacks on journalists discussed in this report, including those which resulted in
deaths.

Killings and Attempted Killings

Human Rights Watch recorded eight killings of journalists, photojournalists, and other
media workers between August 2013 and October 2014, in Tripoli, Benghazi, and Sebha.
In four of the cases, Human Rights Watch was unable to determine if groups had
targeted the victims because of their journalism or because reporting on violent clashes
put them in harm’s way or because they were victims of common criminals. To Human
Rights Watch’s knowledge, authorities have not initiated any active investigation into any
of these eight incidents.

Libya has been plagued with unlawful killings since the end of the 2011 uprising.
Unknown perpetrators killed approximately 250 people in seemingly targeted killings in
the eastern cities of Derna and Benghazi alone between January and September 2014.
Those killed included judges, members of the security forces, sheikhs, and activists as
well as journalists. Some of the 250 killings were common law crimes, and others were
apparently revenge killings. But the majority of the killings appear to have been politically
motivated. Victims’ families and activists point to Islamist and other militias as the likely
perpetrators of these crimes.

Al-Mutassim al-Warfalli, was a radio presenter for Libya al-Watan radio station in
Benghazi. Unknown assailants shot him dead on October 8, 2014 in the Salmani
neighborhood of Benghazi.
Attacks on Media Offices and Facilities

Over the past two years, journalists have reported numerous attacks on the facilities and
offices of media outlets. Human Rights Watch documented 26 separate attacks on radio
and television stations in Tripoli, Benghazi, Mizdah, Zawiyah, and Derna between March
2013 and August 2014.

Fawziya Balaazi, executive director of a privately-owned satellite station, Alassema TV,

in Tripoli, told Human Rights Watch that the station was attacked twice, on August 23
and 24, 2014, by a group of militias operating under the Libya Dawn alliance who earlier
accused the station of bias towards their main rival, the Libya Dignity alliance. The attack
occurred as Libya Dawn aligned militias wrested control of Tripoli and its airport from
forces aligned with Zintan

When I heard the news, I went to the station and it was already surrounded and
infiltrated by armed men who had already kidnapped Jomaa Alosta, one of the owners. I
remember there was shooting outside, breaking of furniture in the station, and some
looting of computer screens. There was confusion all around, and we had to stop
transmission. I was kidnapped by some of the armed men, who put me in a car full of
weapons and drove me around Tripoli until 10 p.m. before letting me go

Iraq:
Iraq War Media Reporting, Journalism and Propaganda

The war on Iraq, however swift in its short three week period, was accompanied
by propaganda from many angles. From the ridiculous claims of the Iraqi
information minister that the Americans will surrender or perish, or that they
were nowhere near Baghdad (while coalition tanks could be heard just a mile
from where he said that!) to the subtle propaganda of Coalition nations’ media,
that at times minimized the civilian casualties, highlighted the awesome military
force of the coalition, minimized geopolitical discussion and context, and often
jumped at unconfirmed reports as confirmed news.

As the attack on Iraq commenced, there were numerous challenges for the
media, while various forces also affected the media’s coverage and depth. It
would be futile to list all the issues that unfolded during the short weeks of war
time on this page and how the media covered it, so this page will mostly attempt
to highlight other analysis and perspectives that we typically do not get on the
mainstream and also look at some of the geopolitical fall outs from this war.

War Reporting and Journalism

During the campaign, Iraq had expelled journalists, staged events such as
street dances of support for Saddam Hussein and more (perhaps the most
incredulous was the Iraqi information minister, forever claiming that the coalition
forces were nowhere near Baghdad, even when they were all around there, and
that they would all perish). Much of this propaganda by the Iraqi regime is
covered well by Western mainstream media outlets, and was further shown to
be ridiculous and crude as the war itself unfolded, so is not necessary to detail
further here. But another aspect worth highlighting is the media reporting from
journalists of the mainstream/Coalition nations.

It is well known and an accepted part of war that Iraq had attempted to control
media reports, monitor foreign journalists, and even expel them (including CNN
and even Al Jazeera for a while). Occassionally reporters point out the same
thing on the other side, with coalition forces. Embedded reporters travelling with
Coalition forces sometimes highlighted in television reports that they were
under strict control and unable to say some things as well. This control is an
understandable and even desirable aspect from a military perspective.

A BBC Radio 5 broadcast on the morning of April 9, 2003 also highlighted that
many embedded journalists developed a sympathetic viewpoint for the
Coalition perspective by being with them so much, which, as the radio program
also suggested, was what the Coalition would want. Even though embedding
was a somewhat new technique seen in this war, the theme of sympathy is also
highlighted more generally by Phillip Knightley as being a common theme in
war reporting throughout various conflicts in the past decades, in his book, The
First Casualty, (Prion Books, 1975, 2000 revised edition). So too is the desire
to be able to manage media reporting. In the past, for example, in Vietnam, the
press was not looked on favorably. In the Gulf War and Kosovo conflict for
example, the media was managed using pools that could be fed official
information from press briefings and a media version of a tour guide to managed
areas of the conflict.

The idea of embedding reporters and managing them in this way comes from
the public relations industry
Embedding reporters is the brainchild of Victoria Torie Clarke, the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. Clarke brings considerable PR
experience to the task of winning the spin war. She recently worked with Hill
and Knowlton, the public relations firm heavily involved in Gulf War I, and prior
to that she was president of Bozell Eskew Advertising, an issue advocacy and
corporate communications company.

According to a 10-page memo prepared for the National Security Council,

Clarke, with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on board, argued that
allowing journalists to report live from the front lines would give Americans the
opportunity to get the story, both good and bad — before others seed the media
with disinformation and distortions, as they most certainly will continue to do.

Our people in the field need to tell our story. Only commanders can ensure the
media get to the story alongside the troops. We must organize for and facilitate
access of national and international media to our forces, including those forces
engaged in ground operations. ... To accomplish this, we will embed media with
our units. These embedded media will live, work and travel as part of the units...
to facilitate maximum, in-depth coverage.

In U.K., the History Channel broadcasted a documentary on August 21, 2004,

titled War Spin: Correspondent. This documentary looked at Coalition media
management for the Iraq war and noted numerous things including the
following:

 Embedded journalists allowed the military to maximize imagery while

providing minimal insight into the real issues;
 Central Command (where all those military press briefings were held) was
the main center from which to:
o Filter, manage and drip-feed journalists with what they wanted to
provide;
o Gloss over set-backs, while dwelling on successes;
o Limit the facts and context;
o Even feed lies to journalists;
o Use spin in various ways, such as making it seems as though
reports are coming from troops on the ground, which Central
Command can then confirm, so as to appear real;
o Carefully plan the range of topics that could be discussed with
reporters, and what to avoid.
Majority of Foreign Militants are Saudi, not Iranian

As the violence in Iraq has continued, foreign militants involved in the fighting
has increased. Mainstream reports often mention Iranian militants, with likely
government backing.

While the Bush and Blair administrations have raised this and used this as one
of the reasons to potentially set their sights on Iran, what has hardly been
reported by the media, or mentioned at all by people such as Bush is that the
US’s own military has concluded that most of them were saudis not iranies.

Urging Support of Troops Regardless of Views on the War

Just as the war started, officials and leaders from the U.S. and U.K. highlighted
to their populations that even if they had opposed the war, they should now
support the troops. In a way that was a subtle guilt trip, while in another sense
it served to try and minimize the fervour and opposition to the war. The BBC,
for example, had notably reduced its anti-war demonstration coverage,
reducing it to a few sound bytes compared to the coverage during the political
build up, which was inescapable. Even a demonstration of some 400,000 in
London and many around the rest of the country, was reduced to minimal
coverage, concentrating mostly on the war as it had just begun

Captured Soldiers
When American soldiers were captured, paraded and humiliated on television,
it led to a lot of understandable anger and also the pointing out that this violated
Geneva Conventions.

Sanitizing The Horrors of War

 On television reporting of civilian deaths was hard to avoid, but some of

the details or depth of it was somewhat contained.
  The International Red Cross said they were horrified by the number of
dead civilians reported by Canadian Press(April 3, 2003).
 As mentioned further above, the mainstream in the U.K. and U.S. typically
minimized reporting of the horrors of war, though some details were of
course mentioned.
 The BBC for example, reported (April 8, 2003) that hospitals of baghdad
were overwhelmed.
 The Guardian also detailed some gruesome aspects of the horrors of war
showing that such media reports in the western mainstream are available,
occassionally.
 However, in the first three weeks of the war, these aspects were not been
given much priority, and when they were by media elsewhere, such as in
the Middle East, there was accustation of pro-Saddam propaganda. A
large amount of reporting in the rest of the world focused on the horrors
of the war. For example, the New York Times highlighted april 5, 2013
that the American Portrayal of a War of Liberation is faltering across the
Arab world. USA Todaypresented the concern that while Iraq gets
sympathetic press around the world, international media wary of U.S.
reporting.

Bombing the Media

Towards the end of March, Coalition forces bombed Iraqi TV. On the one hand,
there were understandable questions about bombing Iraqi television because it
was an outlet for propaganda, yet, on the other hand, there were many issues
of double standards arising.

U.S. Army Sent Fake Iraq Letters To U.S. Media Outlets

As reported by Britain’s Channel 4 news program, the US army sent fake

letters to many U.S media outlet to show positive results from the war, such
as how a city near Baghdad was transformed after the war.

Each of the 12 letters, whose contents are identical, were signed by different
soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry, Channel 4 noted. They pointed
out that, The fraud was discovered when two letters arrived at the same
newspaper in Washington state.
PR Firm, Hired By Pentagon, Pay Iraqi Newspapers to Plant Pro-American
Articles, Secretly Written by US Military

The Washington-based government contractor … gained notoriety last November

2005 after the Los Angeles Times first revealed it was being paid by the Pentagon
to plant stories in the Iraqi press as part of a secret military propaganda campaign. A
subsequent Pentagon investigation in March cleared the Lincoln Group of any
wrongdoing.