The appallingly bad media coverage of the war has been remarked by many. But why was it so bad? Media analyst MAGGIE EMMETT explains how it's done.
On February 13, 300 journalists from 23 countries, including those providing military and economic support to Operation Desert Storm, wrote an open letter threatening direct action unless something was done about the tight restrictions preventing them from access to the troops. The journalists said they would break through roadblocks erected to prevent all but approved "pool reporters" from entering military locations and interviewing the soldiers.
Journalists complained about the rigid censorship, the "pool system" and the official intervention in information collection outside that system. Reporter Mort Rosenblum was detained at gunpoint by military police for three hours when he tried to pursue a story outside the "pool".
Why were the media censorship policies of the allied military so stringent (more restrictive than Iraq's)?
Bill Blakemore (American Broadcasting Corporation) reported that in Iraq journalists' movements were restricted and that they had to be accompanied by Ministry of Information personnel when they went out on a story, but they were usually allowed to go to a particular place they requested and were usually left on their own at the sites. All written and broadcast text was seen by the Iraqi censor, but it was rarely changed, only the "occasional word or two".
In Saudi Arabia, before reporters attempted a story, they had to apply for permission from the relevant ministry or military authority. "Permission is rarely granted.". All reporters were escorted and all reports censored at "pool sites'. All texts and films were reviewed at the base and "many changes" made to reports. Most reports came via the "pool reports"; pool journos were selected by the military and guided by military public relations personnel. Journos going outside pool arrangements were subject to arrest by military police and faced threats of deportation or loss of accreditation.
Strains between the media and the military are not only due to direct censorship, but also relate to the process of news gathering itself. In the Falklands war, the British military was able to select the journalists it wanted to accompany the task force. The military controlled the flow of information through the briefing process and the transmission of those stories to the home base. The Riyadh boys at the top learned these lessons well.
Patron-client relationship
Journalists can be left gasping for information like a patient on life support if the military fails to give briefings. There is a tendency for the media to gulp at any information less discriminately if they are deprived of their source for any length of time.
There is evidence that in the first few days in Riyadh the media were primed to receive reports which failed to materialise. When information did come through, the reporters were desperate enough to file their work uncritically.
The military briefing became the centrepiece for news gathering. This allows the military enormous power and control: it decides the frequency and type of briefings.
There were three daily briefings but only some were allowed to be televised. In the unofficial briefings, the military could give background information to "help" the journalist get the story "right". Journalists could not quote these briefings, but they might well set the tone of their reports. "Information" was unable to be challenged publicly.
Reporters are courted in such sessions, and the PR people go to great lengths to give the reporter the so-called "inside story". The reporter becomes a co-conspirator in the suppression of information that should be legitimately available within democracies. The reporter also enters a patron-client relationship in which the power is stacked on the side of the boys in camouflage gear.
At the briefings, the brigadiers, generals and colonels select the questioners. If they get into any trouble, the Dorothy Dixers bale the military out by asking about weapon size, calibre or range. The BBC reporter and others of the right-wing press jostle to perform the service and be rewarded, perhaps at the next briefing, by the use of their first name.
There's no doubt they will be eating and drinking together, and the favourites will secure their places and opportunities in the "pool" even by supplying insider info on their colleagues. Soldier magazine states the ultimate military aim in media relations: "Self censorship is what we're trying to preach".
Logic of 'security'
The military uses Catch 22 logic of "security" to deny unpleasant information. It has highly accurate satellite information about the comings and goings in a military bunker, yet these same satellite reports miss a 30-day daily habit by women, children and old people who enter that same place as a bomb shelter.
There seems no limit to what the military thinks it can get away with. The Iraqis are using heavy artillery guns to destroy their own buildings in Baghdad (the allied bombing rate doesn't seem enough for them). Evidence is on a satellite picture which we can't see. Why? because it's secret and could help the enemy. The Iraqis have also been seen destroying mosque domes and pretending that chemical weapons factories produce milk powder.
The domestic TV stations help this process. They censor in order to maintain their notion of "balance and independence". They cut on the grounds of "taste" and "public mood". Criticism is often seen by some as subversive, as the recent ABC debacle clearly shows. Experienced journalists of integrity who file work other than propaganda will be accused of being subversive. In the case of New Zealander Peter Arnett, his family were slandered and he faced the ignominy of being thought of as Australian.
Our media reporting comes mainly from America. If you regularly watch a range of reports, you realise very quickly how many have CNN, CBC and the US ABC as their source. There are satellite hat intervene before we see our news product in Australia. We receive most of our news third hand: via the military to /ABC/CBC/NBC/ITN/BBC, then to Aussie media outlets in Sydney, where it is edited again and dubbed with Australian voice-overs.
The Aussie reporter (reader) will often use the US journalist's text, and copy her/his original settings. Newswatch revealed many instances of this, including reports for the Jana Wendt program. The prime minister's favourite, Greg Wildsmith, often reads US texts.