Media and the Portrayal of War

The eminent playwright and alleged father of tragedy, Aeschylus, once said, “In war, truth is the first casualty” (Omer). Although this quote originated some 500 years before Christ, its meaning is still relevant to this day. Unfortunately, truth does have a tendency to pick up distorted during war. Propaganda, self-censorship, military censorship, corporate censorship, and journalistic ethics have all been called into question when reporting war. Since the media have the capacity to reach big audiences, they are often the target for blame when referring to war propaganda and the like. In spite of this, it often gets forgotten that the sources of such misinformation can originate from a multitude of informers such as the government, press officers, organizations, or laymen. However, one point that remains evident is that the portrayal of war in the media varies depending on how the news is framed.

Framing refers to how messages are encoded with meaning so that they can be efficiently interpreted in relationship to existing beliefs or ideas (Strategic Communications). The term framing often evokes a negative connotation, but framing is an inevitable aspect of journalism and has helped produce some of the greatest prose of our time. Journalist Scott London has said, “News and information has no intrinsic value unless embedded in a meaningful context which organizes and lends it coherence. News stories can be understood as narratives, which include information and factual elements, to be positive, but also carry an implicit message” (1). Be it intentional or unintentional, the usage of words and visuals, journalistic conditions, and Special interest groups all have a profound impact how individuals decipher the messages within the news.

American and Arab based news outlets often differ in their choice of words when referring to the war in Iraq. For instance, Dar Al-Hayat refers to the war as the “War onIraq” whereas American news sources have titled it the “War in Iraq.” Another example is how differently the St. Petersburg Times and Dar Al-Hayat newspapers have portrayed the same event. The stories from both newspapers were almost identical with the only inequity being the scheme they defined the same forces. St. Petersburg Times referred to the forces as “U.S. -ledcoalition forces” whereas Dar Al-Hayat referred to them as “U.S.-led invasion forces” (Word Choice). Although the word choice appears to be an innocent mix-up of prepositions and verbs, the dinky difference reflects opposing mentalities and equates to a big difference in meaning. The discrepancy in words illustrates how the two entities perceive the attacks; one implies that it is in a distant land whereas the other depicts the battlefield as that of a homeland. The words used to relate war can also be used as an aid in creating a sense of unity among people with the same political opinions. Josh Rushing, former press officer for the United States Central Command and current correspondent for Al Jazeera, has said, “It benefits Al Jazeera to play the Arab nationalism because that’s their audience, just like Fox plays to American patriotism” (Control Room).

The euphemisms used when referring to war are often more acute than a mere difference of a few letters. Dr. Aaron Delwiche from the School of Communications at Washington University has noted:

Since war is particularly unpleasant, military discourse is full of euphemisms. In the 1940′s, America changed the name of the War Department to the Department of Defense. Under the Reagan Administration, the MX-Missile was renamed “The Peacekeeper.” During war-time, civilian casualties are referred to as “collateral damage,” and the word “liquidation” is used as a synonym for “murder” (Shah).

More recently, many news outlets have been referring to the term, contractors, as a more attractive synonym for mercenary. Many critics of wartime euphemisms feel that words are used as a means to confuse citizens. For instance, would the average citizen know that incontinent ordnance is doublespeak for control artillery? In addition, many awe that euphemisms enable a sort of psychological distance from the actuality of war. Euphemisms are often used as a tool to make war more palatable—easier to digest—then actually showing war in its gruesome veracity.

The visual aspect of news has also been a major vehicle for how war is depicted. Among some of the most controversial images were those traditional after the September 11^th attacks. For her doctorate in Sociology, Karen Engle conducted an examination of the images that followed the terrorist attacks of September 11^th. Engle found that historical images were often recast to fit the context of the novel attacks. For instance, a Norman Rockwell painting that originally conveyed the bombing of England during World War II was doctored and used in the New York Times for their first edition after September 11^th. Many feel that these images are formed in a way that relate past wars to new wars in order to give them justifiability and enable war efforts. Engle noted that many media outlets were “using historical moments with iconic meanings and plugging them into the situation of 9/11. It becomes a replaying of American history” (Martin). Patriotic fervor is a strong Force within a country, and news outlets are often quick to utilize past patriotic events in order to ignite the fire of its country’s nationalism.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Al Jazeera, the independent Arabic television network, has also been accused of using visuals to increase its audience’s patriotism. In America, Al Jazeera is best known for its graphic depictions of the Iraq war. Bodies limp without heads, babies mangled and bloody, bodies piled high in carnage trucks—all these images are fair game for Al Jazeera. American media usually does not broadcast such sensitive material, therefore, the images are generally deemed disgusting and deplorable by many American citizens. Al Jazeera has claimed that their usage of visuals is not intended to incite madden towards Americans, but rather, to reveal the real consequences and atrocities of war. However, many critics feel that the expression of these visuals are unnecessary and are aimed at tugging the heart-strings of Iraqi citizens. Critics add that no war has been a clean war and that showing images of the dead and dying only distracts from the larger message (Control Room). Nonetheless, these graphic images often impact viewers on a higher emotional and psychological level than words. Like the saying goes, a picture speaks a thousand words.

The presence of embedded journalists during the Iraq war has been one of the newest concerns for war propaganda in the media. Embedded journalists are defined as nonmilitary reporters attached to a military unit (Rodman 542). This new partnership between the media and the military has significantly altered the nature of war journalism. Media watchdogs effort that embedded journalists become emotionally attached to their units and therefore frame their stories to reflect soldiers’ courage, homesickness, and valiance rather than the actual happenings of war. These critics cite statistics that present that civilian deaths were acknowledged in half of the articles by Baghdad reporters, 30 percent of articles by independent reporters, and only 12 percent of articles by embedded reporters. It is assumed that the psychological attachment between embedded reporter and military unit creates an atmosphere that deters objectivity; when you are eating, sleeping, and fighting for survival with a group of fellow peers, it becomes difficult to portray their efforts any less than heroic. Media commentator Marvin Kalb has even declared that embedded journalists are “part of the massive, White House-run strategy to sell… the American mission of this war” (Lindner).

The affiliation between political analysts and the military is perhaps one of the most controversial aspects of war in the media. The Current York Times claims that they have found evidence that the information generated for media use from the Pentagon is anything but objective. They claim an “information apparatus” has been used by political analysts to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s war. David Barstow, writer for the New York Times noted that “Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air” (p. 5). Barstow goes on to brand that the knowledge of the alliances between political analysts and the military are often kept from both the viewers and the networks. The deficiency of the public’s knowledge of news sources can have a remarkable effect on the overall public conception. It is often assumed by the average viewer that a political analyst on television holds an objective, neutral mentality during the process of analysis. Since political analysts are a major vehicle for how citizens obtain the social and political nuances of war, the public concept could be drastically different if the analysts’ affiliations were broadcasted.

The concern over the framing of wartime news will never become obsolete. Propaganda, censorship, and half-truths are real concerns that citizens have to face when dealing with the sensitivity of war. How stories are formed and packaged, the visuals, images and sounds that go along with a narrative, all have the capacity to alter one’s perception, sometimes for the best and sometimes for the worst. However, media framing will never quit to exist. The products of media are the products of human beings and humans have a tendency to reflect their values, attitudes and beliefs into their work. Everyone harbors some form of bias; both the senders and receivers of messages rely on their biases to decipher and decode meaning. This is why it is significant to win an analytical mindset when receiving information. It is important to question sources and facts in order to fabricate sense of meaning; look at visuals, listen to the tone of the background music, read between the lines. Like the great philosopher Socrates noted, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

Works Cited

Barstow, David. “Leisurely TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand.” The Recent York Times.

20 Apr. 2008. 1 Dec. 2008
20generals.html? _r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink>.

Control Room. Dir. Jehane Noujaim. 2004. DVD. Magnolia Pictures.

Lindner, Andrew. Controlling the Media in Iraq. 1 Dec. 2008.

London, Scott. How the Media Frames Political Issues. 1993. 1 December 2008

Martin, David. Visual Media after 9/11: How to Read Between the Lines. 28 Nov. 2005. U. of

Alberta. 1 Dec. 2008
news.cfm? story=40974>.

Omer, Mohammed. “Casualty of War: Censuring Truth in Palestine.” Washington Report on

Middle East Affairs. 1 Dec. 2008 .

Rodman, George. Mass Media in a Changing World. 2^nd ed. Fresh York: McGraw Hill, 2008.

Shaw, Anup. “War, Propaganda and the Media.” Global Issues. 2005. 1 Dec. 2008