Disclaimer: You are looking at a post I wrote some time ago. The information and opinions contained within may be outdated and may differ from my current views. Please proceed accordingly.

When News is Created for the Media

Jan 30, 2005 6:18 PM
Tags:

When news coverage is just what terrorists (e.g. those looking to dissuade Iraqis from voting for anyone by making them think it's too dangerous to do so) want, can media coverage amount to cooperation? At what point do journalists go from objective reporters to a means of publicity to the very reason news events happen?

Obsidian Order takes a disturbing look at media complicity in the fearful climate leading up to Iraqi elections.

In this case, a car bomb goes off in a very theatrical manner, when three reporters happen to be there, cameras ready, at the very instant the vehicle explodes. Subsequently, they report exactly the message the terrorists are trying to spread.


Comments: When News is Created for the Media

Kind of funny, considering the level of media censorship of this war (compared to the one in Vietnam).

AP will surely be punished at the next Presidential news conference, where they *won't* be allowed to ask a scripted question.

Posted by: O'dell on January 30, 2005 7:52 PM | permalink

"the level of media censorship of this war (compared to the one in Vietnam)"

Can you give an example of a press freedom that existed in Vietnam but not in Iraq?

Posted by: Joe Grossberg on January 30, 2005 9:07 PM | permalink

Freedoms technically are the same, but the intimidation is now there (or stronger):

http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2003-09-14-media-mix_x.htm

"Amanpour joins a chorus of journalists and pundits who charge that the media largely toed the Bush administrationline in covering the war and, by doing so, failed to aggressively question the motives behind the invasion."

There are some other things that you'd notice if you watched some Vietnam era news clips. More intense footage, as well as weekly reports on American *and* Vietnamese casualties.

Posted by: O'dell on January 30, 2005 10:46 PM | permalink

Oh, there is one thing I know of that directly answers your request - the filming of returning coffins of those KIA was allowed then, but not now.

Posted by: O'dell on January 30, 2005 10:47 PM | permalink

I don't see how the initially favorable coverage is due to intimidation and not the fault of the press themselves.

And footage of coffins is more symbolic than meaningful.

I'm still not convinced.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg on January 31, 2005 7:22 AM | permalink

"I don't see how the initially favorable coverage is due to intimidation and not the fault of the press themselves."

Good sheeple! Baaah!

Posted by: O'dell on January 31, 2005 9:46 AM | permalink

Name-calling -- very smart.

I don't see how it's any less sheepish to believe everything you read on Indymedia and DemocracyNow.

In any case, the covernment is always hostile to unfavorable coverage; if the US media dropped the ball during the Iraq war, saying that they were bullied is a cop-out.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg on January 31, 2005 10:35 AM | permalink

Sheeple baaa, as in the gov has produced the belief in people that you either totally support them or you are supporting the enemy, with no in-between.

I wasn't quoting either site, nor do I read them. I linked to *USA TODAY*. Also note the quote from Christine Amanpour, a seasoned reporter who has seen some of the most dangerous places on the earth. I'll take her word over yours, I'm sorry to say.

Posted by: O'dell on January 31, 2005 1:09 PM | permalink

That Amanpour article said absolutely zero about any real intimidation. The most she says is that they were intimdated "by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News", without giving any specifics. And, even then, she blames the press itself -- you know, like the headline: "CNN practiced self-censorship".

If that's the intimidation too scary for Amanpour to overcome, she needs to find a new job or have some freaking courage. Thousands of journalists risk their lives every year, and she can't report straight because the administration is mean? Boo fucking hoo.

And you're putting words in my mouth -- I never said all people were cheerleaders or terrorists.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg on January 31, 2005 1:25 PM | permalink

Listen to today's NPR lineup (I think it was The World). They were talking about the military limiting reporters' access to areas, telling them "they'd be shot by insurgents and if not, they'd be shot by us[the military]."

In the end, much of it comes down to that and corporate ownership. The mass media has been consolidated / bought up by corporations who wish to spout their beliefs. Refer to the Monsanto milk additives Fox news story for an example. Capitalism and communism do wonders for the mass media.

Posted by: O'dell on January 31, 2005 5:31 PM | permalink

No more comments! Either someone has violated Godwin's Law, I'm tired of the discussion or, most likely, the ten-week window has closed. You can, however, contact me through email.