Dr Mohamed Kirat
By Dr Mohamed Kirat
It is said that war without television is not indeed a war, but rather an abstract event, whereas war on the screen is a live experience delivered to millions of people in their living rooms. In its’ war on Iraq, the United States launched a large-scale media war against the Iraqi regime long before engaging in military action, via various newspapers, magazines, radio stations, satellite channels, and the Internet. Intriguingly, the majority of studies addressing the media’s coverage of wars and conflicts have concluded that coverage was biased, distorted, obscure and lacking media ethics such as impartiality, fairness and objectivity.
The war on Gaza has revealed so far, as have previous wars, the myths and lies echoed by the theorists of democracy, freedom of the press, and objectivity. Consequently, the first and foremost victims of this war have been the freedom of the press and the lives of journalists. A score of journalists and media workers have been killed in their pursuit of facts. Israeli procedures dealing with journalists have crossed the limits of etiquette, respect for the profession, freedom and independence. The notion of “freedom of the press”, promoted for centuries by America and Western countries on every occasion, has been violated during conflicts and wars. The American as well as Western media machine is no different from its counterparts in long-established dictatorships. Accordingly, the first amendment of the American constitution, which recognises the principle of protecting the press and journalists from the tyranny of authority in favour of independence, impartiality, and freedom, has merely become a part of archives. In its war on Iraq, for instance, the United States relentlessly silenced and eliminated anti-war voices, thus proving that power alone prevails. The freedom of the press, principles of impartiality and integrity, and all norms that protect free speech and the “marketplace of ideas” have been violated in the name of national security and America’s national interests.
Nowadays, disinformation and distortion while covering wars, conflicts and crises is becoming a common practice in the media industry. Historically, the media has failed to be impartial and unbiased under the pretext of national interest. The media has mastered the fabrication of reality instead of covering and delivering it to the public during wars. The Vietnam, Algeria, Falklands, Afghanistan and Iraq wars and the three Gulf wars are all good illustrations of the collapse of press freedom, media integrity, objectivity and professionalism. The media practices of allegedly modern and democratic western news organisations were no different from those of dictatorships and authoritarian regimes. All succumbed to the will of politicians and merchants of war and weapons, thus sacrificing principles of impartiality, freedom of the press, integrity and fairness in pursuit of truth.
During the second Gulf War in 1991, the Pentagon controlled media coverage of the war according to firm mechanisms, which allowed it to choose and select the news, events and facts that served the interests and objectives of the United States.
The Pentagon used the so-called “press complexes” and CNN was assigned as “a spokesperson”, hence not only did America control military operations but also the images of the events and facts of the war. Consequently, many of the principles learnt by journalists in mass communication and media departments and colleges are abandoned during crises.
The world watched and followed the events of the Second Gulf War through the eyes of the American media, which was controlled by propaganda and psychological warfare.
The Second Gulf War was primarily a war of images, ideas, and public opinion, and due to America’s experience, propaganda and disinformation capabilities, it managed to control the minds of millions through the control of images of war and its proceedings.
Reporters who covered the Second Gulf War were dependent on the guidance of the Pentagon and its press conferences focusing on whatever suited the US and discredited the enemy.
The American media connived with the Pentagon during the Second Gulf War, which allowed the CNN to single-handedly lead the psychological war.
The American military machine had learnt its lesson from the Vietnam War and its other defeats, where America also lost the battle of images. The US and global media covered the brutality of the US military and its heavy losses. Whether in Vietnam or Somalia, the media cost America dearly, as public opinion forced the politicians to withdraw from the wars and admit defeat.
This has led military leaders among the coalition to implement a new strategy wherein journalists are embedded in military unit “news pools” to cover the war. These journalists are at the mercy of the military, which controls their movements, filming and writing, and this is exactly what happened during the Second Gulf War.
In times of war, propaganda overlaps with the media and psychological warfare. A war without media is incomplete and handicapped. Since war is deception, everything is permitted in order to undermine the enemy, even if that requires lying, practise of psychological warfare, propaganda, disinformation and obfuscation. The end justifies the means and the task of scrutinising the numbers, information, and news provided by press conferences and press releases remains difficult. We conclude by saying that in times of wars and crises alliances are created — whether hidden or apparent — between media and power, and this creates a need to suggest an alternative to classical communication theories. The alternative that explains the behaviour and practices of the media during wars and crises comes under the name of “Press Government Coalition Theory”.
Regardless of the owner of the media organisation and its financier, and regardless of the political, economic and degree of democracy and freedom in society, news organisations are entirely in line with government policies and theses, regardless of whether they are Western, democratic, developing, dictatorships, or authoritarian regimes. The media surrenders completely to the ideology of the government in the process of manufacturing, assembling and distributing news in order to fabricate, condition, and shape local and international public opinion in accordance with the interests and objectives of those who govern and decide.
The writer is a professor of public relations and mass communication at the College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University.
By Dr Mohamed Kirat
It is said that war without television is not indeed a war, but rather an abstract event, whereas war on the screen is a live experience delivered to millions of people in their living rooms. In its’ war on Iraq, the United States launched a large-scale media war against the Iraqi regime long before engaging in military action, via various newspapers, magazines, radio stations, satellite channels, and the Internet. Intriguingly, the majority of studies addressing the media’s coverage of wars and conflicts have concluded that coverage was biased, distorted, obscure and lacking media ethics such as impartiality, fairness and objectivity.
The war on Gaza has revealed so far, as have previous wars, the myths and lies echoed by the theorists of democracy, freedom of the press, and objectivity. Consequently, the first and foremost victims of this war have been the freedom of the press and the lives of journalists. A score of journalists and media workers have been killed in their pursuit of facts. Israeli procedures dealing with journalists have crossed the limits of etiquette, respect for the profession, freedom and independence. The notion of “freedom of the press”, promoted for centuries by America and Western countries on every occasion, has been violated during conflicts and wars. The American as well as Western media machine is no different from its counterparts in long-established dictatorships. Accordingly, the first amendment of the American constitution, which recognises the principle of protecting the press and journalists from the tyranny of authority in favour of independence, impartiality, and freedom, has merely become a part of archives. In its war on Iraq, for instance, the United States relentlessly silenced and eliminated anti-war voices, thus proving that power alone prevails. The freedom of the press, principles of impartiality and integrity, and all norms that protect free speech and the “marketplace of ideas” have been violated in the name of national security and America’s national interests.
Nowadays, disinformation and distortion while covering wars, conflicts and crises is becoming a common practice in the media industry. Historically, the media has failed to be impartial and unbiased under the pretext of national interest. The media has mastered the fabrication of reality instead of covering and delivering it to the public during wars. The Vietnam, Algeria, Falklands, Afghanistan and Iraq wars and the three Gulf wars are all good illustrations of the collapse of press freedom, media integrity, objectivity and professionalism. The media practices of allegedly modern and democratic western news organisations were no different from those of dictatorships and authoritarian regimes. All succumbed to the will of politicians and merchants of war and weapons, thus sacrificing principles of impartiality, freedom of the press, integrity and fairness in pursuit of truth.
During the second Gulf War in 1991, the Pentagon controlled media coverage of the war according to firm mechanisms, which allowed it to choose and select the news, events and facts that served the interests and objectives of the United States.
The Pentagon used the so-called “press complexes” and CNN was assigned as “a spokesperson”, hence not only did America control military operations but also the images of the events and facts of the war. Consequently, many of the principles learnt by journalists in mass communication and media departments and colleges are abandoned during crises.
The world watched and followed the events of the Second Gulf War through the eyes of the American media, which was controlled by propaganda and psychological warfare.
The Second Gulf War was primarily a war of images, ideas, and public opinion, and due to America’s experience, propaganda and disinformation capabilities, it managed to control the minds of millions through the control of images of war and its proceedings.
Reporters who covered the Second Gulf War were dependent on the guidance of the Pentagon and its press conferences focusing on whatever suited the US and discredited the enemy.
The American media connived with the Pentagon during the Second Gulf War, which allowed the CNN to single-handedly lead the psychological war.
The American military machine had learnt its lesson from the Vietnam War and its other defeats, where America also lost the battle of images. The US and global media covered the brutality of the US military and its heavy losses. Whether in Vietnam or Somalia, the media cost America dearly, as public opinion forced the politicians to withdraw from the wars and admit defeat.
This has led military leaders among the coalition to implement a new strategy wherein journalists are embedded in military unit “news pools” to cover the war. These journalists are at the mercy of the military, which controls their movements, filming and writing, and this is exactly what happened during the Second Gulf War.
In times of war, propaganda overlaps with the media and psychological warfare. A war without media is incomplete and handicapped. Since war is deception, everything is permitted in order to undermine the enemy, even if that requires lying, practise of psychological warfare, propaganda, disinformation and obfuscation. The end justifies the means and the task of scrutinising the numbers, information, and news provided by press conferences and press releases remains difficult. We conclude by saying that in times of wars and crises alliances are created — whether hidden or apparent — between media and power, and this creates a need to suggest an alternative to classical communication theories. The alternative that explains the behaviour and practices of the media during wars and crises comes under the name of “Press Government Coalition Theory”.
Regardless of the owner of the media organisation and its financier, and regardless of the political, economic and degree of democracy and freedom in society, news organisations are entirely in line with government policies and theses, regardless of whether they are Western, democratic, developing, dictatorships, or authoritarian regimes. The media surrenders completely to the ideology of the government in the process of manufacturing, assembling and distributing news in order to fabricate, condition, and shape local and international public opinion in accordance with the interests and objectives of those who govern and decide.
The writer is a professor of public relations and mass communication at the College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University.
