The reliability of our news media during war

BY
ROBERT ALCOCK

Now war is declared, the ball game of news reporting will change.
All material gathered in and around the conflict will be subject to US
scrutiny and if you don't sign the Pentagon agreements, then pack your
bags quickly. As with the first Gulf War in 1991, we can expect the usual
propaganda war to escalate several notches. But the war of “precision”
now has to deal with media skew.

Having been asked to promote the SBS Iraq War Special, I felt
compelled to do some research on exactly what baggage of bias the incoming
material will carry. SBS is an organisation that stands by its serious
journalistic credentials and, in my view, continues to climb above the
pack. Meanwhile, we watch with despair the watering down of its sister
broadcaster, the ABC, following the Coalition government-led investigation
into its left-wing bias.

The Iraq war will be problematic in many ways. Maverick journalists
who risk their lives to bring an independent view are known as “unilaterals”.
According to veteran BBC war correspondent Kate Adie, any attempt to send
a satellite uplink without authorisation will make you the target of a
US attack. This will make it close to impossible for any independent news
reporting from inside Iraq. So much for freedom of information.

A recent comment by a military spokesperson on the SBS Insight
forum suggests anything that may cause harm to our troops should be avoided.
In light of this, at what point does our “right to know” become irrelevant?
It's the images of horror that make or break a PR campaign for war and
politicians are well aware of the impact of “nasty scenes”. Is censorship
protecting our troops, or the “hide” of our political leaders?

SBS Dateline presenter Mark Davis believes on-the-spot reporting
has its limits: When bombs are dropping and you're bunkered down what can
you see or say? Verbal communication has its limits, but the role of “eyewitness
video” is important evidence in the pursuit of justice. It may be weeks
before this kind of material slips out of Iraq.

Networks take a risk in having journalists in jeopardy; difficulties
in obtaining insurance makes it even more prohibitive. Without the resources
to put journalists on overseas assignment, SBS TV is left reliant on the
traditional newswire services such as Reuters and APTN. In addition, however,
SBS has the unusual option of sourcing material from its World Watch telecasts.
Non-English news broadcasts are monitored daily and fed to the SBS news
desk.

SBS radio’s sources of information, methods of reporting and audience
reach are completely different to television. The newsroom files the story
feeds as a databank for different language groups to choose and download
for translation and broadcast. Each language group also sources story material
from their local community, web sites and contacts from their countries
of origin. Arabic radio, for example, speaks directly to Iraqi journalists
in Baghdad.

SBS World View is a separate news radio program, broadcasting
early each morning, focusing on news analysis. Once again, news producers
have questioned the value of making any contact with people on the ground
— given the scrutiny by Australian military command and its complete unhelpfulness
towards news gathering for such an unpopular war. With electricity and
phone lines cut, and with satellite jamming technology, it will probably
be a media blackout.

Television news, with its reliance on pictures, has a poor history of
sharing information with radio and vice versa. This is unlikely to change
at SBS without a clear policy shift or a commitment to staff increases
and expanded resources. Any available telephone links or smuggled videotapes
may be the only way of retrieving on-the-spot coverage from within Iraq.

Other sources of information will carry their own baggage, such as BBC
Worldwide and CNN. It's worth noting that the US conservatives view
CNN as a bit too “liberal”. Robert Fisk has written about a CNN memo on
their “script approval policy”. CNN News packages from bureaus outside
of Washington, LA and New York must be approved by an “authorised manager”.
Who are these managers?

With news-wire feeds pooled and censored by the military, the integrity
of SBS news broadcasting is on notice. Two senior TV journalists indicated
they would attempt to verify conflicting information coming in over the
wire and if unverifiable, would expose that inconsistency in their report.
Accuracy and de-sensationalising are a critical part of the SBS newsroom
ethos.

Of course, Baghdad will be broadcasting its version of the story against
the Pentagon’s, but it will be up to the discretion of the journalist to
find a voice somewhere in between. But there is less reason for pessimism
than there was in the first Gulf War. A new development is Al Jazeera.
Assuming its bureau will not be targeted by the US, Al Jazeera presents
a serious contribution of information which SBS recognises as a valuable
addition to their sources both from the internet and satellite vision.
Al Jazeera may soon be providing English translations on its web site.
(For other Arabic-English web sites check the list at the end of the article).

Interpreting and understanding the language of war is at the heart of
media manipulation. Will “civilian casualties” replace “collateral damage”;
“the dead” replace “body count”; “tactical blunder” replace “friendly fire”?
For more information, see A Glossary Of Warmongering at <http://www.amin.org>.

Mainstream consumers of corporate media will be bombarded with this
kind of propaganda without the conscientious “de-filtering” efforts deployed
at SBS. It's my guess commercial broadcasters will pretend that nothing
has changed in this “new regime” of reporting. I fear also SBS may be ultimately
unable to change the “skew” of a report for lack of information alternatives.

At the end of the day, we must find the best “post news analysis” of
the feeds, which must carry a healthy dose of skepticism. Viewpoints must
come from a variety of dissenters capable of questioning the official story.
It is up to journalists to take the necessary risks and approach informed
voices of dissent. To ignore them is not only cowardly, it diminishes our
democracy and our right to be heard.

Keep an eye on the web, and check these Arabic-English language websites:
<http://www.amin.org>, <http://www.thearabworldnewspaper.net>,
<http://www.washington-report.org>,
<http://www.arabia.com/english>,
<http://www.dailystar.com.lb>.

[Robert Alcock is a producer at SBS TV.]

From Green Left Weekly, March 26, 2003.

Visit the Green Left Weekly
home page.

From GLW issue 531