Ethics: journalists and the military in wartime

[Vympel]

The Media Column: War journalists should not be cosying up to the military
By Robert Fisk
21 January 2003


It looks like a rerun of the 1991 Gulf War. Already American journalists are fighting like tigers to join "the pool", to be "embedded" in the US military so that they can see the war at first hand – and, of course, be censored. Eleven years ago, they turned up at Dhahran in Saudi Arabia, already kitted out with helmets, gas capes, chocolate rations and eyes that narrowed when they looked into the sun, just like General Montgomery. Half the reporters wanted to wear military costume and one young television man from the American mid-west turned up, I recall well, with a pair of camouflaged boots. Each boot was camouflaged with painted leaves. Those of us who had been in a desert -- even those who had only seen a picture of a desert – did wonder what this meant.

Well, of course, it symbolised fantasy, the very quality upon which most viewers now rely when watching "live" war – or watching death "live" on TV.

Thus, over the past four weeks, the massed ranks of American television networks have been pouring into Kuwait to cosy up to the US military, to seek those coveted "pool" positions, to try on their army or marine costumes and make sure that – if or when the day comes – they will have the kind of coverage that every reporter and every general wants: a few facts, good pictures and nothing dirty to make the viewers throw up on the breakfast table. I remember how, back in 1991, only those Iraqi soldiers obliging enough to die in romantic poses – arm thrown back to conceal the decomposing features or face down and anonymous in the sand – made it on to live-time. Those soldiers turned into a crematorium nightmare or whose corpses were being torn to pieces by wild dogs – I actually saw an ITV crew film this horrific scene – were not honoured on screen. ITV's film, of course, couldn't be shown – lest it persuade the entire world that no one should go to war, ever, again.

The Americans are actually using the word "embedded". Reporters must be "embedded' in military units. The fears of Central Command at Tampa, Florida, are that Saddam will commit some atrocity – a gas attack on Shiites, an air bombardment of Iraqi civilians – and then blame it on the Americans. Journalists in the "pool" can thus be rushed to the scene to prove that the killings were the dastardly work of the Beast of Baghdad rather than the "collateral damage" – the Distinguished Medal for Gutlessness should be awarded to all journalists who even mention this phrase – of the fine young men who are trying to destroy the triple pillar of the "axis of evil".

Already, the "buddy-buddy" relationship – that's actually what the Ministry of Defence boys called it 11 years ago -- has started. US troops in Kuwait are offering courses in chemical and biological warfare for reporters who might be accompanying soldiers to "the front", along with "training" on the need to protect security during military operations. CNN is, of course, enthusiastically backing these seemingly innocuous courses – forgetting how they allowed Pentagon "trainees" to sit in their newsroom during the 1991 Gulf War.

So here's a thumbnail list of how to watch out for mendacity and propaganda on your screen once Gulf War Two (or Three if you include the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq conflict) begins. You should suspect the following:

Reporters who wear items of American or British military costume – helmets, camouflage jackets, weapons, etc.

Reporters who say "we" when they are referring to the US or British military unit in which they are "embedded".

Those who use the words "collateral damage" instead of "dead civilians".

Those who commence answering questions with the words: "Well, of course, because of military security I can't divulge..." Those who, reporting from the Iraqi side, insist on referring to the Iraqi population as "his" (ie Saddam's) people.

Journalists in Baghdad who refer to "what the Americans describe as Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses" – rather than the plain and simple torture we all know Saddam practices.

Journalists reporting from either side who use the god-awful and creepy phrase "officials say" without naming, quite specifically, who these often lying "officials" are.

Stay tuned.
26 January 2003 15:01

Thoughts and opinions?

[The Dark]

The Media Column: War journalists should not be cosying up to the military
By Robert Fisk
21 January 2003


It looks like a rerun of the 1991 Gulf War. Already American journalists are fighting like tigers to join "the pool", to be "embedded" in the US military so that they can see the war at first hand – and, of course, be censored.

The government has every right to censor potentially sensitive information. What, they think Hussein can't pick up CNN because Time Warner doesn't have service out there? Get real.

Eleven years ago, they turned up at Dhahran in Saudi Arabia, already kitted out with helmets, gas capes, chocolate rations and eyes that narrowed when they looked into the sun, just like General Montgomery. Half the reporters wanted to wear military costume and one young television man from the American mid-west turned up, I recall well, with a pair of camouflaged boots. Each boot was camouflaged with painted leaves. Those of us who had been in a desert -- even those who had only seen a picture of a desert – did wonder what this meant.

Most likely it meant that the guy got surplus equipment that the soldiers knew couldn't be used in the desert. If a reporter feels they need a helmet and bulletproof vest for safety or to make an impact on their crowd, that's their right.

Well, of course, it symbolised fantasy, the very quality upon which most viewers now rely when watching "live" war – or watching death "live" on TV.

Thus, over the past four weeks, the massed ranks of American television networks have been pouring into Kuwait to cosy up to the US military, to seek those coveted "pool" positions, to try on their army or marine costumes and make sure that – if or when the day comes – they will have the kind of coverage that every reporter and every general wants: a few facts, good pictures and nothing dirty to make the viewers throw up on the breakfast table. I remember how, back in 1991, only those Iraqi soldiers obliging enough to die in romantic poses – arm thrown back to conceal the decomposing features or face down and anonymous in the sand – made it on to live-time. Those soldiers turned into a crematorium nightmare or whose corpses were being torn to pieces by wild dogs – I actually saw an ITV crew film this horrific scene – were not honoured on screen. ITV's film, of course, couldn't be shown – lest it persuade the entire world that no one should go to war, ever, again.

And the reporters were so much more honest in earlier wars. Let's see, World War I...heavily censored. World War II...American casualties could not be shown for years. Vietnam...reporters had a field day here, caused riots, possibly caused the loss of the war. Hmm...I wonder where the military gets the idea that censorship is necessary in combat?

The Americans are actually using the word "embedded". Reporters must be "embedded' in military units.

Like how Pyle was "embedded" in a unit, and became acknowledged as the greatest of the World War II reporters?

The fears of Central Command at Tampa, Florida, are that Saddam will commit some atrocity – a gas attack on Shiites, an air bombardment of Iraqi civilians – and then blame it on the Americans. Journalists in the "pool" can thus be rushed to the scene to prove that the killings were the dastardly work of the Beast of Baghdad rather than the "collateral damage" – the Distinguished Medal for Gutlessness should be awarded to all journalists who even mention this phrase – of the fine young men who are trying to destroy the triple pillar of the "axis of evil".

Considering how stupid the American populace is, I would worry about that too. They still bitch over friendly fire from the last war, when combined casualties from all causes were below 0.05%. It's entirely possible that Saddam will do just what is written. If anything, the military is being smart for taking preemptive countermeasures.

Already, the "buddy-buddy" relationship – that's actually what the Ministry of Defence boys called it 11 years ago -- has started. US troops in Kuwait are offering courses in chemical and biological warfare for reporters who might be accompanying soldiers to "the front", along with "training" on the need to protect security during military operations. CNN is, of course, enthusiastically backing these seemingly innocuous courses – forgetting how they allowed Pentagon "trainees" to sit in their newsroom during the 1991 Gulf War.

So we should send reporters to the front lines without any training? Gee, maybe this guy wants to see a massacre of reporters. Maybe he's trying to eliminate competition.

So here's a thumbnail list of how to watch out for mendacity and propaganda on your screen once Gulf War Two (or Three if you include the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq conflict) begins. You should suspect the following:

Reporters who wear items of American or British military costume – helmets, camouflage jackets, weapons, etc.

Anyone who tries to protect themself...check.

Reporters who say "we" when they are referring to the US or British military unit in which they are "embedded".

Anyone who has established camaraderie with the soldiers...check.

Those who use the words "collateral damage" instead of "dead civilians".

Anyone who understands that the American people understand euphemisms and that the military will expel them if they're not used...check.

Those who commence answering questions with the words: "Well, of course, because of military security I can't divulge..." Those who, reporting from the Iraqi side, insist on referring to the Iraqi population as "his" (ie Saddam's) people.

Anyone who understands basic military security and war psychology...check.

Journalists in Baghdad who refer to "what the Americans describe as Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses" – rather than the plain and simple torture we all know Saddam practices.

Anyone who doesn't want to be killed by Hussein...check.

Journalists reporting from either side who use the god-awful and creepy phrase "officials say" without naming, quite specifically, who these often lying "officials" are.

Anyone who doesn't want to be kicked out of a position by reporting a source who likely asked to remain anonymous, and legally must be allowed such measures...check.

This guy's an idiot who's apparently trying to clear out the competition by either discrediting or getting killed all other reporters. I'd place him one step above idiot but one step below moron.

[Vympel]

And the reporters were so much more honest in earlier wars. Let's see, World War I...heavily censored. World War II...American casualties could not be shown for years. Vietnam...reporters had a field day here, caused riots, possibly caused the loss of the war. Hmm...I wonder where the military gets the idea that censorship is necessary in combat?

Regarding Vietnam: nonsense. The media was heavily supportive of the Vietnam war right up until the late 60s IIRC. The media, contrary to revisionist 'stab in the back' nonsense, did not lose the war for the US, the US did that all by itself.

Like how Pyle was "embedded" in a unit, and became acknowledged as the greatest of the World War II reporters?

By what standard exactly? If it's impartiality, for some reason I doubt he got high marks.

Considering how stupid the American populace is, I would worry about that too. They still bitch over friendly fire from the last war, when combined casualties from all causes were below 0.05%. It's entirely possible that Saddam will do just what is written. If anything, the military is being smart for taking preemptive countermeasures.

This isn't about the military. This is about journalists.

So we should send reporters to the front lines without any training? Gee, maybe this guy wants to see a massacre of reporters. Maybe he's trying to eliminate competition.

Who are reporters to go to the front lines under the authority of a military anyway? This is about the ethics of journalism.

Anyone who has established camaraderie with the soldiers...check.

Erm ... hello? Can you say objective and impartial?

Anyone who understands that the American people understand euphemisms and that the military will expel them if they're not used...check.

What exactly is your point?

Anyone who understands basic military security and war psychology...check.

Again, you have completely missed the point of the article.

Anyone who doesn't want to be killed by Hussein...check.

Right .....

Anyone who doesn't want to be kicked out of a position by reporting a source who likely asked to remain anonymous, and legally must be allowed such measures...check.

In case you haven't noticed, the standards of reporting in general have gone down the toilet in recent years. You're hard pressed to not find a single person who doesn't say anything except "officials say". Hardly indiciative of good journalism.

This guy's an idiot who's apparently trying to clear out the competition by either discrediting or getting killed all other reporters. I'd place him one step above idiot but one step below moron.

You obviously don't even know who the hell Robert Fisk is.

[Exonerate]

Allow journalists in non-vital areas... However, if they get hurt, its their own fault. Also, leaking sensitive information should be illegal...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Thoughts and opinions?

Journalists already have too much freedom in wartime to report from the front, expose themselves to ludicrous dangers, or inadvertantly or intentionally send propaganda to the enemy.

Freedom of the press is a wonderful concept that has been systematically abused. The simple fact is that limitations are needed, such as when you are on foreign soil and fighting a war. I'd really like to see old-fashioned WWII-era war correspondents, myself. The current measures being planned for the upcoming Gulf Conflict don't go far enough.

This country is ruled by law, but the media seems to think it is above the law. Well, I fully support freedom of the press inside our own State, but when they are in a war zone on foreign soil, if they want the protection of our troops from the depredations of the enemy, they should undertake what measures we require of them to gain it.

[Knife]

Quote:
Considering how stupid the American populace is, I would worry about that too. They still bitch over friendly fire from the last war, when combined casualties from all causes were below 0.05%. It's entirely possible that Saddam will do just what is written. If anything, the military is being smart for taking preemptive countermeasures.


This isn't about the military. This is about journalists.

Quote:
So we should send reporters to the front lines without any training? Gee, maybe this guy wants to see a massacre of reporters. Maybe he's trying to eliminate competition.


Who are reporters to go to the front lines under the authority of a military anyway? This is about the ethics of journalism.

Quote:
Anyone who has established camaraderie with the soldiers...check.


Erm ... hello? Can you say objective and impartial?

My only problem would be if they want the grunts to save their objective and impartial ass. When these journalist go out to the front (something I am against) the troops there are expected to protect these guys. Naturaly, the journalists get some what chummy with the troops.