The Control of Media in the Gulf War Essay Example

The Control of Media in the Gulf War Essay Example The Control of Media in the Gulf War Essay The Control of Media in the Gulf War Essay The Control of Media in the Gulf War How much do you think you know about the world around you? What if everything you viewed was a lie? During the Gulf War, the White House and the military seized and screened every news report, determining the images and information the media would relay to the public. The result was that the president and the military framed the debate, set the public agenda, supplied television with many of the defining images of the war, and enjoyed very favorable press coverage throughout the conflict . If you ask most Americans what they remember about the Gulf War, they will tell you they remember the super intelligent smart bombs, SCUD missiles, Patriot missiles, and Saddam Hussein is a very bad man, but that is only part of the story. (Muellar, 22) The Gulf War was both the most widely cover war in history and one in which the U. S. government imposed the greatest Restrictions on the press short of outright censorship. Bush’s announcement of war to the nation on January 16 was watched by the largest American audience in history, over 120 million people tuned in. Without the Cold War or the â€Å"Americans in Danger† theme to frame the crisis, the Gulf War administration needed to work harder though the media to convince both the public and the congress that the use of military force was necessary in January. (Trevor. 185) With television technology providing instant transference of images from the front, something had to be done to prevent another Vietnam. (Muellar, 20) On December 14, Pete Williams , Pentagon spokesperson, dropped the first on the media, issuing a memorandum to news organizations that spelled out the press ground rules in the event of hostilities . All interviews with service members will be on the record . Security at the source is the policy. In event of hostilities, media products will be subject to security review prior to release. You must retain with your military escort at all times, until released, and follow instructions regarding your activities. These instructions are intended only to facilitate troop movement, ensure safety, and maintain operational security. In a departure from Pentagon assurances and from existing policy, the press would cover Desert Storm exclusively rom pools. Pentagon used pools for the purpose of secrecy on the grounds of national security. The media expected to be able to roam battlefields, as a small number of reporters had in Vietnam, but in fact, the importance of secrecy made this unacceptable from the military’s stand point. The military developed this ad hoc system of combat pools controlled by the military in conjunction with media which were taken to particular areas of news co verage. Yetiv, 131) As of January 12, plans called for 2 eighteen member pools, consisting of reporters from television, newspapers, news, magazines, and the wire services. One would cover the Army, one the Marines. No â€Å"unilateral† or independent coverage would be permitted. The military would detain and take back to Dhahran any, journalists found within 100 miles of the war zone. Saudis were also very reluctant to have journalists running around looking for stories. The Saudis later strengthened this rule by making the punishment for unilateral reporting arrest deportation. In their rush to get their people to the Gulf and into pools, the only way they could count on being able to report at least some of the action their umber one goal after- they had been forced to comply with the pentagon’s rules. And guidelines before fully realizing the impact they had been forced to comply with the Pentagons rules and guidelines before fully realizing the impact they would have. (Yetiv, 132) There were two options open to journalists wishing to cover Desert Storm. First, journalist could accept the pool system and work out of Dhahran, watching televised briefings. These press briefings were another way the Pentagon controlled the news. Press briefings were carried out on net work and global news. This achieved virtual domination of public imaginations regarding the nature, cause, and success of the war. They didn’t want it to be Vietnam all over again. No left-leaning journalists were going to make the U. s armed forces look like bad guys. In addition to watching these press briefings they would gather pool reports until a slot in the pool opened. This route assured journalists material for daily story and a chance for better once they got a pool slot. On the downside, covering the war from a hotel is not most journalists’ idea of a good time the real story was out in the desert. And worse, being in a pool was guarantee of a good story, because it meant letting the military dictate where, to go and what to see. Pools had no opportunities to observe combat, see war damage, interview soldiers or civilians, and all footage had to be approved by military censors before publications. The other option was to reject the pool system and â€Å"go unilateral† venturing out into the desert, evading media hostile military types and looking for a unit that would agree to let a journalist do a story. Of the 1400 or so journalists occupying Saudi Arabia by the ground war, only a handful chose to attempt unilateral reporting because it was dangerous. Several journalists wound up hostages of the Iraqis, many got lost repeatedly, often ending up in less desirable areas like minefields. Even if a journalist did manage to locate U. S. ilitary unit, there was a good chance of being detained and sent back to Dhahran with the threat of deportation by the Saudis. (Yetiv, 132) The Gulf War was the first fully censored made for TV war in history it was pretty much a reality show where reporters would be forced to cover emotional issues such as the troops in their tents smiling and bonding with each other. And if coverage was not that, it was a light show, the amazing colors in the sky, like fireworks of the bombs falling on the Iraqis. What we saw was images of our soldiers dedicated, cheerful, and confident. We saw the hardships of those loved ones at home waiting for their spouses and family members to return home heroes. We did not see Iraqi victims. The impression of a bloodless war was partly due to the emphasis placed upon so called smart weapons technology in Pentagon briefings and media coverage. While the performance of the smart weapons was apparently reliable and accurate as military reports indicated, their overall importance in the war (in terms of total tonnage of weapons dropped) was not nearly as great as their symbolic function in helping generate the facade of high tech warfare. We were not told that smart bombs constituted only 10 percent of the total bombs dropped in Iraq or that 70 percent of our bombs missed their targets. (Thrall, 196-199) Furthermore there were virtually no images of human death carried by the media. Instead, coverage tended to emphasize property damage bridges blowing up military bunkers exploding and other forms of non human destruction. During and immediately after the war, the US military avoided providing a comprehensive and reliable accounting of Iraqi casualties. Initial estimates however placed them above 100,000 with an additional 100,000-200,000 civilian death. In fact due to the widespread destruction caused by the U. S bombing Greenpeace would have considered what Americans did to be terrorism. (Clark, 122) The amusing part is the American people believed they received good news coverage. Media celebrities working in the pools were just entertainers who read lines largely written by the Pentagon for national television audience. The media became a cheer leader for the war. In 1991 TV networks monopolized public access to events that made the news. Ramsey, 130) The media had financial relationships with the military and weapons industries. It depended on major corporate advertising, political campaign, contributions and it close alliance with political parties and leaders made the American media virtually one with the government. Media exert its power to persuade public to support war, while it demonized Saddam Hussein, and portrayed Bush as a courageous leader. The Massive Media campaign to persuade the public righteousness of the American cause and conduct includes an intense promotion of the US military action. It justified violence by creating hatred toward and dehumanizing Iraq and concealing or misrepresenting anything conflicted with that purpose. This caused people to celebrate the slaughter of tens of thousands of defenseless human beings, ignore crimes against humanity, and then blame those who are dying for their plight. Even if a reporter wanted to tell the truth, their employer wouldn’t allow it . (Woodword, 3-11) Media never analyzed the enormous volume of evidence that the US planned the destruction of Iraq long before August 2, 1990. Nor did the media ever speculate on vast amounts of evidences showing that the US with help Kuwait was trying to provoke Saddam Hussein into attack. Media never yelled cover up. They just ignored the story and falsely claimed Iraq planned to invade Saudi Arabia to dominate oil reserves. Media would also describe powerful Iraq’s military is while its population is only 6 % of the United States. (Denton, 33) Demonization of Saddam Hussein was a continuing process by the government and the media from early 1990. Headlines appeared in the Washington Post such as the following: Monster in the Making, from unknown to â€Å"Ach Villain in a Matter of Days† and â€Å"The Demonization of Saddam Hussein†. (Prince, 253) Such propaganda has always been used to dehumanize an enemy so that their deaths seem desirable. It is essential to emotionalize a soldier to kill, the public approved of it to kill. The pentagon’s press would even lie to loved ones, families about the death of the soldiers. They would tell them stories of how the soldier died from enemy fire, heroically defending freedom, when the death was actually a mistake. To learn the truth the family would have to ask a soldier who actually witnessed the truth. How could the government lie about something as precious as life? (Prince, 253) If a government can portray a war with all the positives and none of the negatives, then people can go to their war rallies and wear their yellow ribbons and no worry about the opposing side. If a government can completely control the information disseminated by civilian news media then there really is no point to having civilian journalists risking their lives for stories they can’t even broadcast. It begs the question of how far the military will go to cover up stories and events that they do not want the world to know. It is scary to think about it, the United States military could be committing war crimes without the knowledge of American people or United Nations. War crimes that could be horrific as those committed in Bosnia or Kosovo, those of which we were involved in military actions to stop. Who knows how far it could go in the future? Could we someday be involved in committing genocide in China? We may never know if the civilian news organizations have their hands tied by the government. (Ramsey, 134)