Television wars
How did war fare before the arrival of television? Surely it was as tragic, as gruesome and as bloody, but its graphic imagery could not have penetrated the human psyche as fiercely, continuously and relentlessly as it does now, through the medium of television. How can one speak positively of human nature, whose character so singularly tough, can endure such grotesque servings of blood and gore! The media serves this mournful feast of human suffering and with gaping mouths we devour it eagerly and completely, silently appreciative of their horrific offerings. Dumbly we sit gazing at their brutal array of the naked and the dead, the sorrowful, the unfortunate, the condemned. Where does the perversion lie, with the viewer or with those who provide the view?
While television may be technology's greatest miracle of communication, shrinking our world with its various sounds and images into one small picture inside our living rooms, watching a war being fought, if I may hazard an opinion, is not its finest hour. In their insatiable desire for 'scoops' and 'breaking news' the news networks have lost their way on the avenue of taste.
For decades the news media has been an active player in the drama of war. Their written press has covered wars around the globe and published pictures of its many horrors. In the early 20th century radio broadcasting was the magical means of reaching the public, relaying instant news on and off the battlefield. It was also the greatest form of entertainment for the masses, with its dramas, comedies and musical concerts for over three decades (1920 -- 1950). Radio however, could never offer the graphic footage of a soldier shot through the head lying in a pool of blood, a prisoner of war trembling with fear in front of his captor, a woman fleeing in panic from a torrent of flying bullets, or the softness and simplicity of a child begging for water. If such imagery was to eliminate wars forever, it may be tolerable, but day after day, hour after hour, networks get bolder showing no restraint, no shame, only a shrewd insight into the weakness and noisy falsettos of the frail human race.
It was only in the 1950s that television became a popular medium; Coined from two words, the Greek tele (far), and the Latin vedere (to see). Television, meaning to see far, has indeed done that for more than half a century. Like radio, it has two main functions to inform and to entertain. Once upon a time news was meant to be factual, accurate, truthful and impartial. Today one would be hard-pressed to find impartiality on any news broadcast. New elements have been introduced to the news field 'business' and 'entertainment'. Profit depends greatly on entertainment factors, such as star anchors, celebrity interviews, glamorous travel sites, instant coverage of main events and war. Until 1980 all news coverage was confined to a couple of hours daily, divided between morning, noon and night bulletins. This came to an end when one Robert Edward Turner III changed the face of television news forever. In 1976 a 38 year-old multimillionaire established his own Turner Broadcasting Company. But what he had in mind was a marvelously novel idea and the more he mulled it, the more intensely he clung to it. Despite much scepticism from associates and advisors, Cable News Network, a 24- hour news channel opened its doors in July of 1980. CNN has become a broadcasting fixture ever since. Its unforeseen success has created many followers in the US and around the world. Its minute by minute coverage of Gulf War I was so shocking, so thrilling, so immediate, a newly discovered elixir, and voyeurs or viewers were clamouring for more. With one billion television sets around the world, everyone at one time or another has turned to CNN.
News networks are a fact of life. An indispensable staple feeding us with the useful as well as the scandalous, the gruesome, the inhumane and the sensational, all day and all night, wielding a power hitherto unknown. Pictures of starving children from Mogadishu forced the Bush I administration into sending American aide. Images on TV today may well be the driving force behind government policies. Madeline Albright, former US ambassador to the United Nations argued that television influence was so profound "CNN could well be seen as the 16th member of the UN Security Council."
In the last few years Arab news networks countering a Western view of Middle Eastern issues have sprung on our screens, led by Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabia, Abu Dhabi ANN, among others. They have received praise for the quality of their coverage, even though some of the graphic presentations have been coarse. They alone have highlighted the courage of Iraqi forces who have stunned the coalition with their stamina and will to defend their homeland. In its recent issue (April 7, 2003) Time magazine commended the Arab News Networks: "Indeed, straight news on the Arab networks in many ways offers viewers a more complete inside look at the war than US TV does." Yet no one is happy with the news media, not the diplomats, military officers, policy makers, or social planners, all critical of its performance. Boutros Boutros Ghali, former secretary general of the UN in one of his lectures remarked: "through the issues, people and places, it chooses to highlight or to ignore, the media today has enormous influence over the international agenda."
The most powerful mass media available, "it can influence our morals, our thinking and our culture" yet it is not without bias. It elects presidents, brings down governments, reveals scandals, makes or breaks careers -- and more. The world may well be governed by a TV camera. British broadcaster and author Malcolm Muggeridge was greatly disturbed by it. He called the camera "the villain, the enemy capable of infinite deception". Others believe it to be a great educator, entertainer, political advisor and companion. Its potential audience "expected to be limited by the population of the earth itself." But it is also exceedingly dangerous. Its danger lies as much in its point of view of the coverage, as it is in the coverage itself. We are governed by the images it chooses to show us. Coverage decisions may help determine the outcome of conflicts around the world. There are many images around the world of great human value that news networks ignore. The outcome of the Viet Nam War (1962 -- 1975) is often blamed on television. Expert military opinion regards the war as one that could have been won on the battlefield but was lost in the living room. The effect of news coverage has been a factor in Gulf War II's military planning. By inviting hundreds of journalists to be "embedded" with the various battalions, the coalition has added one more tool in its formidable arsenal.
Because of its arbitrary bias and selective process the war waging in Palestine for the last half century has never received the copious coverage given to Granada, Panama, Haiti, Afghanistan, Gulf War I and Gulf War II. Had the news media responded to the Palestinians' struggle for existence, had it covered the horrors, the destruction and the agony of this homeless people, we may well have had a sovereign state of Palestine now, and a Palestinian population living peacefully within its borders, thereby eliminating all wars in the Middle East, once and for all.
Impartiality in television journalism requires the total truth, regardless of who would be angered by it. Even- handed reporting necessitates treating similar atrocities in similar manner. Distortion of reality can only undermine the work of those endowed with the qualification for the pursuit of truth. The march towards peace should remain clear of the bias that mars the noblest and purest of vocations.
While reticent to pass judgment we are truly thankful for the variety of opinions on the many news networks, for it has been said in any conflict there are three sides, A, B, and TV!
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 10 -16 April 2003 (Issue No. 633)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/633/pe2.htm