SPRING - - 1998HOME - - Norman Soloman

MEDIA BEAT

The Toll of Self-Censorship as Bombs Fall

Seven years ago, the Pentagon imposed strict curbs on media coverage of the Gulf War. American military activities in the region were mostly off-limits to journalists. Defense Department censors cleared photos, video footage and battlefield dispatches. Reporters were only allowed to travel in "pools" accompanied by U.S. military escorts. With some grumbling, major news organizations went along with the restrictions -- and then, two months after the war's end, tried to blame U.S. authorities. In a May 1991 letter to then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, the Washington editors of 15 big media outlets faulted the Pentagon for exerting "virtually total control" over coverage.

But the main problm was self-censorship. And it still is. Many journalists grow accustomed to parroting Pentagonspeak -- especially after Uncle Sam's missiles start flying. That's how dead Iraqi civilians become merely "collateral damage."

In recent weeks, as the Pentagon finalized its rules of media engagement for another assault on Iraq, news outlets again seemed ready to knuckle under. Tidy euphemisms for killing returned. And, as if to stiffen American resolve, news reports warned that Saddam Hussein will use civilian casualties for propaganda purposes.

As a media theme, it's a retread. During the Gulf War, NBC's Tom Brokaw echoed the White House and the dominant media mantra when he told viewers: "We must point out again and again that it is Saddam Hussein who put these innocents in harm's way." So, no matter how many civilians die as a result of U.S. bombardment, we can always deny responsibility.

This time around, more than ever, America's air power has been touted as the key to success. Of course, we're assured that the weaponry is new and improved. "The smart bombs of the Gulf War have gotten smarter, and there will be more of them," USA Today reported. Under the high-tech circumstances, Iraqi victims will be blips on screens for American TV viewers and military personnel alike.

The news is filled with footage and descriptions of cruise missiles, F-117 Stealth bombers, F-16CJ jets and other ultramodern aircraft. Their awesome technical prowess is publicized in detail. But don't expect much coverage of exactly what happens to people when the bombs detonate. When explosions demolish vital organs. When shrapnel slices into human flesh and bones.

Above all, the mass media are able to numb us, dispensing anesthesia along with selected information. But if there were genuine confidence about the morality of firing missiles on Iraq, then presumably the euphemisms and media evasions would not be deemed necessary.

Meanwhile, media conflicts of interest are unacknowledged. So, for example, if Brokaw and his NBC News colleagues marvel at the exploits of F/A-18 Hornet jets, they don't mention that NBC's parent company -- General Electric -- produces the engine that goes into each one. Nor are any such disclaimers heard on CNBC or MSNBC.

When CNN aired an "International Town Meeting" on Feb. 18, all three panelists were top U.S. officials. Only Madeleine Albright, William Cohen and Samuel Berger were permitted to make lengthy remarks. CNN anchor Bernard Shaw invited other participants to provide "a question, not a statement." In effect, CNN worked with the U.S. government to co-produce the program. Fortunately, grass-roots antiwar fervor gave the staged event a jolt.

Writing in the London-based daily Independent a week earlier, longtime Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk challenged the notion that there are no good alternatives to attacking Iraq. "The world might, after all, demand that all Middle Eastern states apply all U.N. Security Council resolutions -- which include an Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab land as well as the disarming of Saddam Hussein," wrote Fisk. "It could insist that within five years, all weapons of mass destruction in the region -- not just Iraqi weapons but Syrian missiles and Israeli nuclear weapons and possible Iranian rockets -- be destroyed. It could offer a real peace in the Middle East, based on human rights, justice and a Palestinian homeland."
But instead, Fisk noted, "we are beating the old 1991 drums of war, our claims so preposterous that they bury the real viciousness of the real Saddam. For war is not primarily about victory or defeat. It is about death. It represents the total failure of the human spirit."

A Report from the Grim Reaper

Glory days are here again! Not that I'm complaining about the last few years. Some great events have made headlines. But, as the grim reaper, I'm not easily satisfied. And right now, I can hardly contain my excitement. With prospects growing for high-tech weaponry to shatter a lot of bodies soon, I deeply appreciate the enthusiasm for such marvels in the American news media. The mood is auspicious for us to get comfortably numb, so that Iraqi people blown up by U.S. bombs won't seem like real people. Hooray!
To make matters better, reporters and pundits often act as though the bombs are aimed at just one person -- Saddam Hussein. When NBC's "Meet the Press" aired on Feb. 8, host Tim Russert was in step with questions like "What would an air attack on Saddam really accomplish?" and "Should the United States attack him with a massive attack from the air?"
It helps that the U.S. government has attached natural-sounding names to deadly assaults. Our media have obliged by referring to the 1991 Gulf War as "Desert Storm" -- likening the carnage to a force of nature.
And it's good that very little footage of the human suffering made it onto American TV screens. Sure, I'd personally enjoy watching the gore on television, but that might set off protests from the bleeding hearts.
I've been gratified to see the top names of journalism so fully on my team. For instance, when the war ended seven years ago, CBS anchor Dan Rather concluded an interview with a U.S. general by shaking his hand and exclaiming, "Congratulations on a job wonderfully done!"
The human destruction was a media footnote. So, after the war ended, U.S. News & World Report buried the death toll as a one-paragraph item: "Although top U.S. commanders last week estimated that Iraq suffered at least 100,000 military deaths during the war, other sources in the Gulf say the final total -- including civilian fatalities -- will be at least twice that. These sources say the allied aerial attacks inflicted far more casualties than previously thought."
Since then, sanctions against Iraq have taken several hundred thousand more lives. According to recent estimates from UNICEF, 4,500 Iraqi kids under 5 years old are dying every month, mostly due to the continuing sanctions. Somebody else's problem!
Happily, the news media haven't stopped applauding the use of the latest technology to kill Iraqis. President Clinton probably remembers the accolades he won in the early summer of 1993. Time magazine praised his announcement of a U.S. missile attack on Baghdad as "one of his finest moments."
Of course, there are always some moaners and whiners, like the White House panel that just warned against bombardment of Iraqi chemical sites. Releases of poison gas, even in small amounts, could have severe health consequences -- and the victims could include American soldiers as well as Iraqis. Hey, the more the merrier!
One of my favorite pastimes is observing the tortuous efforts to find legal justification for attacking Iraq. Although the UN Security Council now refuses to give approval, there are always reporters available to say that old Security Council resolutions gave a blank check for the United States to attack on its own say-so. When there's a will, there's a way.
I have fretted that some journalists might take it upon themselves to spread the vile contagion of conscience. But not to worry! The specter of computer-guided missiles raining on Iraqi people seems to mesmerize America's media professionals. With few exceptions, they're too dazzled to make trouble.
This kind of glorified warfare against the defenseless provides a lot of secondary gains for me. It sets a fine example for callousness and tacit cruelty in all walks of life. If people are accustomed to hardening their hearts to random Iraqis -- a child in bed, say, or a family at the dinner table -- then extreme insensitivity can calcify and extend to others, seen and unseen, abroad and at home.
So, as the grim reaper, I'm very happy. After all, I hate life. Nothing gives me more joy than to see it extinguished. And, now more than ever, I love the American news media.

Spring 1998-- N.C.Xpress -- Archives -- Electrons to the Editor