The war on terror had begun and September 11th had been a milestone in World Events. For the United States it showed how venerable it could be to attack. For the media the Iraq war of 2003 was a completely different affair. The need for UN approval meant that there was a five-month build up whilst Hans Blix and his team of weapons inspectors tried to ascertain whether Iraq had the potential to deploy Biological Weapons and Weapons of Mass destruction, or simply to see if they harboured any. Meanwhile various newspapers and television companies had months of speculation, unlike September 11th where the world was shocked by 20 minutes of terrorists attacks in New York, the lead up to the war in Iraq was gradual. At the outbreak of war, many news corporations such as the BBC had had journalists following troops for weeks and the invasion that followed was filmed literally from the battlefield. Whether this was a positive aspect of wartime journalism was questionable. On the one hand we were seeing from the British and American perspective the ease in which Western machinery ploughed through southern Iraq, but on the other many saw the horror of war, the children killed in cross fire, the inevitable bombed hospital, the father who loses his entire family to a stray American bomb. The bomb that hit BBC world affairs editor John Simpson’s convoy, which was so graphically reported the following night (Sunday, 6 April 2003) was another example of the dramatic effect the media can have on the public at home, Simpson described it as a: “really bad own goal by the Americans”. It does not take long for the way in which the media reports war for public opinion to change. We have seen it in Mogadishu and now we see it in Iraq.
The British Government have become increasingly under fire from the public over the war, and as it is the media who has the responsibility of delivering the stories of the conflict, it leads to ask who controls the media. The BBC arguably has a role to play to the British Public as it is not a commercially based corporation, and they are the individuals paying licence fees. They would try and give an unbiased view of the Contemporary World Arena as they see it but undoubtedly this is a task that will always prove impossible. The majority of people would find it offensive to justify Osama Bin Laden’s involvement in the September 11th attacks, and though many may argue that the war has proved highly negative, portraying Saddam Hussein as an innocent man even though he has murdered hundreds of Kurdish opposition and sent thousands of young men to their death in needless wars against Middle Eastern states. It would be almost unthinkable for such a view to be held, but it does show that the media is targeting an audience. The BBC and CNN are concerned with their relative countries; AL Jazeera by contrast may see the Iraqi war as the West meets Islam.
The Media is a political tool, and crucial in the Contemporary World Arena. The radio is cheap and effective and unlike newspapers is hard to censor, it can be received by nearly anyone; “probably the most broadly used medium for disseminating information abroad” (K.J.Holsti. 1995, p160). This alone can make it an incredibly powerful propaganda tool. It can be used to justify political foreign policies and strengthen argument. But many Western states have no direct control over broadcasters, so just as elated Iraqi citizens thrash a large statue of Saddam Hussein in the heart of Baghdad as it lays strewn on the street, the horrific stories of innocent children, killed or wounded, send out entirely different questions on the justification for war. One commentator stated that: “Images – especially of human suffering – are often held to have an inescapably emotive effect on those exposed to them” (White, Little & Smith. 2001, P220), and it is this tool, especially in the 21st century and the easing of broadcast censorship that can allow news and the media to hold such political power in today’s world arena. “…political actors (…) exist in the power game through and by the media”. (David Held & Anthony McGrew. 2000, p80)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Issues in World Politics – Brain White, Richard Little & Michael Smith
The Global Transformations Reader – David Held & Anthony McGrew
International Politics, a Framework for Analysis – K.J.Holsti
INTERNET:
http://
http://
http://
http://
WORD COUNT: 1024
‘September 11: Chronology of terror’, CNN Archives, http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/
White, Little & Smith. (2001), Issues in World Politics, Basingstoke, Palgrave
George W. Bush. (Sept 11 2001), quoted on: , though this speech was televised world wide
John Simpson. Report (6 April, 2003), Quoted on BBC website: , though actual report came minutes after attack in Northern Attack. This initial report was via satellite telephone link, later that day a far more horrific report was produced with footage from the BBC camera crew as the events unfurled.
AlJazeera.net. (October, 2003) A Poll on this website ponders the question: ‘Is the war on terror a showdown between the West and Islam?’ (Of which 49% believed so)
K.J.Holsti. (1995), International Politics, a Framework for Analysis, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall
White, Little & Smith. (2001), Issues in World Politics, Basingstoke, Palgrave
David Held & Anthony McGrew. (2000), The Global Transformation Reader, Manuel Castells: The Network Society, Great Britain, Blackwells
