| |
|
OK, I'm starting this thread to discuss media coverage of the war and see what people think have been the worst and best aspects of it.
Iraq and the media
The US and UK gov'ts obviously regard the practice of 'embedding' journalists as a major PR coup and having read some of the glowing tosh written by usually incisive reporters I can understand why.
On the one hand you have all the official misinformation from US central command - and on the other all the monitored reports from Baghdad. It's a full-time job sifting through the half-truths for the real story. I think it's hard to trust any breaking news as it takes a good 12 hours to establish what's really going on.
For example, last Sunday morning it was reported that British forces were inside Basra. By mid-morning that had changed to on the outskirts of Basra, then by the evening they were near the city. Every wire service and news channel is reporting a different story. It's easy for editors to pick and chose a line to suit their prejudices. Sky is slick but gung-ho/sensationalistic, the BBC is confused and increasingly hesitant, with occasional flashes of insight, and ITN amateurish at best. I think Allied reaction to al-Jazeera has been particularly telling - especially after it had the 'gall' to show US PoWs and civilians with their head and limbs blown off. That 4m people now subscribe to the channel in Europe speaks volumes.
The Sun and the Star deserve special mention for their blind, tasteless patriotism. The Sun reported that thousands of Iraqis cheered as humanitarian aid was unloaded at Umm Quasr - which is odd seeing as they didn't have a journalist at the scene. While the Star deserves special mention for its sporting metaphors - the frontpage splash of '14-0' as the headline on a story about a tank battle was a new low.
But I think the Mirror has coverage the conflict particularly badly - its front pages have been dire. And hiring burnt out anti-war hacks doesn't guarantee more insightful coverage. The fact of this conflict - or at least making a responsible effort to uncover them - are all you need to expose the sham of 'liberation'.
Apparently coverage in France has been markedly different - not just become of their gov't oppostion to the war - but because more journalists are roaming around Iraq. I'm told AFP wires, for example, have borne little resemblance to coverage on PA and Reuters. Any French users care to comment on this?
The conflict has really exposed the shortcomings of rolling news - particularly on the 24hr news channels. Rolling speculation and misinformation, vague guesswork and half-baked theory by rent-a-quote commentators. I bet every defence analyst in the country will be able to take a year off after this is over.
That said, if it's made the audience more sceptical that can only be a good thing. I don't recall half this much analysis of the (mis)information war during the last Gulf War or even Kosovo. (Although, of course, we didn't have as much 24hr news coverage then.) It's worth remembering that Schwartskopf thanked US and Uk reporters after the last Gulf war for diseminating so much military misinformation.
How would you like to see the media (esp. broadcasters) change their approach to war coverage in light of this conflict? |
|
|
