Media Bias in War - Essay Example

English 102 Media Bias in War It is tough to remain unbiased in times of war. War – which is a prolonged conflict between countries and groups of people -- brings death, destruction and hardship affecting all segments of societies engaged in it and beyond. Death, destruction and hardship whip up passion among people on both sides of the war, and passion blurs objectivity and hardly leaves any room for neutrality, particularly in peoples, groups and countries that are directly engaged in battle. Even in those societies that are not directly involved in war, people do find reasons to sympathize with one side or the other that clouds their neutrality. The media – which include print and electronic means of communication such as newspapers, magazines, television, radio and the internet – are not immune from such overarching impact of war. In particular, when their own people, ethnic groups, and countries are involved in the war, war reporters and media organizations can hardly remain unbiased unless they are prepared to be called unpatriotic and get demonized Actually, war affects media organizations and their war reporters more than many other segments of warring societies. War reporters have to gather news from the dangerous frontlines where many them lose their lives every year at the hand of one or the other party to war. If a reporter is killed by one side deliberately or accidently, media organizations and the public, out of spontaneous human instinct, often blame the killers and their side and project them in a bad light. Even when a war has not directly affected reporters and media outlets in such fashion, it influences them directly or indirectly in so many other ways. For instance, the death or deployment of a relative or friend in the frontline and disruption of their own plans, like a much-coveted trip, due to war might dilute the neutrality of reporters. When war affects individuals personally, their first instinctive reaction would be to blame the party that they perceive guilty of starting the war and causing them hardships. So much so that human beings blame the boulder when they stumble on it and hurt themselves rather that blaming themselves for not taking caution to avoid hitting it. Besides, so many other factors also often influence reporters and dilute their objectivity and neutrality. Such factors include personal links, philosophical conviction, media organizations’ mission and motto, cultural connections, geographical proximity, conditions in which reporting is done, sympathy for the underdog, etc. Individual reporters, due to their personal links to one of the parties to war or ethical and philosophical conviction, might have their own angles and biases to view a war or the parties engaged in it. For instance, one of the parties to war could be their ancestral country that occupies a special place in their heart. Reporters might also have a soft corner for one country more than other because of their experience or because of what they have read or been told by seniors and friends. Philosophically, they could innately be pro-war or anti-war. An anti-war reporter would begin by blaming the party that has started the war, even though there might have been sufficient underlying provocation from the other party. Confronted with the duty of war reporting, reporters’ first instinct would be to apply their ingrained bias based on their links, acquired wisdom and conviction and assign the blame on the perceived bad guy. Even the most dedicated and honest journalist cannot be free from these elements of bias in war reporting. Rational decisions of individual war reporters and other media players collectively put out lies, half-truths and disinformation that encourages war and discourages conflict resolution (Russ-Mohl). This explains why different reporters come up with different narratives for the same event. Such differences might also occur due to the motto, mission and orientation of media organizations. Reporters have to conform to organizational mission and orientation to keep their jobs and secure progress in their career, often compromising their objectivity. As a result, CNN and Al-Jazeera presented different pictures of the Iraq War (Russ-Mohl). In the United States, CBS and The New York Times report on the unfolding events with a liberal slant (Greenblatt, 855), while Fox and Wall Street Journal applies conservative orientation (Greenblatt, 857). Each country has its interest to protect, and objectives and values to safeguard and promote. Reporters cannot be completely free of influence of their country’s interests, objectives, and war narratives. US media buys into the US master war narrative that describes that the United States as a reluctant hero having special responsibility to punish the evil, to destroy the enemy with its superior technology, and to promote democracy and human rights around the world. This was clear in the run up to the Iraq War. The Bush administration repeatedly told the media and public that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that had to be destroyed before he could use them against his enemies. When such weapons were not found, The New York Times, The Washington Post and The New Republic concluded that they had relied too much on the Bush administration’s narrative on WMD and Iraq (Greenblatt 855). Similarly, reporters and media organizations have not questioned the validity of the US Cuba policy and economic sanctions against the tiny Cold War enemy, even though it has been two decades since the Cold War has ended and more than five decades since the Cuban missile crisis. Neither have media organizations consistently put pressure on the government to lift the travel ban barring American nationals from visiting Cuba. On a much larger scale, culture and civilization influence reporters and media organizations as to how they view a war. Human beings, including reporters, tend to have emotional connections with those people and countries that share their religion, culture and civilization. Such emotional connections made possible jihads and crusades between religions in the past. Huntington has said that the future major conflicts would also occur between major global cultures and civilizations, particularly between Christians and Muslims, and asked Western nations to join forces to protect their common interests from alien civilizations (22-49). This is a clear invitation for bias from such a scholarly figure. When a reporter has to report on a war in which one of the parties enjoys his or her cultural connection, the reporting is bound to be biased. For instance, Islamic media invariably show more sympathy towards the Palestinians in the Middle East conflict than non-Islamic media and Western media are more sympathetic to Israel’s interests and arguments. Geographical proximity creates a sense of shared interest or rivalry between countries and people. Reporters, depending on their personal experience, orientation, and their country’s relations with the parties to war, knowingly or unknowingly, bring these elements to their reporting. For instance, US media, out of empathy, created and reported the US-Spain War of 1898 so the United States would support the neighboring Cuba in its fight against the Spanish rule from across the Atlantic. Chinese media used caution in reporting on the Japanese video journalist Kenji Nagai killed when he was covering the pro-democracy protests in Burma in 2007, while Western and Japanese media showed the shocking picture of the mortally wounded man. Geographical proximity and intertwined interest created by it made Asian media more lenient towards the Burmese military junta than Western media. The reverse is equally true when there is a sense of rivalry between neighboring countries. Such biases are hard to erase, more so in war. Access to information is also a critical factor in inculcating bias in the media in a war situation. Increasingly, troops engaged in war embed reporters to witness the battle as it unfolds. Embedded reporters who have to depend on the military for food, transport and protection, act like more team members than neutral bystanders (Haigh et al 143).  War reporters have to not only acknowledge such support gratefully but also have to understand that if they cross the limits set by the military, they could lose the privilege of being embedded. That injects the element of bias in favor of the host military in war reporting. Sympathy with the underdog in war is a universal human phenomenon, and media reporters are not immune from this. People, including media reporters, generally sympathize with David when Goliath is pummeling him. This bias for the underdog is colors what the media tells the audience about international conflicts. Even when the underdog is clearly at fault, people tend to think that the punishment to the weak should not be too harsh or too disproportionate. Because Americans viewed the Vietnam War as a contest between David and Goliath, they have continued discussing the war, taking sides, after so many decades as if it happened just yesterday. In sum, war whips up passion among people, and reporters are no exception. War reporters are men and women who, more than most people, face the inconveniences of war and even ultimate danger of losing their own lives in the frontline. They and the media organizations that hire them, therefore, have a direct stake in war. Even when war does not directly hurt reporters and media organizations, it might affect them seriously in so many other ways. Reporters and media executives might have their relatives fallen in war or been deployed to the frontline and their own plans could have been disrupted by war. Besides, individual reporters, media organizations and countries have their links, conviction, and missions that influence war reporting one way or the other. Their cultural and geographical proximity also introduce an element of bias in war reporting. The conditions under which war reporting has been done, such as being embedded with the military, and sympathy for the weaker party in war, too affect it. In the midst of all these odds, it would be nearly impossible for war reporters and media organizations to maintain complete objectivity and neutrality in war reporting. Works Cited Greenblatt, Alan. “Media Bias.” CQ Researcher. Washington DC: CQ Press, 15 October 2004. 853-875. Print. Huntington, Samuel P. “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs. Summer 1993. Print. Russ-Mohl, Stephan. “How US Media Have Been Covering Terrorism and the Iraq War.” Communication and Management Quarterly 66-80. 2009. Web. . 10 June 2012. Read More