War and the Media

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.