January 09, 2004
Journalists - a different perspective
Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |Since the Pentagon's decison to "embed" journalist in Iraq and Afghanistan, many (myself included) have argued that this doesn't not provide us with the best coverage. There have been a plethora of articles such as Bill Berkowitz' Media AWOL (TomPaine, 1/08/04) critiquing corporate journalists and corporate journalism. I think these are generally well deserved criticisms - corporate media has not served democracy well, though they have served the administration well.
Beyond the obvious issue that embedded journalists only see what they are allowed to see, and that their presence seems dependent on putting the right spin on things, is a very different issue - safety. If you tick off those who are protecting you then they may not protect you. So beyond the agenda of presenting the desired picture lies life or death.
The Middle East (particularly Iraq) has been a dangerous place for journalists. This stark reality came out in an AP article by Jamey Keaton (1/06/04) - 42 Journalists Killed During Iraq War. According to Reporters Without Borders report 2003, a black year:
The Middle East was the deadliest part of the world for journalists in 2003. Fourteen journalists and media workers were killed and about 15 injured covering the war and the period after the war in Iraq. The US military could be blamed for the death of at least five journalists, but in no case did they hold any investigation worthy of the name. On the third day of the conflict two journalists working for British ITN television,French cameraman Frédéric Nérac and a Lebanese interpreter Hussain Othman, mysteriously disappeared.
In the Middle East, 16 have been killed, 92 physically attacked, 67 have been detained, and 30 have been censored (RWB report).
The outright US military attacks on Al-Jazeera in both Afghanistan and Iraq, along with outright censorship and detainment must send journalists a clear message. If the US powers that be do not like what you are saying, your life is at risk.
What role has intimidation played in the coverage of the events in Iraq and surrounds? My guess is that it plays a not insignificant role. Whether the threat is that one will not be sent where "the news is;" or information may not come your way; or one may be taken off assignment; or one may be left exposed, or no one comes when you need help. There are a lot of levers of harassment and threat possible.
Does this mean that I believe this excuses the corporate media for not doing the job reserved for them by the constitution? No it does not. The threat comes not only from those with guns, but from media executives who haven't taken a stand to the responsibility that they hold, nor to protect journalists from a variety of threats. Corporate media has (seemingly) willingly colluded in this process of silencing. They (seemingly) have signed up eagerly to be an active participant in the propaganda machine.
There are similarities between supporting the troops, but not the policy that has put them in harms way, and supporting journalists, but not the corporate decision-making that leverages collusion through intimidation.
Those journalists who have died and are imprisoned in Iraq (and Israel) are generally not representatives of corporate media. But surely the message is clear to all what the potential consequences are of being labeled as the "enemy." I am sure that the message is not lost on journalists from the corporate media when they saw US troops firing on the Al-Jazeera headquarters in Baghdad.
The oft repeated question is "what to do." There are an array of groups and organizations that are fighting for freedom of the press - a freedom that includes fightinging the threat to journalists. Support them, support people's media, fight laws that lead to censorship.
A sampling of organizations
Reporters Without Borders
FAIR
Project Censored
The Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press