The Impact Of Media On The War On Iraq And Afghanistan

While political issues like these were slowly demoralising the soldiers fighting the war, the media were still telling a heavily rose-coloured version of the ‘truth’. When the television images were shown in America before 1968, the editors had policies about what to show: More specifically, there were guidelines that were designed to

The Vietnam War proved to governments all over the world that, in order to have a successful military campaign, some form of censorship needs to take place. The Washington Post has reported that due to the effects of the media in Vietnam, “every U.S. military engagement since… has featured attempts to control the media” (Hajela 2006, para. 13) which demonstrates how, since Vietnam, governments have been trying to avoid a similar reaction. Journalists who also reported in Vietnam recall interviewing generals with media handlers present in later conflicts, and mention, in relation to the censorship in Vietnam that, “[they] don't think that in our lifetimes we will ever see that kind of freedom again.” (Hajela 2006, para. 14) The Vietnam War not only made people aware of the need for censorship, but also the power the media holds, which was made clear in the changing attitudes of the media. This is made clear through public reactions and the timing of which they began to support withdrawals from Vietnam. The Department of Veterans’ Affairs, of the Australian government, highlights the power of the media, stating that, “opposition to the war, as the ALP had learnt to its cost in 1966, was not a vote winner… [however in] 1969… it was electorally popular to oppose the war,” (Australian Government Department of Veterans’ Affairs 2015, para. 2) This emphasises the power of the

The military and U.S. government have the ultimate say in what is broadcasted. For Operation Iraqi Freedom, the military came up with new press rules that addressed previous criticisms that it did not allow journalists contact with fighting troops in combat situations. The Pentagon now allowed reporters to travel with U.S. military units as long as they followed a strict set of rules. These rules basically meant that the military could censor and monitor all outgoing broadcasts and reports from the war. If any of the rules were broken, the reporter would be immediately sent out of contact with the military. This makes it very hard to believe the broadcasts coming from the conflict, yet the American public accepted them as the truth which is exactly how the government had designed.

As an academic, one becomes increasingly aware of the biases in others’ writing. It becomes engrained - to dissect the author’s worldview and biases in order to best determine how those things are affecting their writing. This dissection is all the more important when it comes to journalism. In current times, it is not just the academics that are concerned about biases. The average populous has become increasingly aware that the information that mass media attempts to feed them can be biased beyond belief. The coverage of the Battle of Vimy Ridge in the Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail showcases the differences in how a singular event can be reported in very different ways beautifully.

John Pilger’s ‘The War You Don’t See’ promotes many strong ideas, with a strong focus on the value of honesty and the lack of it. Raising the issue of when the media do not do their job, the public is manipulated as we are not told the whole truth therefore are not aware of the horrific and

The mass media is responsible for providing the general public with information regarding current events and issues that are occurring in the world. In addition, journalists have the ability to influence and impact individuals’ ideologies about certain topics by the way they present the information, either in a positive or negative manner (Beckford 1994). On the other hand, scholarship strives to methodologically and critically study and analyze a phenomenon in order to present factually correct information. Furthermore, this paper will discuss the difference between journalism and scholarship, and will use the tragic incident that occurred at Waco as an example to illustrate each fields differences in discussing/reporting the events that unfolded.

What this paper seeks to address are the differences and underlying reasons in media coverage and national perceptions, as demonstrated by the case of Bergdahl and Shalit. Despite the remarkable similarities between the two stories of their captivity and release, why did each play out so differently in their countries’ respective media outlets? These two cases can help us understand what role the media plays in delivering the news and how certain news is framed and for what purpose. It also demonstrates the role that partisan coverage plays in the current media environment and how those narratives define perceptions of the event and essentially tell the viewer what to believe, instead of giving them information to make their opinions.

Carlson, Timothy and Katovsky, Bill, _Embedded: The media at war in Iraq_, The Lyons Press, Guilford, 2003.

Firstly, the “war on terror” had reduced the humanitarian concerns down, and the foreign policy. Furthermore, media coverage had become more deferential and constrained: therefore, reducing the chances of media influencing policy. The “war on terror” most importantly provided journalists with a guide in which they could understand global events and policy makers with the ability to justify a more aggressive foreign policy plan. At last, the “war on terror” had constructed an ideological bond between journalist and policy makers which created stronger media management. Techniques developed to display coverage of certain issues over others to frame stories that support official

The established freedom within this uncensored war, unleashed an unprecedented amount of evidence, thus allowing the media to become a tool for oral and visual communication for the masses, ultimately changing the method of historical approach. The ‘nature of evidence’ significantly changed during the television age as the intensity of war coverage changed. Professor Phillip M. Taylor ascertains that the role of the media enabled the general public to be "take a front seat at the making of history on the shirt-tails of journalism”. Therefore, the public became histories witnesses - albeit indirect participants - through the media. Many theorists argue that the media did not create or script any events that played out in the war, rather the

Nowadays journalists have the responsibility to report facts as accurately, objectively, and disinterestedly as is humanly possible. ‘’The, honest, self-disciplined, well-trained reporter seeks to be a propagandist for nothing but the truth’’ (Casey, 1944b).

To understand that most U.S. reporters not only have lost sight of real journalism is to also realize that those same reporters sometimes knowingly hide the truth beneath many lays of non-important information.

In times of War, the media plays a crucial role both in reporting, monitoring and giving updates. During the Vietnam War of 1955-1975, the American press played crucial roles of reporting until it ended up shifting its tone under the influence of occurrence of some events like the Tet Offensive, the My Lai Massacre, the bombing of Cambodia and leaking of Pentagon papers resulting into lack of trust in the press (Knightly 1975). From the beginning of the war up to present times there have been undying debates over the role of media in the war. The have been various criticisms over the American News Media’s actions and influences on the outcome of the war. The debate is embedded on the particular political assumptions perceived across the

The media has always had a powerful impact on public opinion in Britain. With several different types and means of communication, such as TV, newspapers, social networking and radio, it is difficult for the public to not be even slightly impacted by the opinion of thousands that surrounds them every day. However, with newspapers spinning stories to promote the party they favour (such as the Daily Mail in favour of Conservatives or the Mirror in favour of Labour ) or to disparage the opposition, is it clear there is any obvious influence from the media towards the public in relation to reporting on British Politics?

Since my research deals with a conflict situation in the context of international politics, those studies that have dealt with similar issues are the ones that are most relevant to me. One such study was conducted by Maslog, Seow and Hun and published in Asian Journal of communication. The researchers looked at the how newspapers in five Asian countries covered the Iraq war. The study concluded that newspapers from non-muslim countries emphasized War journalism frame, and generally supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq, while newspapers from muslim counries opposed the invasion and emphasized Peace journalism frame. Reseachers found that ‘religion and sourcing are two important factors shaping the framing of Asian news coverage on the Iraq war.’ (Maslog, Seow, Hun,