The wide media attention received in Britain by an Iraqi boy who had lost both hands is an example of the tendency among some Western journalists to focus on a part instead of the whole, says Muhammad Fahd Al-Harithy in the fourth and concluding part of his series on the Iraq war. He draws our attention to the cruel irony of helping one child when thousands of war victims groan in pain in poorly equipped hospitals with little medical attention and no medicine at all!
Journalists are familiar with the inverted pyramid style of reporting. The practice these days, however, is to look only at part of the pyramid instead of inverting it.
Some Western journalists focus on a part instead of the whole. This was especially noticed in their coverage of the human suffering resulting from the Iraq war. The method is used only if it appeals to mass sentiments and feelings. The wide media attention in Britain received by an Iraqi boy who had lost both hands is an example of what I am talking about. A charity fund was launched and attempts were made to bring the boy out of Iraq.
This kind of treatment offers the public an opportunity to ease their consciences and releases them from guilt feeling about supporting the war. Just imagine the cruel irony of helping one child and being complacent about it! Helping one when thousands are in poorly equipped hospitals with little medical attention and no medicine at all! The media gave the public the impression that by pouring its humanitarian sentiments onto a single child that much had been done to alleviate the suffering caused by the war. The methods used by the media made the public forget about all the others who were as deserving of help as the one fortunate boy.
The media of course has both positive and negative points. In the final analysis, the media is only a reporter who sends a report from where something happened to the editor in his office. Both the reporter and the editor are human beings with — naturally — a tendency to sensationalism. The final victim is accuracy and truth that die between the clash of the weapons and the footfall of the soldiers.
No media can afford to gamble with credibility. Loss of credibility is fatal to it. CNN had to face a barrage of criticism for the statement by one of its senior executives that the channel had suppressed details of Saddam’s inhumane acts in order to guarantee the safety of the channel’s news sources in Iraq. The accusations against the channel, spearheaded by Fox News and the New York Post, included a soft approach toward the regime in order to enable the network to operate in the country. CNN denied receiving preferential treatment from the Baathist regime and pointed out that its correspondents were expelled from Baghdad six times during the war. The campaign had, not surprisingly, made some impact on the channel’s credibility. Fox News conveniently forgot that its proprietor Rupert Murdoch had denied the BBC the facilities he owned in China since the Chinese government was not sympathetic to the BBC presence in the country. Murdoch feared that his interests in China would be adversely affected.
On the other hand, Arab society did not object when Al-Jazeera disclosed that it had not broadcast several reports from Iraq because the broadcast would endanger its correspondent’s safety. Arab society is more accustomed to such practices. Those who compare the furor over CNN’s disclosure in the US and the lack of concern in the Arab world about Al-Jazeera’s admission need to realize that the crisis is in the Arab mentality rather than in the political system.
I watch the BBC because of its professionalism in both news coverage and documentaries. Its style of reporting has at times set off controversies. There have been occasions when the British government charged the channel with a partisan approach. The accusations prompted the Vienna-based International Press Institute to criticize the British government for its attempt to influence the BBC’s style. The institute felt that the British government should accept the fact that the right persons to decide on news matters are not politicians but journalists. It is surprising that while the British government frequently criticizes the BBC, Arab governments do not have to criticize the media in their own countries. That is because Arab governments possess more effective ways to make the media fall into line. In the early stages of World War II, BBC radio reported Nazi victories because the station was unwilling to compromise its dedication to truth and professionalism. Unlike the German media and in spite of government pressure, the BBC did not resort to false claims and exaggerations. A senior BBC official at the time explained that the station insisted on telling the truth as much as possible, even if the truth were his own country’s defeat. Because of its principled stand, listeners never doubted its reports, he added. The Arab media unfortunately lack such credibility because they drift with the waves instead of riding over them.
Complaints about the media coverage of war has, apparently, prompted Karl Rove, political advisor to the US president, to speak out. While addressing a meeting of editors in chief, he pointed out that newspaper coverage of the war had confused the public because of contradictory and ambiguous articles filed by different correspondents with different agendas. He did, however, commend the work of journalists accompanying the military units. He added that the mutual distrust between journalists and soldiers disappeared as they worked together in what was often a battlefield.
This latest war also revealed the potential of the Internet as a major source of information. The limited access that the Arab public has to the Internet made its impact less than might be expected. It did offer an opportunity for members of the public to voice their views through e-conferencing and online newspapers. One Western editor called this war “the Internet war” just as the Vietnam War was “the television war” and World War II “the radio war.” Despite the increasing popularity of the Internet in the West, TV remained the major source of war news around the world. People turned to the Internet when the TV networks in the US refused to show photos of dead and captured US soldiers and so showed once and for all that the Internet could disregard any ban.
American media policy on the coverage of the war invited severe criticism. One analyst for the Organization for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting said: “The common culture of the leading media establishments and the connection between journalists and high-ranking government officials indicate that news is mostly dictated by high officials while journalists are biased toward the elite.”
This brings up questions about the influence of the shared interests of the media as a group, journalists as individuals and the political decision-makers who may be journalists’ friends. The questions include who chooses the participants in a media program and on what criteria.
Each media establishment has its own private agenda. There are famous Arab channels, which are known for their arrangement of programs and choice of participants and their comments. The condition in the West is no better and no different. The Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting organization revealed that 76 percent of the guests, who appeared on US channels to discuss the Iraq war, were current or former government officials. There are no angels on earth nor are there any devils.
— Muhammad Fahd Al-Harithy is a Saudi journalist based in London ([email protected])
