Media performance during Iraq's invasio

Introduction

The invasion of Iraq is widely seen as an issue of controversy and debate; even its very basis has been the issue of political debate before and after the invasion. Not surprisingly, the war attracted journalism all across the world. This essay will critically evaluate media performance during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It will start by comparing the war to other wars (the 1991 Iraq war in particular) and show that the recent war is a different and unique experience for the mass media. It will show that the indexed news reporting model remains the usual pattern of journalism, especially when media

organisations and coalition forces share the same origin. The less frequent event-driven module will also be discussed. Then, it will be shown that despite the effect of indexing and the forces of events, and despite apparent bias in some of the news networks, the overall pattern of news reporting across most mass media organisations could be described as objective. In addition to objectivity, a trend in the mass media towards more independent and active journalism could be shown by reference to some mass media outlets. The essay will conclude that the circumstances of the 2003 invasion of Iraq have created a different media environment.

Iraq: Compared to other wars: different conditions?

It will start by comparing the war to other wars (the 1991 Iraq war in particular) and show that the recent war is a different and unique experience for the mass media.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq is considered a limited war in the sense that a real threat to national interest was not perceived here, but it is different from any other limited war. Comparing it with the situation Vietnam and the 1991 Gulf war will help illustrate this point.

Hallen's analysis of the Vietnam War is relevant here. The Vietnam War (1961-1973) is widely perceived as the first television war; and it was widely believed that the television has lost the war there. It was one of the first limited wars following the Second World War. In fact, its very nature as a limited war made it immune from state censorship. The government assured the public that it is a limited conflict resolution. Any heavy state censorship would be 'politically inappropriate' since it would change this signal.

In fact, the signals which the government sent during the war were described as divided and confusing. They sent the enemy the signal that since the US would continue to support the South Vietnam government, their resistance is not convenient or efficient on the long haul. The signal to the South allies was that US commitment to them is unlimited. This was the actual policy that was carried out. However, the American population were told it is a limited conflict in which the US will do no more than supporting the South to stand and dominate the whole country. In addition, since the situation in Vietnam demanded an escalation coupled with an increase of troops, the administration feared opposition and restored memories of the lost Korean War. In order to carry out the plans without much disruption, there was the political desire that Vietnam should be off the headline.

The war has shown that the number of casualties is linked with the public desire to continue the war. The public support declined dramatically following the Tet Offensive

It was argued that the Media (and the television in particular) are not to be blamed for their performance during the Vietnam War.

Media objectivity. The media were controlled by the cold-war ideology and the notion of the objective journalism.

The Gulf War (1990-1991) could also be distinguished from the 2003 war.

The basis for the war was less contested. According to international law, Iraq has disturbed the international system by invading another country (Kuwait), and the UN voted for the armed resolution. At least the war was considered more legitimate than the 2003 war.

The problem for the media was how the coalition managed the media. It seems that the US wanted to learn from Vietnam and the G conflict by making arrangements for embedding the whole media. The first way was a front-line quota for the luckiest journalists of the major US media organisations and some of the UK's. Such journalists would have to accept certain guidelines to protect operational security, and they did. The benefit of embedding front-line media was seen in previous conflicts as a way to increase identification with the troops so as to encourage responsibility in news reporting.

The second was an arrangement in hotels located in some Saudi cities from which the media could have access to daily military briefings.

However, the unilateral journalism option was highly suppressed. It could be surprising how the rest of the media did not go with the unilateral option, but this was the case. The unilateral option was also a dangerous one. The Iraqis have shown hostility with the media by the killing of the Iranian journalist. The allies were also curious about any media coverage outside the media pools. In fact, the media were shocked when the coalition has defined certain areas which were declared forbidden to the media. This limited the freedom of the media to a great extent and raised a major debate about the legitimacy of such control.

The news management of the Gulf War was ruthless, but successful. Instead of concentrating on active state censorship, the coalition has created a controlled information environment. This is evident in the media pools arrangement and forbidding access to information sources. The only available source would be the official source (military or political). Controversial news and images could not be shown by the media. The coalition were changing the definition of war into a bloodless efficient confrontation. The television demanded visuals and images, and the gap was filled by bloodless demonstrations of technology which is not necessarily harmful to the government.

The 2003 invasion could be distinguished from old limited wars.

The reason for the war is contested. It was considered an illegal war according to international law (A-G).

The 2003 invasion produced a sharp victory, which gives a satisfactory story for the public. This is different from Vietnam where the escalation took a long time.

However, the 1990 policy of controlling the flow of information did not necessarily apply here. The media were given the option to be embedded, but unilateral journalism was not forbidden.

In addition, the 2003 invasion occurred in time where oppositional media organisations have been established in the region. The desires of Arab media, such as Aljazeera, were not necessarily easily satisfied by military briefings coupled with pentagon illustrations. They had access to the most sources of information, controversial or otherwise, including the enemy itself. In fact, the cultural and ideological atmosphere requires them to do so.

The media technology has developed compared to past wars. Media devices became smaller and more mobile, and the internet was considered a major news medium.

Media: Indexed news reporting

It will show that the indexed news reporting model remains the usual pattern of journalism, especially when media organisations and coalition forces share the same origin. The less frequent event-driven module will also be discussed.

Despite the different information control measures that were present in the 2003 war, indexed of news reporting was a feature of most news stories, as demonstrated by Bennett, Lawrence and Livingston.

Relevant are the indexing and the event-driven theories.

The indexing theory holds that 'it is generally reasonable for journalists to grant government officials a privileged voice in the news' as far as there is no division in the official level.

The event-driven theory predicts that when uncontrolled troubling events occur, journalists find it legitimate to hold a more independent and active position in reporting and analysing such events. It was considered that both theories are not mutually exclusive.

The Abu Ghraib crisis was rightly chosen to be assessed against the relevant models.

Entman's model of counterframing was used. A significant counterframing occurs when the media offers an additional framing of the event which could be construed by the public as a 'sensible alternative' to the official version of the story.

The official story in Abu Ghraib was that there was an abuse in that prison, and the abuse was the result of a handful of low-ranked soldiers who deserve punishment. A sensible alternative could be that 'torture' took place in Abu Ghraib, and it was authorised by top officials and politicians intentionally.

It was found that the event-driven model took place at the immediate aftermath of the event and on a limited scale.

However, the indexing model dominated the reaction of the media. The official story was adopted in most news stories despite the existence of information and evidence to suggest a counterframing. Photos of the event were available to the media, but some media organisations reacted in an event-driven approach while others preferred to hold them waiting for the official justification. In addition, governmental debate took place in relation to the incident, and some official inquiries and memos were made available to the media. Still a major counterframing was not adopted by the media.

It was argued that the American media were reasonable in their reaction. First, they were subject to the surrounding cultural identity. They cannot easily report their men as bad. There must be some emotional expressions to describe the soldiers.

Second, the event was followed by a major official effort to provide a framing of abuse, and to fight such abuse. The actions were condemned and official measures against such abuse were promised. The news management campaign to protect the incident was successful.

Third, there was no strong democratic challenge to the official story. Parliamentary debate of the issue could have been legitimately reported by the media with less controversy (as was the case in Vietnam). But the official debate was kept united.

Robinson found that indexing is also applicable to the majority of news from the UK, despite being less frequent.

• Theories
• Hallen: professional commitment to accuracy and balance

Media: objective in reporting

Then, it will be shown that despite the effect of indexing and the forces of events, and despite apparent bias in some of the news networks, the overall pattern of news reporting across most mass media organisations could be described as objective.

Assessing the objectivity of media reporting is important. Some patterns of media reports have attracted lack of confidence in the objectivity of some media organisations. This is especially the case during wartimes where the public are more subject to misleading. This was the case in the Vietnam War. It could be argued that the public would generally accept a certain amount of deceit if it is for the national interest. However, because the 2003 war is a limited one, the media could be required to provide objective reporting of the truth in such circumstances.

A study by Aday, Livingston and Hebert assessed the extent of objectivity and detachment of a number of mass media organisations in relation to the 2003 Iraq war. Five American news networks were assessed in addition to the Arabic channel Aljazeera. Both the objectivity of reporting individual stories and the overall portrait of the war were assessed.

Objectivity and detachment were defined as 'balancing perspectives from at least two sides of an issue.'

The result of the study showed that most of the American networks assessed, including Aljazeera, were objective. Fox News Channel was found to have more pro-war bias. This could be linked to its nature as republican channel founded to balance against the claimed liberal bias. In addition, both embedded and unilateral journalists were found to be balanced in reporting stories. This is an indication that embedding journalists was not necessarily a successful step to encourage media support of the war.

Defining the objectivity of macro-level coverage of the war was based on factors related to culture, identity, and ideology. The media could be balanced in covering individual stories because such coverage is based on a western model of objective reporting which is not necessarily contested. But the selection of individual stories is not subject to a similarly universal model. Each region has its market of news, which is not necessarily similar to the global market of news in terms of supply and demand.

New conditions: media becoming more independent?

In addition to objectivity, a trend in the mass media towards more independent and active journalism could be shown by reference to some mass media outlets.

Illustrations

The 2003 war is one in which a variety of world media were involved. It concerns the western media because it is a US-led war which has been supported by the UK and some other allies. In addition, it is a war against Iraq, which is a foundation stone in the culture of Arabs and Muslims irrespective of its regime. This makes it attractive to the eastern news organisations.

The definition of objectivity is not necessarily shared by the media worldwide. For example, a US version of objectivity in story narration could be more elite-driven, while this is not necessarily the case with other regions or news outlets. Examples of the US and Arab news organisations may help illustrate this point.

A study by Robinson, Goddard, Parry, and Murray analysed UK media coverage of the 2003 invasion. The study is important because of the variations between the US and the UK, specifically in terms of the public opinion and the political system.

Three models were applied in the study. Bennett's indexing model represents the elite-driven model. A negotiated model holds that journalists are driven by a professional commitment to accuracy and balance. An oppositional model is founded on the event-driven model, in which journalists may be more critical of officials.

The study showed support of the three models to various degrees. There was support for the elite-driven model, as is the case with most journalism activities.

However, there was also support for the oppositional models.

The oppositional model existed in UK news, possibly more shown than in US media reports. Examples of high rates of critical reports exist in the cases of casualties (civilian and military) and humanitarian issues. It could be argued that such model demonstrates more the ability of states to impose media management during crisis, and is less concerned with the objectivity and independence of the media. Therefore, findings about the negotiated model are more relevant here.

The study found that the media was more willing to negotiate the findings of the sources than they are to accept them. Stories about the battle dominated the news, but battle reports were not exclusively supportive of the coalition. The media were able to shake the notion that coalition progression is continuously positive. This finding is important because although the UK forms part of the coalition forces, its media are able to negotiate the validity of its official sources of news and resort to objectivity and detachment.

There was a positive sign in the study that UK media were able to negotiate with the news sources in certain circumstances, but Channel 4 was able to show distinguished independent journalism. Its reporters were able to question the validity of official sources and provide their own comments.

Arab crisis reporting: objectivity defined

The 2003 War was subject to coverage from non-coalition media organisations. A study by Zayani and Ayish confirms that the coalition controlled media environment strategy did not necessarily succeed in the case of Arab media coverage.

The emergence of news-oriented media organisations is a new phenomenon to the Arab world. It could even be foreign to the non-democratic nature of the regional political regimes. However, the liberation of some Arab states, coupled with the increasing need to supply news of the regional conflicts was a reason to establish such organisations. They are perceived as more credible alternatives to the common government-oriented media.

Most relevant to our study is Aljazeera channel. It is the most established and controversial in the Arab world. Its western-objectivity model of journalism was enjoying freedom of expression never enjoyed before in the Arab world. Oppositional voices to regional and international regimes were freely represented. In addition, Aljazeera enjoys a high degree of credibility among the Arab world. To the western world, it was a channel that is committed to report casualties, diplomatic anti-war efforts, and anti-war protests and opposition. It has the courage to provide counterframing of both regional and international events.

Despite its relatively new establishment, it managed to gain competitive expertise in detailed in-depth coverage of news since it was born in a region rich of military conflicts and political controversy.

Being controversial, Aljazeera was highly criticised. Arabic regimes were highly sensitive to its Arab-regimes debates. Some of them even threatened to disturb their diplomatic relations with the host state: Qatar.

Aljazeera was also subject to American and international criticism. It was an outlet for the most wanted oppositions, such as Bin Ladin. Despite its claimed professional journalism, it was described as sensational in an anti-American manner. This could be attributed to the difference between Arab and Western viewers in terms of sensitivity to bloody images and Aljazeera's commitment to 'the viewer's right to know', but the criticism stands nevertheless.

This led to an Aljazeera-US relationship of mistrust. An example would be leaked Bush's memos revealing his intentions to destroy Aljazeera's headquarter. Its Kabul office has once been destroyed by US missiles. One of its reporters was killed on the 'eve of the fall of Baghdad.' The channel was once banned by the recently appointed Iraqi government for reasons of national security. Aljazeera seems to have learned from its past lessons by proportionate taming of its voice, but its freedom-model remains intact.

Arab Media coverage during the fall of Baghdad was the subject of the study. The event carries unique characteristics of symbolism. Baghdad and Iraq represent a vital Historical Islamic and Arabic identity irrespective of its political regime.

The Arab Media coverage of the fall of Baghdad varied. Alarabia channel (Aljazeera's rival) have reported the event as an 'end of an era', and the war was considered over. Abu Dhabi channel was more cautious in reporting the fall by reporting it as 'the control of American forces over Baghdad' rather than reporting it as the fall of Baghdad. However, Aljazeera reported the event as a stage in a continuous war. They resisted the notion that the war is over despite the fall of the capital. They rather referred to official sources claiming that 'the worst is not over yet.' The news itself was reported as 'US control over Baghdad' as if the city is one of many.

Conclusion

To sum up, this essay has considered media coverage of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The factual situation in the 2003 war made a controlled media environment harder to be imposed on all media organisations; which gave the media more freedom than before to frame, choose sources, and analyse coverage. However it is up to the media to take advantage of such freedom. As part of their objective journalism, the US media did not necessarily assume the role of the 'watchdog' of the government during the 2003 Iraq war in terms of the provision of alternative framings to the official stories.

The media is considered objective and balanced in telling individual stories during the invasion. However, cultural differences affect the definition of objective journalism. Indexing could have been attributed to objectivity in the American media, but such is not necessarily the case for the UK or the Arabs. The UK media is found different from the US in its level of independence. This is true despite the UK's identification with the 2003 warfare. The Arab Media coverage of the fall of Baghdad 'amounts to a visually enhanced narrative about subduing Iraq rather than liberating it.'

This is probably an example of the media being able to take advantage of the new conditions set in the 2003 invasion. The official US hegemony over information was not unlimited, and it was subject to negotiated and oppositional journalism. In conclusion, the official controlled media environment used in the past was not necessarily successful in 2003. There are indications that the 2003 invasion of Iraq has taken place in a new media environment.

Bibliography

• Aday, S. "Embedding the Truth: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Objectivity and Television Coverage of the Iraq War." International journal of press/politics 10, no. 1 (2005): 3.
• Bennet, W. L. "Toward a Theory of Press-State Relation in the United States." Journal of communication 40, no. 2 (1990): 103.
• Bennett, W. L. "None Dare Call It Torture: Indexing and the Limits of Press Independence in the Abu Ghraib Scandal." Journal of communication 56, no. 3 (2006): 467.
• Carruthers, S. L. The Media at War: Communication and Conflict in the Twentieth Century, 2000.
• Hallin, D. C. The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam, 1989.
• Robinson, P. "Testing Models of Media Performance in Wartime: Uk Tv News and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq." Journal of communication 59, no. 3 (2009): 534.
• Zayani, Mohamed, and Muhammad I. Ayish. "Arab Satellite Television and Crisis Reporting: Covering the Fall of Baghdad." International Communication Gazette 68, no. 5-6 (2006): 473-97.