TRUTH AND OBJECTIVITY
The use of embedded journalists in the Iraq war has had significant implications for truth and objectivity in journalism. Truth is one of the most highly regarded ethical principles in not only journalism, but in the wider community itself. According to Day (1991, p. 68) “the commitment to truth is perhaps the most ancient and revered ethical principle of human civilisation”. Truth is a very simple concept, but it is simultaneously a highly complex one. If all human beings are subjective and one person’s truth is another person’s lie, then the truth often depends on the perspective of the journalist (Day 1991, pp. 72-75). One ethical perspective on the definition of objectivity is that journalists should be “impartial reporters, mere observers of an event who should lack ingrained prejudices or commitment to pushing a particular agenda (Kieran 1997, p. 54)”. Linked to this definition is the belief that journalists should remain detached from the events they cover and not get emotionally involved (Hirst 2005, p. 40). Many reporters, inevitably as sensitive human beings, become emotionally involved with the people they meet (Cameron in Keeble 2001)”. Reporters witnessing the Iraq war invariably became emotionally attached to their military peers. This impacted and distorted what they saw as ‘true’ and what they recognised as ‘the facts’ (Keeble 1998, p. 182). While the search for truth remains a cornerstone of excellence in journalism (Retif 2002), the ethical principle came under serious threat in the Iraq conflict. Retif commented that: “Some journalists say they are at all times neutral and objective...The only response to this must be how naive can people be (2000)”. The use of a large contingent of embedded journalists in the Iraq conflict has also been charged with having produced a relatively homogenised view of the war (Mordue 2004), and also created deficiencies in truthful and objective reporting. However, the principal reason for the deterioration of truth and objectivity among embedded journalists in the Iraq war can be found in the ubiquitous culture of censorship and self-censorship.
CENSORSHIP AND SELF-CENSORSHIP
The issues of censorship and self-censorship are at the heart of the ethical quagmires faced by embedded journalists in the Iraq war. In 2003, an Australian parliamentary report outlined the concerns of the Australian government about the use of ‘embedded journalists’ in Iraq and the implications for biased reporting (Miskin et al 2003). Biased reporting frequently occurred in reports by embedded journalists because of internal and external pressures placed upon them. Throughout the Iraq war, the conflict became known as a “theatre of propaganda”(O’Shaughnessy 2004). O’Shaughnessy argued that propaganda was inevitable because “when you wear the uniform you buy the values (2004)”.
CENSORSHIP
The main external pressure on embedded journalists came in the form of military censorship. Embedded journalists were given unprecedented opportunities to cover combat operations close up, however the details of military actions could only be described in general terms. Journalists agreed not to write at all about possible future missions or about classified weapons and information they might find (Pfau etc al 2004). After signing a contract stipulating that they would not report missions in progress or their specific results, specific force sizes, or future missions, and that they would not travel in their own vehicles, reporters were free to join military units. As reporters could not travel independently, it meant that journalists could not really report independently either (Jensen 2003). With all interviews on the record, this actively discouraged military personnel from criticising any aspect of the war. Also, officers could censor copy and temporarily restrict electronic transmissions for “operational security” (Jensen 2003). Embeds routinely worked under censorship by withholding information that might expose them and coalition forces to Iraqi fire (Bell 2003). Another challenge to the fourth estate in the Iraq war was that many journalists only reported on a ‘version’ of the truth. With embeds covering only a ‘slice’ of the war, their view on the war may lack perspective and be incomplete.
SELF-CENSORSHIP
The chief internal pressure placed upon embedded journalists during the war was self-imposed censorship. With soldiers and journalists living and working side-by-side, feelings of loyalty and comradeship could affect a journalist’s ability to be independent and objective. A correspondent to the New York Times neatly summarised the potential problems of ‘embedding’:
The training and group psychology of combat military units, not to mention combat itself, usually result in the most intense feelings of loyalty and comradeship that soldiers will ever experience. I suspect the Pentagon hopes that this same group psychology will rub off on 'embedded' reporters (cited in Miskin et al 2003).
Embedded journalists also had some degree of acceptance of the military culture, as they had to submit to military commands or place their lives in jeopardy (Wilson 2003). To commence this enculturation, the military required journalists to train in military boot camps before joining the troops. Journalists were not only embedded in a military unit, they are also indubitably embroiled in its culture.
Jeff Gralnick, a CBS reporter with embedding experience in the Vietnam conflict, warned embedded journalists before the Iraq war that:
You will fall in with a bunch of grunts, experience and share their hardships and then you will feel for them and care about the. You will wind up loving them and hating their officers and commanders and the administration that put them and you in harm’s way...I loved mine. And as we all know, love blinds and in blinding it will alter the reporting you thought you were going to do. Trust me. It happens and it will happen no matter how much you guard against it. (Gralnick cited in Wilson 2003).
Journalists who attempted to report on controversial issues and events could risk ostracism and expulsion from the military unit. Also, embedded journalists may “find themselves rationalising away and stifling their journalistic instincts because of their increasing loyalty to the military (Miskin et al 2003)”. Knightly argued that it is “useless” to expect the truth from the war correspondent-soldier” because any such truth “might damage the army, the war effort and the national interests (2000)”. He also blamed the friendliness between individual journalists and military personnel for self-censorship. He claimed that embeds would not write a damaging story, would put a positive twist on a negative story and would probably lie to their readers if the military asked them to (Pfau et al 2004). In a study on the bias of embedded journalists, one reporter described embedding as “professionally treacherous”, explaining, “There is a real danger of getting too close to your subject” (Pfau et al 2004). Another troublesome aspect of self-censorship in the Iraq war came in the form of patriotism. Journalists could impose self-censorship where they considered themselves to be “part of the war effort” (Miskin et al 2003). Objectivity and independence were not always appreciated, especially when it appeared to the general public that the media were not “going along” with the war effort. Those who demanded a patriotic media argued that journalists should not forget that the most important thing in a war is not to send reports home, but to win. Daily Express editor Max Hastings succinctly expressed his view of such media patriotism during the Falklands War: “When one’s nation is at war, reporting becomes an extension of the war (Miskin et al 2003). Associated Press Washington bureau chief Sandy Johnson acknowledged that the media’s goal is to “let the American public know how their sons and daughters do at war”, but also notes, “Our goal is to win, also” (Cited in Miskin et al 2003).
Finally, there is the real possibility that embedding might produce narrow and decontextualised coverage of war. Embedding affords an “extremely deep, rich coverage of what’s going on in a particular unit, what might be called a minutiae of conflict (Pfau et al 2004). In a content analysis of articles originating with embedded journalists, the study revealed that embeds produced stories that were more decontextualised in form and more favourable in tone towards the military and in depiction of individual troops than their non-embedded counterparts. In addition, a television news executive who was interviewed for the study, questioned how much embedded journalists saw, concluding that, “It’s arguable they didn’t see a double digit percentage of what happened (Pfau et al 2004)”. If this is true, journalists could easily “lose insight” into the purpose and context of the broader war. The results of the content analysis indicated that embedded journalists, often unconsciously, displayed positive bias in their coverage of the war. Like the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, the tenets of truth, objectivity and the ideals of the fourth estate also came under fire during “Operation Iraqi Freedom”.
CONCLUSION
It is a widely held belief that ‘truth is the first casualty of war’. The universal truism that the truth is inevitably distorted in times of war has been recurrently validated by the United States’ ‘war on terror’ and in particular Operation Iraqi Freedom. The reportage of the Iraq War in 2003 has been at the forefront of ethical discourse because for the first time, 600 journalists were given unprecedented access to military operations and personnel. The concept of ‘embedded journalists’ poses several challenges because journalists living and working alongside the military present significant challenges to truth and ob jectivity on an operational level. This essay argued that the pursuits of truth and objectivity by embedded journalists are noble ideals, however they are difficult to achieve in practice. Beginning with definitions of embedded journalists, truth and objectivity, this essay explored the history of embedding journalists in earlier conflicts. Further to this discussion, the essay went on to explain how embedded journalists routinely, and often unconsciously, distort their news coverage with censorship and self-censorship. Finally, this essay illustrated how the use of embedded journalists in the Iraq war has seriously compromised the integrity of news coverage and ultimately served to perpetuate the maxim that ‘truth is the first casualty of war’.
REFERENCES
Bell, Martin 2003, ‘Newsmen wrestle with perils of 21st century war’, Daily
Telegraph, 24 March, London.
Day, Louis A. 1991, Ethics in media communications: cases and controversies,
Wadsworth Publishing Company, California.
Dorril, Stephen 2002, ‘Suspicious incidents’, Free Press, January/February, No. 126,
p.2.
Hirst, Martin 2005, Journalism ethics: arguments and cases, Oxford University Press,
Melbourne.
Jensen, Robert 2003, ‘The military’s media’, The Progressive, Online, Accessed
27/02/06, http://progressive.org/node/1228.
Keeble, Richard 1998, The newspaper’s handbook, Routledge, London.
Keeble, Richard 2001, Ethics for journalists, Routledge, London.
Kieran, M. 1997, Media ethics: a philosophical approach, Praeger, New York.
Knightley, Phillip 2000, The media: Nato’s willing accomplice, Speech, Cited online
at the Communist Party of Australia website, Accessed 22/02/06, at http://www.geocities.com/cpa_blacktown/20000709zzzpkcpbuk.htm.
McLane, Brendan 2004, ‘Reporting from the sandstorm: an appraisal of embedding’,
Parameters, Online, Accessed 26/02/06, http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/04spring/mclane.htm.
Miskin, S., Rayner, L. and Lalic, M. 2003, Media under fire: reporting conflict in
Iraq, Foreign Affairs, Australian Government.
Mordue, M. 2004, ‘A war with no front line’, Sydney Morning Herald, 22 May,
Sydney.
O’Shaughness, Nicholas 2004, Politics and propaganda, Manchester University
Press, Manchester.
Pfau, Michael, Haigh, Michel, Gettle, Mitchell, Donnelly, Michael, Scott, Gregory,
Warr, Dana, and Wittenberg, Elaine 2004, ‘Embedding journalists in military combat units: impact on newspaper story frames and tone’, Journalism and mass communication quarterly, Vol 81, No. 1, Spring, pp. 74-78.
Retif, Johan 2002, Media ethics: an introduction to responsible journalism, Oxford
University Press, London.
Wilson, Peter 2003, Long drive through a short war: reporting on the Iraq war, Hardie
Grant Books, Melbourne.
OTHER SOURCES
Churchill, Winston 2006, Churchill Facts, Online, Accessed 21/02/06,
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=398.
