Journalists as Voice of State

Journalists as Voice of State

More often than not people view journalists as rigid and hard-line competitors for audience's attention. While the claim is mostly true, there are times when the media is obliged to soften its tone. Therefore, it is safe to say that media is a malleable platform. There are multiple cases where media houses and journalists have openly demonstrated their biased and flawed views. The war in Vietnam and Iraq are some of the best examples when the internationally recognized journalists exposed their patriotic and loyal stance to the government in power.

Vietnam

America launched a war with Vietnam that dragged on for years. The Vietnam War was a sharp contrast to America’s role during World War II. In fact, at the beginning of Vietnam War, many correspondents claimed that they found it hard to shed light on the real picture at the ground because the US Military Assistance Advisory Group (USMAAG) closely monitored their activity. The advisory proposed what the journalists should work on and the information to be discarded. The American mission in Vietnam regarded journalists as tools of its foreign policy (Brandenburg 954). Although the influence of the military cannot be understated, it is clear that the majority of journalists felt unjustly exploited. A military suppression of their work came into light as the war neared its end, indicating that there was an intention on the side of the media to do what is right: to reveal the truth to a global eye.

Ap Bac battle took place in 1963 between Vietcong against South Vietnam allied forces and the United States.  The military viewed an uncontrolled reporting unfavorably. At times, the military representatives described journalist activists as lacking sophistication and experience. They saw the reporting activity as irresponsible and senseless. David Halberstam was one of the few journalists that struggled to go against the will of US military in terms of the media coverage of the War. He initiated an exposure of US’s defeat during the Ap Bac war. His exposure infuriated the pentagon and Washington. It resulted for the calls from President Kennedy's inner circle to find the journalist's replacement to avoid further revelations. However, the Times media house launched a counter-pressure against the government's intentions to exclude Halberstam. The Times succeeded and Halberstam continued his coverage of the brutal war for more than 15 months. His uncensored reporting included the US military’s unwillingness to minimize civilian casualties and poor mission execution (Clayton 186).

On the other hand, US political constraints wielded no effect on UK’s activity as the war progressed. As such, UK had an opportunity to conduct discussion on politically sensitive matters related to Vietnam War, though their support inclined towards South Vietnam. The stark contrast in reporting between journalists from both countries demonstrated an extent that national interest took over the media activities during times of national adversity. It demonstrates how journalists become voices of state with or without their consent. During the time, most American newspapers reported on operation sunrise when UK media described in detail how the US military burned the innocent villagers.

It is possible that some individual journalists could not allow themselves to be state puppets, but the media houses they were working for were anchored deeply to the Pentagon. It is notable that different individuals own media houses. Some of the owners have political interests or are supporters of the state. Besides, the media system is prone to unfair competition for a state favor (Venable 66). In fact, big media houses forge for alliances to increase their chances of survival in the tumultuous environment such moves makes it harder to have divergent opinions on how to cover current activities, especially concerning sensitive matters touching on national security.

As the Vietnam War gathered momentum, correspondents were accorded adequate freedom to pen on what they deemed necessary. They were forced to shift focus, however, as the US become fully absorbed in war. Tighter regulations resulted in journalists being reigned in. the US government made it harder for journalists to travel to Vietnam unless they possessed special document or were committed to supporting the state through their biased media coverage. Expulsion was not uncommon, especially for journalists that opted to take an honest stance in their reporting.  The government authorities complicated publication of work by some of the journalists that launched harsh criticism on US intervention.

Journalism succeeded to an extent in Vietnam by the year 1969. Many reporters began hunting out for stories though not many penetrated the mainstream. Still, a little that got out altered the world's view on America's uncouth and unjust activities, hence triggering mass protests and calls for a ceasefire. As a final straw, the ‘My Lai’ incident sparked a controversy on a global scale. Major international media outlets including the New York Times covered the story on a front page exclusively describing survivors’ accounts and feelings. Revelations were made regarding how US soldiers gunned down Vietnamese on the ground. Executions conducted by 20 soldiers in three distinct places infuriated many.  Gradually, America’s inhumane behavior crept into the mainstream media leading to a change in public opinion on the necessity of the war hence Americas’ defeat (Horten 42).

Bagdad

George W Bush’s administration initiated a ‘War on Terror’ campaign. He convinced the American public on the need for Iraq invasion on the grounds of the development of advanced weapons of mass destruction. CNN, Fox news, and other major media outlets were held on a tight grip by the pentagon to avoid revelations on government's ill plot.  There were reports that the Pentagon organizes a succession of programs aimed at teaching journalists the basics of military policies, battlefield survival. Hundreds of journalists participated on such programs. Thus, it is arguable that the tight control measures and militarizing of journalism bent the viewpoint and blunted the reporting effectiveness. After such an ordeal, remaining objective becomes a harder task.

            The world watched the developments in awe and became a staunch spectator as America invaded Iraq on the basis of Sadaam Hussein possessing mass destruction weapons. It was the intention of Bush’s regime to exploit the void stance. An adoption of “Operation Iraq Freedom’ title by most multiple US news outlets such as FOX, MSNBC, and NBC is still vivid. What many civilians are unaware is that the Pentagon dictated the title as a cover up of their intentions for invasion and to convince the public of the essence of the war. A decade later, it is beginning to emerge that the war resulted in destabilization of the Middle East. Besides, no weapons of mass destruction were ever recovered from the crumbling Iraq regime (Haass 63).  The US government alone cannot bear the blame for the atrocities committed and the resultant disastrous consequences of Iraq War: the media failed by becoming a state voice in the war's course. 

            For many years, interventionism has been viewed as a symbolism of power politics where a provision of humanitarian aid to destabilized countries is a cover-up of a pursuit for Western ideologies and interests.  Most experts and political activists observe that Western media is subservient to ruling elites. In fact, years of display of journalists' patriotic stances during US and allies' political interventions on fragile states have yielded a development of a media culture that influences start-up media houses. If newspapers are put down and TV sets turned off for a few days, people will notice how the government has gripped and altered their mindsets through the media.

            The most recent development with regards to America’s interventions in North Africa and the Middle-East states does not conclude that all US journalists are a voice of state. However, there are significantly limited choices available for ethical journalists. Journalists that strive to remain objective in their activity are instead forced to be subjective due to pentagon’s tight control on the media. Troop units were embedded with journalists sent to Iraq battlegrounds. The pentagon ingenuity ensured that the journalists were not only part of the war but also, they were under the control of the military. It is exactly how the US wanted: the journalist on the state’s side. The subjectivity took hold as soon as the media became part of America’s war leading to viewpoint warping (Kuypers et al. 7).

            While the tactic of integrating journalists to military units has been used on numerous occasions before, the magnitude at which it was applied during the Iraq war was staggering. It indicated the direction and the intention of the government to absorb the media as part of the state in future conflicts. The move brings into sharper focus the importance of paying a keen attention to the validity of embedded journalists’ reports. More than evident, embedding journalism has a direct effect on the process itself hence a distortion of facts on the ground. The susceptibility of US journalism to pentagon’s interests is solidified by a demonstration of inter press-state relation skills. It is an ingenious move on the Pentagon’s side albeit surprising media values. The state figured out it is hard for a journalist to remain impartial to its interests if they are conjoined with military platoons. The military had an upper hand in endorsing media contents thus ensuring journalists are indeed the state's voice.

Three months into Iraq War, it became openly evident that journalists in the war-torn country were embedded. The media became motivated to get across war images as required by viewers at home. The viewers needed a proof that America’s war was not in vain and most importantly, it was not wastage of taxpayers’ resources. Therefore, the military had to suspend firefight to allow the embedded journalists to cover positive stories and file them for viewers at home. The reports were unrealistic: there was a failure in capturing the real picture. One study conducted on major American media outlets’ 3-day coverage of the war revealed that not a single storyline depicted how Iraqis were constantly hit by American weapons. The study outcome was contrary to the reality that over half-a-million lives were lost (Burke et al. 892).

American military failure to curb looting of Iraqi government assets should have captured word headlines if the journalists were actually not the voice of the state. It was a demonstration of carelessness and a depiction of Americas' lack of interest in restoring law and order after toppling a formerly functional government. American journalists worked harder to cover the government's lack of plan after ousting Sadaam's though the news later resurfaced. More than a decade later, America’s troops and its western allies are still struggling to clear up the mess made by President George W. Bush’s government. The American public is increasingly becoming aware of the government’s tactics involving the use of journalists as a misleading force. Since then, the media’s pro-war is gradually changing.

Ironically, there was a portrayal of two wars. Loyal media houses including SKY, FOX and CNN depicted a no-casualty war. The war had no dead soldiers in body bags brought back home. Loss of lives did not matter to the pro-government corporate media houses because they did not conduct a proper documentation (Dimitrova et al. 158). On the other hand, there was a real dragging war that triggered one of the worst humanitarian crises in history. Over 2.5 million Iraqis fled the country with another similar number displaced within Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of civilians lost lives. American media became numb to this type of war.

In summary, there were signs of professionalism on how journalists covered the first months of Vietnam War but as it progressed, the US government hijacked the media’s interests. The move made a majority of journalists ‘voice of state’. Iraqi War, on the other hand, exposed the evolving government tactics targeted at taming the media through embedding journalists. It is one of the most severe cases in history where a state manipulates journalism to forge and pursue its interests comfortably.

Works Cited

Brandenburg, Heinz. "“Security at the Source” Embedding journalists as a superior strategy to military censorship." Journalism Studies 8.6 (2007): 948-963.

Burkle, Frederick, and Richard Garfield. "Civilian mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq." The Lancet 381.9870 (2013): 877-879.

Clayton, Daniel. "Militant tropicality: war, revolution and the reconfiguration of ‘the tropics’c. 1940–c. 1975." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 38.1 (2013): 180-192.

Dimitrova, Daniela V., and Colleen Connolly-Ahern. "A tale of two wars: Framing analysis of online news sites in coalition countries and the Arab world during the Iraq war." The Howard Journal of Communications 18.2 (2007): 153-168.

Haass, Richard N. "The Irony of American Strategy." Foreign Affairs 92.3 (2013): 57-64.

Horten, Gerd. "The mediatization of war: A comparison of the American and German media coverage of the Vietnam and Iraq Wars." American Journalism28.4 (2011): 29-53.

Kuypers, Jim A., and Stephen D. Cooper. "A comparative framing analysis of embedded and behind-the-lines reporting on the 2003 Iraq War." Qualitative Research Reports in Communication 6.1 (2005): 1-10.

Venable, Barry E. "The Army and the media." Military Review 82.1 (2002): 66.