The document discusses challenges facing journalists covering warfare, including: 1. Journalists were either "embedded" with military units for access, taking a pro-military viewpoint, or "unilateral" and independent but with less access and greater risks. 2. Embedded journalism provided great visuals but less analysis, and limits on access reduced critical reporting. Unilateral journalists faced closed borders and risk of attack. 3. The demands of 24-hour news coverage and limits on access resulted in more speculation than factual reporting, complicating efforts to separate facts from propaganda.

1. 1

2. Madrid 2004
2

3. Madrid 2004
• Guardian changes colour
3

4. Madrid 2004
• The Times airbrushes
4

5. Madrid 2004
• The Telegraph airbrushes
5

6. 6

7. 7

8. What can the news actually
show us?
8

9. 9

10. 10

11. Sodomized with a knife?
11

12. 12

13. What can the news actually
show us?
13

14. 14

15. Ahmed Chalabi
• Interim oil minister in Iraq April-May 2005 and December-
January 2006
• Deputy prime minister from May 2005 until May 2006.
• Pre-2003 invasion, under his guidance the Iraqi National
Congress, supported by lobbyists BKSH & Associates, provided
substantial info on which U.S. Intelligence based its
condemnation of Saddam Hussein, including reports of
weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to al-Qaeda
15

16. Useful material
 Control Room
 (2004, Jehane Noujaim)
 WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception
 (2004, Danny Schechter)
 Panorama Special: In The Line of Fire
 (21st Nov 2004, BBC)
Al- Jazeera on war coverage http://youtu.be/NTo6dbqKlsw
Al- Jazeera discusses the PoWs
http://youtu.be/mWdDMAH6Kvw
16

17. 17

18. Restrepo
(2010, S. Junger & T. Hetherington )
18

19. Restrepo
• The Korengal Valley
• Embedded with Second
Platoon, B Company, 2nd
Battalion, 503rd Infantry
Regiment (airborne), 173rd
Airborne Brigade Combat
Team of the U.S. Army
19

20. ‘Grunt documentaries’
• ‘by privileging personal experience over
historical awareness, these accounts
construct a version of the war in which it
becomes impossible to apprehend such
atrocities as Haditha, Ramadi, Abu Ghraib’
– Tony Grajeda 2007
20

21. Misrata, Libya - 20 April 2011
21

22. Homs, Syria - 21 February 2012
22

23. Homs, Syria - 22 February 2012
• Marie Colvin
• Remi Ochlik
23

24. 24

25. Ofcom: Section 1
• Violence and dangerous behaviour
• 1.11 Violence, its after-effects and descriptions of violence, whether verbal
or physical, must be appropriately limited in programmes broadcast before
the watershed … and must also be justified by the context.
• 1.12 Violence, whether verbal or physical, that is easily imitable by children
in a manner that is harmful or dangerous:
– must not be featured in programmes made primarily for children unless there is strong
editorial justification;
– must not be broadcast before the … unless there is editorial justification.
• 1.13 Dangerous behaviour, or the portrayal of dangerous behaviour, that is
likely to be easily imitable by children in a manner that is harmful:
– must not be featured in programmes made primarily for children unless there is strong
editorial justification;
– must not be broadcast before the watershed (in the case of television) … unless there is
editorial justification.
25

26. Ofcom: Section 2
• Harm and Offence
• 2.4 Programmes must not include material (whether in individual
programmes or in programmes taken together) which, taking into account
the context, condones or glamorises violent, dangerous or seriously
antisocial behaviour and is likely to encourage others to copy such
behaviour.
• 2.5 Methods of suicide and self-harm must not be included in programmes
except where they are editorially justified and are also justified by the
context.
26

27. Questions to consider
• Why do some journalists risk their lives to get stories?
• What can the mainstream media show us? Should there be limits?
Why/not?
• To what extent is it possible to separate fact from propaganda/spin?
• How complicit are journalists in this process during wartime?
• How might the demands for copy/footage/stories impact upon public
knowledge?
27

28. 28

29. Four forms of reportage:
1. Technical
2. Official
3. Ideological
4. Critical
29

30. 1 - Technical
• Relates to how near or far from the conflict
journalists can get
• Portability of equipment:
– 'All the gadgets a reporter needs can be carried
in a single suitcase that fits in the overhead
compartment of most planes'.
• (Peter Johnson, 'Media's war footing looks solid',
USA Today, 17 February 2003)
• GW1 - drive for ‘newness’
• GW2 – language/technology of war – ‘smart
bombs’, ‘daisy cutters’, night vision, MOABs,
Patriots, etc
30

31. 2 - Official
• Journalists and the Task Force to the Falklands
• Thatcher wanted to ‘manage’ journalists
• Influence on type of news produced
• Certain news suppressed
• Misinformation?
– “The BBC had made it clear there were some things it
could not reveal. If at the end of the conflict it had to
confess to the public that it had deliberately misled it,
rather than withheld certain information in the
interests of safeguarding life, the BBC’s credibility
would be gone.” (Former BBC editor)
31

32. 3 - Ideological
• Whose side should we be on?
• How do we decide?
– “When one’s nation is at war, reporting
becomes an extension of the war effort”
• Max Hastings (former editor of the Telegraph and
the Evening Standard) quoting his TV reporter
father’s famous line about WW2
32

33. 4 - Critical
• Ideals of journalistic objectivity/impartiality
– reporting the facts?
• Self reflective?
33

34. 34

35. • WW1:
• DW Griffith’s Hearts
of the World, 1918
35

36. • WW1:
• Frank Hurley
• Australia’s official war
photographer
• Melded composites
36

37. • WW2
– Radio reports central
– Cecil Beaton images (often staged)
– Disney/Capra films (Why We Fight)
– The Empire Marketing Board film unit
37

38. Propaganda?
• 1st televised crisis – Suez, 1956
• PM Anthony Eden tried to use BBC for
propaganda
• Vietnam (1957-1975) – myth of the body
bag
• Falklands (1982) – 2 important factors:
– Lobby system
– Pooling system
38

39. Falklands
39

40. • Glasgow University Media Group:
• “There is no absolute unity of interest
among the media, the government and the
military”
– 1985, War and Peace News
40

41. 1. Many journalists like the idea of being a war
reporter - ITN correspondent:
 ‘There was never any danger that this good
wonderful war could escalate into anything like The
Day After (nuclear war film). It was a good gutsy
war but it was a safe gutsy war.’
1. BBC/ITN/Sky seek to be the nation’s news
service, so want to appear to be in tune with
national mood.
2. Normal news reporting features official sources
anyway, so why would broadcasters,
journalists change format now?
41

42. Gulf War 2
• Present attitude towards
(mediated) war?
• Civilian deaths?
• Surgical, precise, clean
strikes?
• ‘Smart’ bombs?
• Information
leakage/flow?
• www.iraqbodycount.org/
42

43. ‘Always on’ media
• 31st August 1997
• 11th September 2001
• 7th July 2005
• Speculation,
commentary and hourly
attempt to return to an
authoritative summary
43

44. Key changes in coverage
1. Increased availability of channels to view news
and many of these are not ‘home-grown’ –
e.g., Fox News, CNN, BBC World, Al-Jazeera.
2. Proliferation of news channels might suggest
news is increasingly important but news is
expensive and the modern media seek more
cost efficient soft news and entertainment
(visuals over analysis?)
44

45. Other changes
– AP & Reuters suffered financially recently – must
cover wars adequately but can’t increase
subscription costs
– Satellite news channels lose ad revenue because
viewers want non-stop coverage & advertisers don’t
want to be associated with disasters.
– News producers cut back on foreign
correspondents (lack reporters)
– The attempt to be neutral and balanced can make
for boring news (Fox News vs Al-Jazeera)
– Europe’s anti-war sentiment? (Tumber & Palmer,
2004, point to the lack of space given to anti-war
voices).
45

46. Questions to consider
• To what extent is it possible to separate
the fact from the propaganda/spin?
• How complicit are journalists in this
process?
• How might the demands for copy impact
upon public knowledge?
46

47. 47

48. • CentCom (Qatar)
• $1.5m briefing centre
• Plasma screens, mini studious, phone banks
• Designed by Hollywood set designer, George
Allison
• Platform for truth (US General Tommy Franks)
• Seating arrangements reflected pecking order
48

49. • “When Americans wake up in the morning, they
will first hear from the [Persian Gulf] region,
maybe from General Tommy Franks, then later
in the day, they will hear from the Pentagon,
then the State Department, then later on the
White House will brief.”
– Suzy DeFrances, President Bush’s deputy assistant
for communications cited in Douglas Quenqua, March
24th 2003, PR Week
http://www.prweekus.com/White-House-prepares-to-feed-2
49

50. 50

51. 51

52. • “Photos of sleek fighter jets, rescued POWs, and
smiling Iraqis cheering the arrival of U.S. troops
are easy to find among Combat Camera’s public
images. Photos of bombed-out Baghdad
neighborhoods and so-called ‘collateral damage’
are not.”
– cited in Heibert, 2003: 252 52

53. 53

54. 54

55. • [S]ome of us have led a very different existence
these past weeks. A daily shuttle, hundreds of
miles from the action, from a comfortable hotel
to the press centre at the drab as-Sayliyah
military base, home to CentCom's forward
headquarters. And while we allowed ourselves
to say "here at CentCom", we knew that we
were being held at arm's length.
55

56. • We were rarely allowed to stray from the spartan
warehouse with its hi-tech briefing room and
cramped, woefully inadequate work-spaces. The
real business of running the war was taking
place in other, equally spartan warehouses
some distance away in this vast, faceless facility.
It is an odd way to cover a war, and some
wondered if it was really worth it.
– Paul Adams, 2003, ‘Reporters’ log: final thoughts’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/world/2003/reporters_lo
56

57. • Iraq:
– 2000-2500 reporters
– 600-700 embedded (500 US journalists)
• Embeds
– officially placed with military units
• Unilaterals
– roving, independent journalists without military
support taking huge risks to get access to stories
57

58. • “The broadcast networks are complicit. With
their embedded teams producing great visuals,
what need is there for broader analysis from the
battlefield? One British network was instrumental
in getting one of its own unilateral reporters
kicked out of an embed position for rocking the
boat…”
58

59. • “…ITN, Sky and the BBC all belong to an
exclusive club: the Forward Transmission Unit,
based just inside Iraq and attached to the
military, which allows a select few
correspondents to package the war. With such
extreme limits on access, why jeopardise what
you've got?”
– Lucy Mangan, April 7 2003, The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/apr/07/mondaymed
59

60. Dangers facing unilaterals?
• “Two weeks into this war, the constraints are
tightening. Previously slack border points are
now closed. Those unilateral journalists entering
Iraq "illegally" do so at higher risk, with no
expectation of any assistance from a coalition
army warned away from them”
– Lucy Mangan, April 7 2003, The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/apr/07/mondaymed
60

61. • Death of ITN journalist Terry Lloyd
• Palestine Hotel attack (Reuters)
• In The Line of Fire (BBC)
61

62. • “US forces must prove that the incident was not a
deliberate attack to dissuade or prevent journalists from
continuing to report on what is happening in Baghdad.”
– Robert Menard, secretary–general of Paris–based Reporters
Without Borders. Cited in Ciar Bryne, April 9 2003,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/apr/09/pressandpublishin
g.iraqandthemedia
62

63. • “There’s nothing sacrosanct about a hotel with a bunch
of journalists in it.”
– (Retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Bernard E. Trainor, reported by
Washington Post, April 9)
63

64. • “If you look at what fills newspapers now, it’s the
equivalent of reality TV – it’s superficial, there’s very little
news reporting, there’s very little analysis, but there’s a
lot of conjecture. The media thought they were going to
get a one-hour-45-minute Hollywood blockbuster and it’s
not like that. War is a dirty, ugly thing, and I worry about
it being dignified as ‘infotainment’”
– (Air Marshall Burridge, Daily Telegraph, April 7 2003)
64

65. How should journalists show the
reality of warfare?
• Clip from C4 show “Iraq: The Hidden Story”
65

66. The ‘fog’ of war
• The Guardian: April 11, 2003
• See this link for claims and denials at the
time
– http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/apr/11/
pressandpublishing.marketingandpr
66

67. Questions to consider
• To what extent is it possible to separate the fact
from the propaganda?
• How complicit are journalists in this process?
• How might the demands for copy impact upon
public knowledge?
• Can embedded journalism be balanced?
67

68. • ‘The most obvious casualty has been the distinction
between warrior and correspondent. First-person plural
is now the pronoun of choice, whether subconscious or
not. Take Mark Franchetti in the Sunday Times: "Back in
Kuwait, as we had edged towards the border ready for
the advance, we had been dozing in our assault
vehicle... [Now] we were racing across the lunar
landscape in attack formation...To the occasional
stunned shepherds, we invaders must have seemed
like ghosts out of a Mad Max movie.”’
– Lucy Mangan, April 7 2003, The Guardian
68

69. • Sometimes the urge to identify subsumes gender. A
report by Sarah Oliver in the Mail on Sunday opened
with the arresting line: "We rode at dawn, the men of
the 1st Royal Irish," before going on to describe how
"our column thundered through the Rumailah oilfield"
and closed with the news that "Last night we were
holding 37 officers, 277 men and expecting another
200".’
– Lucy Mangan, April 7 2003, The Guardian
69

70. Questions?
1. So we have ‘nowness’, we have immediate coverage,
we have words and images but what do we know about
war?
2. Should war reporting be for information or an extension
of the war effort?
3. As viewers we can watch the news non-stop – does this
mean that we understand the news as a construction
(as provisional, disputed, happening as journalists
speak)?
4. Does news become reduced to narrative with points of
closure – do we stop viewing when the statue is pulled
down? When do we start to watch again, or really listen,
or even think?
5. How long did our interest in Iraq last? Are we concerned
with it today? Should we be?
70

71. • How does the press cover war today?
71

72. Additional resources
• David Leigh, 2003, ‘False Witness’-
examples of military disinformation and
the media. Available at
– http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,9
29319,00.html
• Report of faked war report from Sky News.
Actual footage available at:
– http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3078693.stm
72

73. The DA-Notice system
• http://www.dnotice.org.uk/
73

74. Non-voluntary alternatives
• Criminal law
Official Secrets Act(s)
Terrorism Act 2000/2006
Prosecution follows publication
74

75. • Tension between free speech and national
security/media and government
• DA-Notice system is voluntary and extra
legal
• Arrangement between government and
media not to publish certain information
75

76. Free Speech
• Various theories justifying free speech –
‘free speech as an argument from
democracy’ most relevant here
• Not an absolute right – national security is
a legitimate reason for limiting free speech
76

77. DA-Notices: Still Useful?
• No
 the internet has increasingly changed the way the
public accesses news and information
 increased information available in the ‘public domain’
(international news, war bloggers, www.arrse.co.uk)
• Yes
 System still useful for old technology – hard copy print
media, radio & television (also have internet platforms
that need policing)
 Represents an alterative conciliatory approach
77

78. 78

79. Princely PR
• Caroline Gammell, March 1 2008, The Telegraph, ‘How the Prince Harry
blackout was broken’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1580111/How-the-Prince-Harry-
blackout-was-broken.html
• Non attributed, March 2, 2008, The Independent, ‘The people's prince: with
Harry in Afghanistan. Dog of war or PR pawn?’
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-peoples-prince-with-
harry-in-afghanistan-dog-of-war-or-pr-pawn-790323.html
• Peter McKay, March 2 2008, Mail, ‘Prince Harry in Afghanistan: Oh! What a
lovely PR stunt’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-
524341/Prince-Harry-Afghanistan-Oh-What-lovely-PR-stunt.html
• Peter Wilby, March 3 2008, The Guardian, ‘'Harry's war' - it's just a blatant
PR stunt’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/mar/03/royalsandthemedia.pressand
publishing
79