 |
 |
 |
The
first conflict to be covered by mass media was the Boer War of 1899-1902.
Advances in printing, distribution and photography, along with an
increasingly literate population, meant that descriptions and pictures
of battles were widely seen. Key players in this new medium included
the young Winston Churchill as a journalist for the Morning Post
and cameraman William Dixon who brought home the real experience of
conflict. The ground was prepared for the images of mass carnage that
followed in the First World War that are still haunting today.
Growing newspaper circulation meant the government was
forced to pay far greater attention than in the past to public opinions.
Consequently, it became more important to control the news, a point
amplified by the arrival of television into the average home. Its
power to influence was to prove decisive in the first conflict to
be seriously affected by this medium, in Vietnam, which the US government
found to its cost.
Extensive film coverage of the Second World War, much
of it lent an air of immediacy by colour, had tinged each subsequent
conflict with the same feeling of the just war. But images of young
children being napalmed undercut the US moral high ground. Anti-war
demonstrations followed close behind, further fuelled by the speed
with which aircraft could deliver casualties back to the US.
Since then, wars have been fought in full media view and
still risk government wrath in their commitment to independence and
objectivity. However, for some this is tempered by commercial realities
of selling newspapers and by the views of their target readers.
Newspapers, branding Margaret Thatcher’s government
a failure before the Falklands War, soon realised that their sales
would improve if they went with the tide of jingoism whipped up by
the government. |
 |
The
Gulf War of 1991 saw news management at its most slick. Precision
air strikes by the Allied Forces on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq were
shown on screens to demonstrate perfect successes, while friendly
military personnel offered copious amounts of information.
Issues behind the Kosovo conflict later the same decade
made reporting more complex and less easy to control. Although very
dependent on the military, journalists were able to find local contacts
in their pursuit for a balanced view. However, emotive images of starving
refugees were constantly used to justify the government’s humanitarian
line, and arguing that bombing would lead to more reprisals on the
ground, even though backed by many relief agencies, was branded as
playing into the hands of the warlords. |
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
‘Gotcha’
blasted The Sun when the Argentinian ship General
Belgrano was sunk by the British taskforce. Although this
was pulled off later editions as having crossed boundaries of
sensitivity, it perfectly summed up the unquestioning support
of the tabloids for military action in the Falklands. Headlines
ranging from ‘Stick it up your junta’, to ‘High
noon’, ‘This is it’ and ‘Wallop’ gloried
in the attacks on the Argentinians, who had been dehumanised
by the name ‘Argies’. Neutrality was a dirty word,
a view supported by the government of Margaret Thatcher. Any
media organisation criticising policy or presenting an objective
view was branded a traitor. The BBC was called to account for
its coverage, referring to ‘Argentinian troops’ and
‘British troops’ rather than ‘our soldiers’.
Reporting from the Falklands was difficult. The
Islands were relatively unknown to the public in Britain and
because of the distance journalists were reliant on the military
to get them there and information back. Long delays in news
updates were compounded by the defence ministry that prevaricated
over releasing details of military action. Famously, news of
Thatcher’s cause for ‘rejoicing’ – the retaking
of South Georgia – took five hours to reach the public. |
|
|
The
simplistic ‘for us or against us’ ultimatum is even
more pronounced during current reprisals against Afghanistan
following Al Qaeda’s 11 September attacks. Those speaking
out are sidelined into the camp of terrorist sympathisers or
naïve pacifists.
Bush’s mission to root out terrorism, with
echoes of Thatcher’s shoring up popularity, has now turned
its attention to Iraq, citing stories of biological weapons
even though little proof has been presented.
In the quest to control, government has now learned
that what the media needs more than anything is a story and
if information is forthcoming from the military, news gatherers
will be less likely to look elsewhere and discover something
unpalatable. ‘It is best to let a thousand flowers bloom
in the hope that the one true flower will be obscured by the
others,’ as one Falklands veteran remarks in the series. |
|
|
|
