What conceivable reason is there for journalists to be exposed to the trials and tribulations of an active war?  The only one that comes to mind is to bungle operations of active forces and to become casualties themselves. This paper will examine the role of the journalist in wartime and why they should not be there.  They have been everywhere, covering all manner of conflict with little regard for the life of others or their own. 

There were journalists on the slippery, bloodstained rocks of the Normandy invasion reporting back to the U.S. the screams and pictures of war taking place on the front line.  There were journalists crouched in the rice paddies of Vietnam recording the bullets whizzing by their heads and the whoomping sound made by heavy artillery landing nearby. 

There were journalists in the desert on a ride along with MASH unit in a helicopter, recovering soldiers during a firefight.  There are journalists who have witnessed the untold carnage of missing limbs, missing friends, and grown men crying for their mother.  These same journalists have crawled and clawed through cold, wet mud uphill in a driving rain.  This rain would be accompanied by the murderous thunder of artillery.

            Journalists have witnessed firsthand, mass carnage and chaos mixed together in a high-ball glass over ice.  They have also heard the high whine of bullets screaming by and the thud of the bullets deposit in tree, land, or man.  Journalists have risked life and limb for many years to accurately reflect what occurs inside a combat zone.

Some to a good end, but some end up as misguided mouthpieces for the government they work for when covering such events.  This is the case because much of the information disseminated comes from either one side or the other.  The thought of objective reporting is a noble one, but simply not feasible. 

Does a soldier on the ground really know what the big picture is as far as the mission?  The answer is no.  This is also the answer for the reporter on the ground, who is probably not versed in military tactics or procedures.  What is the real cost of this information?

There were of course slow times for journalists on the front lines in wars past.  During these times the greatest threat to the journalist would be the local creatures that fed on their blood.  To be sure, these bugs proved to be a very formidable adversary in any situation.  To punctuate the calm of the night there were also nights of high anxiety and tension. 

These same journalists would sit silently with a platoon in a rainy jungle and hear the enemy no more than five feet away talking in their own dialect.  The only other sound would be the constant beating of his heart in his ears while it rested in his throat.  It was the objective of everyone in a situation similar to that one to become as small as possible to not be seen or stepped on by the enemy.

Some may consider this a bit of measured insanity, with a sprinkle of stupidity for garnish.  This is the job of the war correspondent or photographer.  They are generally not viewed as friends by the units they accompany as their training is lacking as far as field work and procedures.

  A whole platoon can be compromised on the misdeeds of one untrained man, leading to the deaths of others.  They are also disliked for their ability to report objectively and treat casualties as another number or simply a last name when the others in the unit may have served with the deceased for an extended period of time.  Timing is also an important component of war coverage.

There is also the point of the Falklands war where there were several British Special Assault Service (SAS) were killed because their position was given away on a local news program during the conflict.(NPR Morning Edition) All must remember the Navy SEALS landing on the beach in Somalia, met by the bright lights of the news cameras.  Still another casualty of the Somalia campaign was an Army Ranger who was killed and dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.  This event was filmed and beamed back to the United States for the evening news. (Frontline, 9-29-01)

Is the nature of this sort of news beneficial to the public for consumption?  No, it is sensationalized propaganda.  The reasons for wars to be covered in recent times and times past, is to further the ideology of the government sponsoring the action and to convey the right kind of information to the general public.

Television and news media are continually looking for the new “fix” for the public and will sell to the highest bidder. The biggest sellers to date are tits, blood, and war.  Surely, there can not be anything more entertaining than watching people kill others and be killed in real time on the television. 

Some would say that if journalist did not cover the war we would have no information regarding it.  This is also a falsehood, it is the job of the Sergeant and the Lieutenant of the unit to document occurrences as well as troop movements and casualties.  These men also record enemy kills as well as information recovered from the enemy or any prisoners.  This is not information that is readily available for public consumption.

A journalist usually serves as a third wheel, recording events as they are seen.  This is true for the newsprint and broadcast journalist as well as the photojournalist.  This was the case in Operation Desert Storm.  A reporter from the Detroit Free Press was on a ride along with a MASH unit in a helicopter during the closing days of the war. He accompanied the unit on a run to pick up wounded soldiers during a firefight with the Republican Guard of Iraq. 

When they arrived on scene there was total chaos and there were people loaded into the chopper as it took off.  As the chopper took off, there was talk of the entire incident being the result of friendly fire.  As the photojournalist sat there and witnessed events, he noticed that one person was in a body bag.  The medical personnel reached into the bag and retrieved the dog tags of the fallen soldier, gave them to Sgt. Kozakiewicz.  He was the highest-ranking man of the unit. 

It was at that instant, the Sgt. Realized who it was, and began to sob.  David Turnley was the photojournalist who snapped the picture of the interior of the helicopter.  To his right was a body bag and on the left was a broken man. (Patterson, pp. 173)  The photo made the cover of Parade magazine; but to what end?

The only reason evident is that of sensationalism.  It is quite obvious the photo was meant to evoke extremely emotional responses from rage to deep sadness.  This was also done to bring home the fates of these soldiers as well as the soldiers who had suffered similar fates in conflicts past in full color.  This seems really to benefit no one; except those wishing to sell the blood of soldiers to the news affiliates around the country.

As if the photos of a war zone are not horrific enough to enrage most people and drive others to tears, there are also written and verbal reports made from people who are not even in the country of conflict reporting second and third hand news.  Case in point, the New York Times reported on November 15th, 2001, that they had a reporter chronicle the role of U.S. Special Forces in the region.  Where did this reporter get this information? 

The information was obtained from the Secretary of Defense, of course.  Who was further reported to have intimated that U.S. Special Forces could be used to block roads and tighten perimeter on Osama Bin Laden.  (NYT, Nov. 15, A1)  This is not what could be considered objective journalism.  This sounds more like hearsay from a third party than a reporting of the facts.

This is an illustration of the media becoming a mouthpiece for the government and its interests.  It is quite obvious that the reporter did not speak to Special Forces directly.  If that had been the case, we would have heard even less.

Also in the New York Times on the following day, there was a follow up article entitled “Allies Building Force to Keep Order in Vacuum.”  It highlights more information doled out by the government and a rehash of the day before.  The U.S. public may as well be on a diet of meathead sandwiches if it believes this to be nothing more than speculation and conjecture.

The article went on to delve into the role Special Forces would take after the conflict as far as peacekeepers. (NYT, Nov. 16, A1)  This story, written by a couple of people in Washington who had probably never left the office and who were content to feed upon the drivel dished out by the government.

While some journalists prefer to be spoon fed information, others are not concerned with the product.  Some journalists have in fact come to some notoriety because of their ability to spin issues.  This point is well illustrated in the James Fallows book, Breaking the News.  In it he casts light on the fact that journalist will use all available means to portray themselves in good light.  It also goes to show that ethics only goes as far as covering your own ass for some people. (Fallows, pp. 11-16)

Ethical questions are often the most difficult to answer for anyone, let alone a journalist in a war zone.  Even prestigious outfits like N.P.R. as well as public television have crept into the murky world of reporting on war and conflict.  These news organizations are held in higher regard in light of their objectivity and professionalism.

 These organizations seldom stray into the propaganda fed constantly to other media outlets.  One must keep in mind though, that seldom and never are two different words carrying different connotations

On the local Public Broadcasting Station, there was a documentary on Frontline. (9-29-01) this documentary chronicled the botched raid to remove Mohammed Farah Aidid from power in Mogadishu, Somalia.  More war coverage with implications to today’s conflict as it appears Aidid was in fairly close with Osama Bin laden. (Frontline, Nov. 29) Still, there was some sensationalism involved. 

The sensationalism did not come by way of the program necessarily, but the advertising for the program was filled with images of a dead Army Ranger being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.  The ad went on to record the gunfire and the screams that accompanied it via a radioman on the ground with ill- fated outfit.  No reporters here just the professionals paid to do the job or to die trying.  It could have just as easily been a civilian reporter being dragged through the streets. 

It is the sensationalism of violence that allows this to occur.  We Americans have an insatiable appetite for it.  Both PBS and Frontline are regarded as two very responsible news organizations. They are both well backed and stable sources of news and information.  They too have many journalists in the field, and have had for many years.  Their reporting can be considered a higher caliber in wartime because they are paid for by public and private donations and are not dependent on the government.

News reports from PBS and NPR are much more palatable than the corporate conglomerate news with their sound bites and clips.  Sensationalistic journalists are working with dollar signs in their eyes.  These journalists care little about being a mirror to accurately record events as it happens.  War coverage seems to be a specialty of these bloodhounds.

Journalists involved in PBS and NPR are not spoon fed tidbits of government information for mass consumption by the people.  The people who work there have no intent of furthering the government’s goals; only to report the news.  That is not to say that their coverage has been totally objective about the war either.  Several Callers on today’s Talk of the Nation (NPR, 11-20-01) ridiculed the organization for being nothing more than a microphone for the U.S. government.

The radio stations objectivity was evident in the fact that the calls were not censored.  Public Radio is not clear of the conflict between the media and the military, far from it, in fact.  The organization has several people in the field.  They have in fact; put their lives on the line to report what is happening thousands of miles away.

It is true that journalist have lost their lives covering conflicts.  It is also true that journalists have contributed to the sensationalistic society we live in now.  It is not true that these people must be on the front lines to report what is going on.  Recently four journalists lost their lives in the conflict in Afghanistan.  They were in an uncontrolled area inside Afghanistan.  They were apparently taken from the vehicles they were riding in and shot dead.  (NPR, Nov. 19)

Three men and one woman are confirmed dead, none of which are U.S. citizens.  Their nationality is irrelevant, what is relevant is the fact they died covering a war that was not their own in a country that did not want them there to begin with.  There are plenty of casualties in a free fire zone without the occasional journalist being killed by an errant bullet or fragment of a grenade.  There is also the point of hindering the military when it has an assigned task.  Combat zones are no place for journalists.