Media's Iraq Mistakes Repeated
Unfortunately, 14 years after the
beginning of the Iraq war, many of the same patterns of war-mongering
traditional media coverage can be found in reporting about last Thursday’s
missile strike on a Syrian airbase.
In Peace Journalism Principles and Practices, I lay out a strong indictment against “war
journalism” practiced in the months before the Iraq war. Specifically, I wrote
that media in 2003 was pro-war, and ignored anti-war voices; featured hyped, false stories that justified the
administration’s case for intervention; depended
almost entirely on official sources, giving the public a narrow, distorted view
of the conflict; and waved the flag instead of critically
analyzing the case for war.
While
each of these elements has been present in the missile strike coverage, let’s
concentrate on two—the lack of anti-intervention voices; and waving the flag.
The
coverage, as anyone who watched cable TV during the last week can testify, was decidedly
pro-missile strike, and largely ignored voices calling for non-violent options.
An examination of broadcast news
transcripts from April 8-10, using the search term “Syria Trump missiles,” shows
there has been little discussion of peace and non-violent responses to Assad’s
gas attack. Of the search’s 989 hits on Lexis-Nexis, only 76 mentioned peace
negotiations (7.7%) and 31 peace talks (3%). A total of 31 mentioned “compromise,”
“peace agreement,” “peace deal,” “truce,” and “reconciliation” combined (3%). Only 34 of the 989 broadcast stories mentioned
“settlement” (3.4%).
The
study shows that not only are peaceful options being ignored, so, too are those
advocating peace and non-violence. The military terms “general,” “colonel,” and
“lieutenant” were mentioned in 240 of the 989 stories, mostly to identify
expert talking heads. So in about one in four reports, experts presented were
military or ex-military. Contrast this to the almost complete lack of
peace-promoting voices on-air. There were only a combined 17 hits for “peace
activist,” “peacebuilder,” “peace negotiator,” and “mediator” (appearing in 1.7%
of the total number of stories broadcast). There were 40 hits for “diplomat”
(4%). Even if you add up all the peace voices, it totals less than 6% of all
stories—about four times less than the military voices.
The
military-heavy coverage is consistent with the flag-waving (or as some call it,
cheerleading) evident over the airwaves the previous four days. On April 7, The Washington Post’s Margaret Sullivan wrote,
“The cruise missiles struck, and many in the mainstream media
fawned.” She cited examples from the New
York Times (“On Syria attack, Trump’s heart came first,”); CNN (“’I think Donald Trump became
president of the United States last night,’ Fareed Zakaria declared”); and MSNBC
(Brian Williams “seemed mesmerized by the images of the strikes provided
by the Pentagon. He used the word ‘beautiful’ three times and alluded to a
Leonard Cohen lyric — ‘I am guided by the beauty of our weapons’.”) (http://tinyurl.com/mkghfmv)
Indeed,
the coverage, according to the same Lexis-Nexis study, skewed pro-missile
strike. Of the 989 total hits, 33 used the term “justified” (vs. 4 “unjustified”);
43 “correct” (1 “incorrect”); 13 “wise” (1 “unwise”); 21 “intelligent” and “prudent”
combined (14 “foolish”). There were 43 hits under “success” and 45 under “failure,”
a balance that perhaps reflects on-air discussions about whether the attack was
a success or a failure.
Why
the cheerleading, flag-waving coverage? What
media critic Paul Waldman said about Iraq coverage in 2013 is still true today.
“When there's a war in the offing, the flags are waving and dissenters are
being called treasonous, the media's courage tends to slip away. Which is
particularly regrettable, since the time when the government is pressing for
war should be the time when (media) are more aggressive than ever, exploring
every possibility and asking every question, over and over again if need be. (Paul Waldman,
“Duped on War, Has Press Learned?,” CNN,
2013, March 19, 2013, http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/waldman-media-iraq/.)
It’s
distressing that the press seems to have learned so little since the run up to
the Iraq war. The news media must practice
peace journalism by broadening, deepening, and balancing its coverage.
Reporting shouldn’t skew either pro-missile strike or pro-peace, but must present
the public a comprehensive view of all alternatives. Instead, the public is
getting the same one-sided flag waving that preceded the disastrous
intervention in Iraq.
No comments:
Post a Comment