How did the media cover the US-led war on Iraq in 2003? Were there any fundamental differences in the way Western and Arab media reported the war — one too jingoistic while the other confused and at times apologetic? In a four-part series Muhammad Fahd Al-Harithy examines these and other issues related to the coverage of the Iraq war. The manner in which the war was covered has raised certain questions about professional ethics and standards to be used in reporting a war, Al-Harithy says adding that the role of the media as a war machine is being debated as never before. This is the first part.
In marketing a new camera, a TV commercial used the following: “Now you can make a moment eternal.” A passing moment of course cannot really be captured and made eternal. If, however, that moment is of real significance, its impact may trigger a series of events, pleasant or unpleasant. It is human nature to be fascinated by sensational events; that is why the media never fail to report them.
The public should keep this fact about the media in mind; sensation is sought because it sells papers and guarantees viewers. On the other hand, it is a firm commitment to a principle that confers upon any media a good and lasting reputation. It is thus no mere coincidence that most of the world’s TV channels had cameras on hand to record the fall of Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad’s Firdous Square. It was a historic moment and one which the media could not afford to miss.
A fleeting moment may not say a great deal but a picture can certainly tell a long story. In this particular instance, the public saw US soldiers arriving in the square and pulling down the statue — in other words, the people saw how the hero came and destroyed the villain.
This is still the message the public gets from every hourly news bulletin round-the-clock on most TV channels. MSNBC compared the demolition of the statue to the fall of the Berlin Wall while ultraright Fox News equated the event with the liberation of Paris from the Nazis in 1944.
By contrast, Arab commentators seemed confused. Some of them spoke like World War II radio commentators, describing every detail of the statue’s demolition as if viewers were unable to see it for themselves. Some commentators even seemed to be apologetic for their involvement in the event.
The manner of the coverage of this war has raised certain questions about professional ethics and standards to be used in reporting a war. The role of the media as a war machine is being debated as never before.
The electronic media has tried, day and night, to dig up more and more stories from the war’s front lines. The Internet has also been a lead player.
In this latest war, CNN, which emerged as a giant in the 1991 Gulf War, had to compete with other US and British channels such as Fox News, MSNBC, BBC and Sky News. All had a considerable influence on international public opinion.
In the Arab world the controversial Qatar-based Al-Jazeera and its competitor, Al-Arabiya, were also on the scene. Abu Dhabi TV also emerged as a major news channel. Supported by huge budgets, advanced technology and staffed by brilliant professionals, Western stations established their superiority in the media world, leaving the Arab channels far behind.
The cost of NBC’s war coverage in Iraq has been estimated at $65 million. In spite of losses in advertising revenue due to the war, the company’s profit in the first quarter of the year was $343 million with a total turnover of $1.47 billion. On the other hand, the combined loss of more than 60 Arab channels which survive on govrnment aid has been put at $800 million annually. These figures show very graphically the ability and potential of the Western media when it comes to influencing the public. Though they supported the war, most American and British channels aired the viewpoints of people who opposed the war and thus gave themselves a certain “credibility.” Fox News, however, was extremely outspoken in its support for the war and was seen as the voice of neoconservatives in the US administration. Al-Jazeera was accused of being the voice of Saddam Hussein though the charge was never substantiated. The additional emphasis by Fox News on America’s national feelings and patriotism undoubtedly helped increase its viewers. With an estimated audience of 3.3 million across the US, Fox News put CNN, with 2.7 million, in second place according to one survey.
Fox News’ extremist position prompted one prominent journalist to say that Fox News had an ideological agenda and a specific policy, unlike other channels. Replying to the charge, Fox’s chief executive said a person was innocent until proven guilty. He justified the station’s stand by saying that it had adopted that operating style because the American people deserved to know that their nation was at war and it was their problem and not anybody else’s. With the apparent aim of rousing patriotism, the channel regularly featured the American flag in the background in addition to referring to US forces as “our forces,” and US soldiers as “our sons” or “liberators.” Its tendency to sensationalism was also noticed during the Afghan war when one Fox News reporter brandished a gun, claiming that he kept it in order to kill Osama Bin Laden. Fox also titled its most recent war updates and news “Iraq Liberation Operations” as if it were a part of the Pentagon. At the same time, CNN called its reports “The War in Iraq” while Al-Jazeera’s working title was “War On Iraq” and Al-Arabiya chose the simply factual “Gulf War III.”
Participating in a talk show on BBC 4 last year, Philip Taylor, a media specialist in war coverage, compared the 1991 and 2003 wars. He said the failure to find any WMDs weakened the position of the coalition forces. He pointed out that because of that failure, public opinion was divided, unlike during the war for the liberation of Kuwait. He also mentioned the divided press; some newspapers supported the war completely while others condemning it outright. Such conflicting positions in the US, European and Middle Eastern press have made it hard for anyone to find the truth.
It is generally accepted that the first casualty of a war is truth. What is presented to the public is necessarily only a partial view of the reality. US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said no single moment reflected the whole truth. This is the problem with a picture which condenses a tragedy into an image.
I do not deny that there were independent journalists reporting honestly from Iraq. The coverage also brought to light the difference between performance levels of Arab and non-Arab correspondents. Many Arab reporters and commentators were influenced by their sentiments and used emotionally charged expressions such as “savage attacks” and “coldblooded murder of innocents.” Such an approach considerably reduceed the credibility of their reports though they were accurate in details and other matters. On the contrary, foreign reporters, despite their prejudices, presented their reports more objectively and less emotion.
While participating in a conference held in Dubai last year, I noted that some Arab journalists referred to the Iraqi regime as though it were still in power — even as its leaders were running for their lives. It is also embarrassing to say that some Arab journalists are ignorant of some fundamentals of military science. During Gulf War II, I remember Prince Khalid ibn Sultan, commander of the joint forces and operations, saying that the trouble with Arab war correspondents was their lack of military background since many of them could not distinguish between an army battalion and an infantry division. It is like listening to a soccer commentator who does not know what a penalty kick is. The various kinds of media do not mean freedom. They must also include efficiency, credibility and honesty. Freedom without responsibility is like driving in the wrong direction at a high speed.
NOTE: Gulf War I — 1980s war between Iraq and Iran.
Gulf War II — 1991, the liberation of Kuwait.
Gulf War III — 2003 to present.
— Muhammad Fahd Al-Harithy is a Saudi journalist based in London. ([email protected])
