Everyone has heard the song “War, uhhh, what is it good for absolutely nothin’”. While many hold this common belief that no war is a good war, the coverage of war by the mass media has lead to many debates about whether the agenda of the media is to promote or oppose the war back home in the States. Whether the information is being exhibited through video, political cartoons, commentary or a soldier stationed in Iraq there are many techniques used to help calibrate opinions here on the home front.
Lt. Col. Craig Whiteside described media news as ‘being negative, but perhaps that is the nature of journalism and perhaps people’. After having served in Iraq in a tour of duty, Whiteside said he came back with a different perception on what was being reported back home to what was really going on in Iraq. Most notably, Whiteside referred to an article in Esquire where a member of his troop was held on trial for wrongful murder. He felt that the article was poorly written because he felt that the reported ultimately fell in love with Michael Hensley, the man in question, and because of this the story lacked any objectivity. Whiteside also talked about a story in The Washington Post in which the journalist wrote a story that he stumbled upon instead of the story the troop was offering. Both stories in which Whiteside was a part of seemed to have struck a chord within him because as he put it “There are many good things going on, but it seems as if the negative stuff is all that is being said.” Whiteside said perhaps most of these negative stories are being written because over the course of the war, many of the foreign correspondents are paying local stringers to cover the story. This poses the problem of getting the local Iraqi angle on the story, and due to certain beliefs and threats from oppositional forces could lead the stringer to write a story that is highly negative for American troops.
The first article is from Matt Gurney of nationalpost.com. The title of the article “Defeating the Taliban may be Impossible. It’s also not Necessary” tells the reader right away the writer’s stance on how he feels about the War on Terror. Within the first few paragraphs of the article, the author does a great job explaining his point of views as he cites numerous examples of why dealing with insurgents is so difficult for the coalition because they don’t follow the same strict routine and bylaws that traditional military forces do. Gurney continues with past examples of war such as Vietnam and World War II and that because of the various tactics used against the coalition it limits/hinders how they are able to fight. Gurney becomes political by saying that the election of President Obama is a good thing for the West because it allows for a fresh start for redefining the goals of the so called “War on Terror”. I like this article a lot because even though the author doesn’t agree with the war, he provides great examples through historical and current context to give the reader something to think about.
The second article is from a CNN.com report on a group of suicide bombers that attacked a rally near Baghdad in July. The article focuses on the series of attacks during a period in which Shiites attended a holy shrine. The article gives a brief history of conflict between the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites so the reader can get an insight as to the possibilities on why the attacks could have occurred. The article does a good job getting context and even some insight from the sides involved. The part where the article does the best job is acknowledging that female suicide bombers is becoming an increasingly larger problem as the conflict in Iraq progresses and how the Iraqi government is going about trying to solve/limit the problem. Since this is an online source, the article also has links, video, and various pictures of the event which do a good job bringing the conflict into the homes of Americans.
Military.com provides a photo journal of images from the Iraq War that once again gives vivid imagery as to what is going on in Iraq. Before analyzing the pictures and captions that go along with the photos it should be noted there is going to be obvious bias toward the military effort because the site has an interest in the U.S. military forces. The first picture in the pictorial is of an Iraqi family grieving. The picture does a great job capturing the emotion and at first the caption does a good job recapping the even that caused the family to grieve. However, the last part of the caption “…and residents blamed U.S. troops for the tragedy” makes the military to be the scapegoat for the death of civilians in Iraq. The next picture shows a group of “Iraqi Martyrs” that are marching with AK-47s. The picture tries to show what the enemy looks like and what military forces are up against. The picture that struck me the most was a picture of a soldier tearing up as he attended a memorial service for a fallen soldier. The picture brings to life the raw emotion that soldiers go through as they are faced with losing the people they are closest within their infantry, and it gives the viewer an idea of the type of people that are serving our country overseas.
The biggest problem I’ve had with the media coverage over the course of the War on Terror is the death of Pat Tillman. For those who don’t know Pat Tillman was an ex-NFL player who retired prematurely in order to enlist for the war in Afghanistan. Tillman died because of friendly fire and what ensued was the mass media putting Tillman above all others who have served their country. For instance, in an April 2004 article in USA Today Greg Boeck praises Tillman for his sacrifice and service to the country. While Tillman’s story is unique because of his “celebrity status” without his name and professional accolades his story is just like many others who enlisted in the armed forces after 9/11. The bigger story that came out of Tillman’s’ death was the military cover-up that ensued after his death. While there was substantial coverage over the cover-up I feel that majority of the coverage came because of Tillman’ celebrity status.
Al-Jazeera is an Arabic based media network that provides coverage world-wide. In an archived article from 2004 involving a US led attack in Fallujah there is a different style in what was reported compared to US mediums. The article focuses more on the violence and damages caused by the US led forces, compared to the mission/reasoning of the attacks that are seen in US papers. The article is very descriptive using phrases such as ‘lit up the night sky’ and ‘precision strikes’. The article includes a little blurb about US Marines who were killed, which after reading the whole article lets the reader know where Al-Jazeera stands in terms of who/what they support because the only times the US is mentioned deals with violent aspects. Even though the article is primarily against the US led attacks the article does a good job informing the reader of the events that took place. Much like American papers the article is written toward the audience involved, in this case the Arab world.
Sources
No comments:
Post a Comment