As a journalist, it is an
essential role to report news that is in the public interest. To do so, journalists
must seek the truth, and report their findings to an intended audience, whilst
supplying evidence to support their stories.
In relation to reporting in
warzones, does this search for the truth require journalists to enter and
report from war-torn areas, and what are the main reasoning’s, decisions, laws,
and legislations, that may influence a journalists role in reporting war?
Journalists that have
entered warzones have become intertwined with the area of the conflict, and the
battle between enemies. This has therefore affected the role and requirements
that have to be observed and followed by a journalist reporting on war, and
probes many lawful and politically challenging concerns in regards to
journalists being able to seek the truth objectively, safely, and lawfully.
Through research and
analysis, this discussion will provide evidence to support theory, and debate
the main catalyst’s for a journalist reporting on war. A range of questions and
issues will be explored, relating to how their roles are defined and projected
to deliver newsworthy truth that supplies the intended audiences and important
figures concerned.
Consider three main relationships:
Journalist to the Public –
Journalist to Politics – Journalist to War
As journalists report war,
their duty requires them to report from dangerous and hostile environments. The
dangers of being in warzones capitulate to the search for truth, and the
processes that journalists use as part of their job.
‘The digging process is
supposed to be a routine part of daily journalism.’
(Protess
1991)
Many circumstances dictate
how a journalist can provide the necessary objectiveness to produce truthful
and accurate news.
The warzones journalist’s
report from, have deep impact on the context and authenticity of the stories
they provide. In recent times, journalists have been what is known and
considered to be embedded into
warzones.
‘Drawn from news agencies
and newspapers around the world, nearly 700 reporters, photographers, and
cameramen have been part of the embedding program, which attached journalists
to military units.’ (Lindner
2009)
The notions of conflict and
war direct the journalist to be in the protection and guard of the allied
nations of which they report to, and thus, they are intrinsically connected
through a protective shield that allows them to do their job.
Getlin (2003) cited Lindner (2009),
states:
‘Tom Rosenstiel, director of
Project for Excellence in Journalism told the Los Angeles Times: “The virtue of embedding is that it allows
reporters to eat, breathe, sleep and experience war first-hand with soldiers…
the danger is that you’re liable to start reporting from the point of view of
the troops who are protecting you… you owe your life to them”.’
The authenticity of the
reporting would then come in to question, as to how, and what is being
reported, is manipulated by being attached concurrently with the soldiers.
The viewpoint of war
affecting journalists is shared through professionals within the industry as a
form of publicised news, which indulges the confrontational output that is
presented to journalists caught in conflict.
‘ABC news anchor Peter
Jennings says he heard talk on the streets of Baghdad about bounties offered
for kidnapped foreigners - $2000 for a journalist.’
(Foerstel
2006)
These dangerous
circumstances are a common place situation that journalists find themselves
drawn into. It is not only a practise seen in the present, but noticeable
attention has been drawn to these facts in past conflicts too.
‘The abduction of the Chicago Tribunes’ Philip Caputo by
Fedayeen in Lebanon in 1973 should have been a wakeup call for news
organisations.’
(Foerstel
2006)
A more recent event that
highlights the dangers for journalists, is the death of Sunday Times Journalist,
Marie Colvin.
Refer to Fig. 1
The dangers of reporting in
war, defer to a journalists ambition and requirement to be in the action; to report,
to gain the news, and to see live events as they unfold. Their presence is an
abstract factor in the war itself. This however, does not yield to the
connection a reporter has with exterior parties such as the public, and the
government, but offers personal satisfaction for the journalist, in being able
to do their job.
‘War reporting reveals its
investments in sustaining a certain discursive authority – namely that of being
and eyewitness.’ (Allan
2004)
The public perceptions that
are received from war correspondents and journalists, relies solely on the
information placed into the public realm, and the existing knowledge that stems
from a continuation of events. This information, can define a cultural
perspective of war, and that relationship with the public.
‘War reporting’s positioning
as a litmus test for journalism also rests on an understanding of its capacity
to influence public perceptions.’
(Allan
2004)
The public’s relationship
with journalists is important for both parties, as the journalist needs to
inform, and the public need to digest. It is also a key aspect that ‘media play
a vital role in conventional democratic theory.’ (Protess 1991)
This intrinsically connected
value processes that the public are subjected to believe what they are
informed, thus implying they rely on a journalist.
‘The conventional wisdom of
investigative journalism holds that the general public, once mobilized, becomes
a catalyst for change.’ (Protess
1991)
This, however, is a flawed
aspect to suggest that in reporting, the public are a dependent figure that
lapse to configure imaginative thoughts, without the process of information
being fed through journalistic communications.
‘The too frequent lapses of
ethical practice by those who call themselves journalists undermine confidence
in the news media.’
(Farrell
2008: Cited, Crook 2010)
This lack of confidence
suggests that the public, although reliant on the information they receive,
also have their own notions, and often perceive what they are told with
discontent.
‘A seemingly unending list
of public opinion surveys has found that the public holds journalism and the
press in low regard.’ (Crook
2010)
War reporting has a
significant impact to the relationship a journalist has with the public. This
could be a substantial balance that the media have, to hold an important
feature such as war reporting, that is regarded and demanded by the public. The
media may consequentially be assigned to report war, to keep the public’s faith
in journalism, and media.
The shaping of news
reporting to the public is defined by two methods referred to as; framing, and
agenda-setting. (Lindner
2009)
These two methods are
notions of perception employed to the public, which can be described as by
Maslog (2005): ‘Framing [as a term] package key ideas, stock phrases, and
stereotypical images to bolster a particular interpretation.’
‘After regular exposure to
the frame, media consumers come to adopt the framed storyline as their dominant
way of thinking about an issue.’
(Lindner
2009)
This theory, in regards to
war, stipulates how a media influx of terminology and negotiating messages to
the public, influences stereotyping, and a feed of notions, that is from the
only reliable source of information, thus the only information that can be
interpreted.
The authenticity of this
information can be questioned in relation to how the information is transferred
to the public. How many alternative methods of one story are produced, before
gaining the best available version of the truth?
‘Reporters and editors
ideally probe events to find the best available version of the truth.’ (Protess
1991)
As discussed previously,
journalists embedded within warzones may find themselves reporting from the
vantage point of a soldier, rather than that of a journalist.
The alternative versions of
truth become lost, as it is the best available version of truth that the public
are streamlined in to believing, alongside an order of events or theory as to
how it should be thought about.
This is referred to by
McCombs (1994) as Agenda-Setting.
Lindner (2009) states; ‘agenda setting tells the media consumer which issues
are most important, framing provides us with a narrative to conceptualise the
issue.’
The public’s perceptions are
thus founded upon a version of truth that is embedded into the realm of
realism, defined by a journalist’s interpretation of what is truthful in war.
‘The act of seeing for one’s
self the heart of the story, encapsulates the larger problem of determining what
counts as truth in the war zone.’
(Allan
2004)
In shaping the news of war,
the public are condemned to being immobile in deciding how war related
incidents should be presented. This may ask the question of what, and who, is
influenced by media representations of war, and how this affects the overall
image projected.
‘Mass media… may be capable of changing public
attitudes… they do not activate the public to participate… although they may be
important for influencing the attitudes and behaviour of political elites.’ (Protess
1991)
Information that is
transferred may therefore be subjected to interference by political figures, affecting
how information on war may be perceived, and providing an intended image, as
suggested through agenda-setting, that nationalises conformed opinions on
matters in war.
‘The experience of a
reporter’s being there, so important for distant
publics eager for news of the events of a war torn region, is shaped quite
systematically by a weave of limitations – political, military, economic and
technological.
(Allan
2004)
These limitations derive a
more clinically lawful question, of how a journalist can then have a relationship
with the public that is not succumbed to intrusion by political matters, and to
convey an account of the truth that does not waver from the originality of
events.
‘Truth telling, it needs to
be acknowledged, is necessarily embedded in cultural politics of legitimacy;
its authority resting on presence of the moral duty to bear witness by being
there.’ (Allan 2004)
A journalist’s role in
reporting the events of war and transferring them events to the public could be
subjected to approval and interference form government and politics. This may
shape and define the relations between these two parties, but also, influence
the relationship the politicians have with the public too.
Lindner (2009): ‘A
substantial body of literature in communications has demonstrated the capacity
of media reports to shape attitudes regarding political issues.’
The political issues in war
may have founded laws and legislations that may have been developed, or based
upon conflicts and situations in war-torn countries, such as International
Humanitarian Law.
This is the Law of Armed Conflict,
but critics would say that this law is fallible.
Garraway (2012) argues: ‘Is
there a Law of Armed Conflict; is there any point in there being a Law of Armed
Conflict?’
This statement supports the
lack of durability that laws and legislations within war have. Journalists may
find themselves being drawn into political battles that may be based upon
politically unfounded justifications for entering warzones. The incitation to
become involved for a journalist is a position that grants them a set of rules
and regulations that they must then follow to maintain validation of them being
there.
Berger (1963) Cited Lindner (2009):
‘location in society constitutes a definition of rules which have to be
obeyed.’
The politically defining
roles that regulate and explain politicians positioning to evoke and transform laws,
altering and defining existing legalities within war, and justifying entering
the warzone, become irrelevant if the legislations that were in place formerly,
are not obeyed in the present.
‘This was a battle that the
United Nations had in 1945. They had abolished war. If you say something is
illegal, it’s a bit ridiculous… having proceedings to regulate something that
you have already said is illegal.’ (Garraway
2012)
This could suggest that the
legality issues surrounding war define why journalists are expected and
required to enter the war-zones, as political elites struggle to maintain a concept
and balance of power and nationalistic containment with the public. The
politicians may need the media to incline their power.
Hallin (1994) cited
Jorgensen (2009): ‘The media reflect the prevailing pattern of political
debate: when consensus is strong they tend to stay within the limits of the
political discussion it defines; when it begins to break down, coverage becomes
increasingly critical and diverse in the viewpoints it represents.’
The media fluctuate to the
political and practical responses and decisions made. If politics is gaining
positive responses from the public or towards other matters, the media stay within
realms of the politics that are supporting their role. Once the politics shows
a sign of weakness, the media can expand and express more freely.
This could suggest the versions
of the truth become more derailed to the public, thus influencing media to show
politically demanded versions of events, to answer the requests following a
strong public interest.
Hallin (1986): ‘The way the
media report events is closely tied to the degree of consensus among the
political elite.’
Consequently the only way
this level of control can be maintained is by allowing and actuating reporting
in war-zones, to deflect the controversy surrounding the war itself, and place
messages of interpretation into the public sphere.
‘War is the exercise of force for the
attainment of a political object unrestrained by any law save that of
expediency.’ (Clausewitz)
The convenience of deciding
how, if, and when journalists should enter warzones, and what laws should be
enforced and practised, allows a sustainment of control from government and
political figures.
The facts of how laws are
affected because of the wars and the politically aroused reasons for entering
countries of war in the first instance, gives a pretence impression that more
laws are being enforced, changed, or represented within the war-zones, thus
aesthetically creating a false impression.
Garraway (2012) notes:
‘There is nothing new in the laws of war; they have always been there.’ The
laws of war have also always been a forefront matter in conflict and the
engagement of war. Garraway also states:
‘Law has never been unregulated.’
The way journalists deliver
the news regarding war also appears to incite an impartial balance of true
events to the public.
Mermin (1996) suggests: ‘The
major media try to maintain the illusion of fulfilling the journalistic ideas
of balance and objectivity by finding conflicting possibilities in the efforts
of officials to achieve the goals they have set.’ (Cited Jorgensen 2009)
The media appear objective
in their quest to find the truth, yet, as discussed, they are subjected to
political influences. The search for the real, factual, and objective truth may
be a disillusioned practise within war reporting in journalism.
Reports in America suggest
that it is a potential harm to the face of the country if journalists report
items of the truth.
Clyne (2006) states: ‘Some
argue that journalists shouldn’t print or do things that might harm America’s
image abroad.’
This could stem from the
media’s attempt to maintain the illusion of objectivity, thus not allowing a
fact to be reported that may state truth.
Clyne also argues that; ‘Democracy
is based upon the idea that the people should have the ultimate power.’
This could imply that in
reporting war, the public should be the main catalyst for the reporting, and
that the illusions of objectivity are only a superficial attire of the media to
please political officials.
Although Clyne also states; ‘Those
in charge who do know the truth are able to maintain their status on the basis
of keeping the people ignorant.’
Thus suggesting that politics
and the influence of political elites are the prominent figures of authority, and
the public are subjected to secrecy and obscured versions of truth, rendering
the politicians the primary catalyst for reporting on war.
The theories discussed
present a more exponentially appropriate argument, not of why journalists
report war, but how journalists report war.
The influences and practices
within media are clearly fallible and undefined, although artificially
consistent.
The heart of a story is the
truth, of which journalists, as discussed, have a moral duty to be a witness
of. The truth in war reporting it seems is subjected to many alterations before
being divulged; in practical terms, a chain of truth.
War – Journalist –
Politicians – Journalist – Public:
The anti-virtuous and
parallel connection between the media and politics, defines the existence of
news, and the shape of news expressed to the public.
It could be suggested that
the morally justified relationship of these two factors, is a more incensed
battle that engages in the search for dominance.
Rupert Murdoch has recently
quoted former Prime Minister Gordon Brown as saying: ‘your company has declared
war on my government and we have no alternative but to make war on your company.’
(Murdoch
2012)
In relation to the affect
this has on war, Mr Brown responded:
‘The only phone call I had
with Mr Murdoch in the last year of my time in office was a phone call
specifically about Afghanistan and his newspaper's coverage of the war,’
(Brown
2012)
The connection between
powerful elite news organisations and the hierarchy of politicians is also
supported by the following statement;
‘Mr Blair did not expressly
request our support in 1995, 1997 or any other election, but he was a
politician and I had no doubt that he would welcome the support of our newspapers
and our readers.’ (Murdoch 2012)
The public have distantly
witnessed the apparentness of the relationships between politicians and news
organisations, and the results of this are reflected in figures of U.K.
interest in politics.
Dr Ruth Fox director of the Hansard Society's Parliament and Government Programme
states: ‘The public seem to be disgruntled, disillusioned and disengaged. Thus
far, coalition politics does not appear to have been good for public
engagement.’ (Cited BBC 2012)
All of the discussed
influences on the media’s power to shape, influence, dictate, and supply the
news, come to reveal a more conflicting issue of damaging relations between two
influential parties in reporting war, that until now, have been invisible.
(Cicero): ‘Amidst the clash
of arms, the war is silent.’
The people that report the
war, and the people that dictate the rules and laws regarding this, are the very
people that pollute the image and distinction between the truth and
authenticity of interpretation. This in turn affects the view that the public
have on not only the war, but the politicians and the media. In effect, the
people who are in charge of publicising and maintaining all aspects associated
with war are; politically, publicly, and inherently, at war with each other.
Fig 1.
Marie Colvin, Sunday Times
Journalist. (Left)
Bibliography
Books:
Allan. S (2004): Reporting war: Journalism in wartime.
Routledge: Oxon
Crook. T (2010): Comparative Media Law and Ethics.
Routledge: Oxon
Foerstel. H (2006): Killing the Messenger; Journalists at
risk in Modern Warfare. Praeger Publishers: U.S.A
John. A.V, (2006): War,
Journalism, and the Shaping of the Twentieth Century, The Life and Times of
Henry W. Nevinson. 1st ed. Tauris and Co: London.
Jorgensen. K (2009): The Handbook of Journalism Studies.
Routledge: New York.
Keeble. R (2010): Peace Journalism, War and Conflict
Resolution. Peter Lang Publishing: New York
Protess. D, et al, (1991): The Journalism of Outrage:
Investigative reporting and agenda building in America. The Guilford press,
Guilford Publications: New York, U.S.A
Journals:
Carrabine, E, 2011. Images of Torture: Culture Politics
and Power. Crime, Media, Culture,
[Online]. 7, 5, 6-28. Available at: http://cmc.sagepub.com/content/7/1/5
[Accessed 13 April 2012].
Websites:
Austin Clyne. 2006. Journalism
During War: Patriotism vs. Journalistic Responsibility. [ONLINE] Available
at:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/07/18/journalism-during-war-patriotism-vs-journalistic-responsibility.htm.
[Accessed 27 April 12].
BBC, Charles Garraway. 2012. College of Journalism. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/journalism/law/war-law/history-war-and-law.shtml.
[Accessed 28 April 12].
BBC News. 2012. Gordon
Brown denies Rupert Murdoch's Leveson 'war' claim. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17843752. [Accessed 28 April 12].
BBC News, (2012), Journalists
Marie Colvin and Remi Ochlik die in Homs [ONLINE]. Available at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17124786 [Accessed 28 April 12].
BBC News. 2012. Public
attitude towards politics worsening, says Hansard survey. [ONLINE]
Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17829933. [Accessed 28
April 12].
