Al-Jazeera justify their actions with the need to show their people what they want to see, yet at the same time showing both sides of the story; “The Opinion and the other Opinion” and a, “Passion for truth”. If truth means showing the humanitarian cost of the war, then Al-Jazeera does just that.
On the other extreme Fox News, reporting from an American perspective is also condemned for lacking in Objectivity by Al-Jazeera and even many of its fellow Americans. Fox news declare “Fair and Balanced News”, however critics worldwide declare that Fox News is solely a “conservative” news organisation - “Pro Bush” as it has often been declared, all bias handed down from its owner, Rupert Murdoch. For instance; Fox News seems to paint Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry as weak and waffling, while President Bush is captured in respectful, reverent images. Also on the news documentary, “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism” it reveals that Fox publishes management memos to its staff “dictating language, subject matter, and point of view” that are to be followed that day. As one former employee responded, “There's no sense of integrity as far as having a line that can't be crossed." So one could argue; is this “Fair and Balanced” news or is it subjective and sympathetic towards their country’s leader, George Bush? Is it right for news to be given a point of view before the public have even made up their own mind? This way of reporting lacks truth and “balance” and leads its viewers to believe in a world that doesn’t really exist – one that is made up by the media. It also creates dislike and even anger towards the people and ‘facts’ that Fox portrays as negative, leading the public along. Many are opposed to this way of news coverage; it should not be given a set opinion before it is even reported as this presents false coverage.
Al - Jazeera on the other hand are accused of being prejudiced against George Bush. The news station has been known to show graphic and almost censored images of Iraqi citizens who have died due to American bomb raids. Body bags are shown yet also bodies of actual people, women, children and men. Many of its critics suggest they are showing humanitarian cost to its people and therefore influencing their opinions on the war. These opinions are seen as those of hatred towards the Americans for killing their people. However Al-Jazeera reply that they are simply telling the truth and showing the true humanitarian cost of war, “Any war has a human cost – a human side....I represent my T.V Station but I also represent my people.”
“Control Room” a documentary following Al-Jazeera and American Media, brings a lot of these points into focus. In response to these images Lt. Josh Rushing an American Press Officer commented, “The night they showed the POWs and dead soldiers... it was powerful, because Americans won't show those kinds of images. It made me sick to my stomach. I just saw people on the other side, and those people in the Al Jazeera offices must have felt the way I was feeling that night, and it upset me on a profound level that I wasn't bothered as much the night before. It makes me hate war.” He also commented on the lack of objectivity on both sides – the Americans and the Iraqi’s;
“When I watch Al Jazeera, I can tell what they're showing and what they're not showing by choice. It's the same thing when I watch Fox on the other end of the spectrum.” Here Lt. Rushing realises that Fox News displays that same lack of objectivity which he accuses Al-Jazeera of perpetuating - his conclusion drives home the point that media bias is institutionalised on both sides and objectivity is a “mirage”. The film poses the question; Can one really be Objective when faced with war? Is war something that makes emotionless involvement impossible for any involved party? Many journalists within each ‘side’ could argue that yes indeed, when presented with war, one is inclined to sympathise with its own country, so objectivity could in fact just be a “mirage”.
The debate of objectivity is not only just seen within Fox News and Al-Jazeera, it is also seen between governments and within other news organisations.
One example of objectivity and impartiality lacking within news coverage is the story of Jessica Lynch. The capture and rescue of Private Jessica Lynch of the United States Army was one that provided inspiration during one of the bloodiest days for American forces in the Iraq war. The problems began when BBC news ran a story contradicting the account the American media were circulating. The details of Private Lynch's capture -- confirmed by Lynch herself -- were different from the original story. .
When confronted with these facts, Pentagon spokespeople initially responded by saying that they never stated for sure that the story circulating about Lynch's capture was true; rather, they had simply not stated that it was false.
Wars promote chaos and confusion that easily blur the facts of a situation. The problem, though, is that many of the facts were wrong, nothing was done to correct them early on, and the result was two different "stories" of what actually occurred in Private Lynch's case.
The media's rush to judgment, combined with their desire to please viewers by providing an emotionally satisfying story, left the public with two versions of the story that masquerades in a lack of objectivity. The American government wished for a way to hide the fact that they had lost a large number of their troops that day, so by creating a kidnapping and rescuing her successfully it took the heat off of them. However by ‘staging’ this event (as it may be seen) it creates a biased view towards the war on terror; creating an ‘enemy’ of the Iraqi soldiers and making the Americans seem the hero’s. One could say that it’s not fair and truthful coverage if true facts are hidden by biased events.
Another case is that of the Iraqi girl who was murdered and raped in her own home along with her family in Mahmoudiya, Iraq. This report only surfaced in July even though it had happened some time before - the story was buried until sources got hold of it.
One of the first reports was by the Guardian in which the Pentagon reported it was “a young Iraqi woman”. Could this have been used to cover the seriousness of the crime? For the American Government this would be the fourth war crime investigation and it could blow a hole in the mission of the war on terror turning a bad light on the American soldiers who were supposed to be ‘helping’ Iraq.
In a later report by CNN it is clear that objectivity is tried to be maintained yet there are certain areas that hint towards subjectivity when compared with a report by the Guardian at around the same time. Words such as “slaying her sister and their parents” instead of the word used by the Guardian “...murdered” portray the crime it in a better light. ‘Murdered’ is quite a harsh, angry word, yet “slay” seems cleaner and less criminal; more like a ritual or self defence killing. The CNN report also included quotes such as "I believed there were American forces involved" and “ongoing violence, including the deaths of two soldiers in their unit shortly before the slayings of the Iraqi family, had affected everyone. "I was going to get a memorial tattoo of all the guys (who were killed), but there's not enough room on my arm," replied one soldier. The word ‘believed’ puts emphasises on the fact that it may not have been American soldiers, again displaying it in a cleaner way. The other quote almost gives them an excuse for the crime presenting the killings as more of a tragedy than a ‘murder’. However, one could argue that the report is just representing the truth of the situation, that they are telling ‘both sides’ of the story.
On the other hand, a report by the Guardian could also be seen as lacking in objectivity. One report quoted a description of the girl, “The only picture of Abeer Hamza Qasim is the one that appeared on her Iraqi ID card, a black and white passport size photograph taken when she was maybe eight or nine, black hair, round face and big black eyes.” By starting the report with this paragraph one could suggest that by putting a name and a face to the young girl would create sympathy and promote dislike towards the American soldiers. However, one could also argue that in a situation like this, where a young girl was raped and murdered for ‘Something to do’ sympathy doesn’t need to be provoked; disgust and dislike come naturally to the reader. So could this report be biased – or just presenting the views of its readers?
In conclusion it’s clear to see that objectivity is something of a mirage. What really is objectivity? And can anyone be objective when writing about war? These are the questions covered and answered within this essay. Objectivity during times of war is not seen as a rule it’s more of a guideline there to be used when necessary and it’s obvious that objective reporting is hard when you are faced with war. Many news organisations try their hardest to be objective when reporting but what the readers perceive of ‘objectivity’ and ‘subjectivity’ are always bound to be different for each ‘side’.
Bibliography:
Book: Reporting war; Journalism in wartime. Stuart Allan and Barbie Zelizer. 2004