War Journalists Should Not be Cozying Up to the Military
It looks like a
rerun of the 1991 Gulf War. Already American journalists are fighting like
tigers to join "the pool", to be "embedded" in the US
military so that they can see the war at first hand – and, of course, be
censored. Eleven years ago, they turned up at Dhahran in Saudi Arabia, already
kitted out with helmets, gas capes, chocolate rations and eyes that narrowed
when they looked into the sun, just like General Montgomery. Half the reporters
wanted to wear military costume and one young television man from the American
mid-west turned up, I recall well, with a pair of camouflaged boots. Each boot
was camouflaged with painted leaves. Those of us who had been in a desert --
even those who had only seen a picture of a desert – did wonder what this
meant.
Well, of course,
it symbolised fantasy, the very quality upon which most viewers now rely when
watching "live" war – or watching death "live" on TV.
Thus, over the
past four weeks, the massed ranks of American television networks have been
pouring into Kuwait to cosy up to the US military, to seek those coveted
"pool" positions, to try on their army or marine costumes and make
sure that – if or when the day comes – they will have the kind of coverage that
every reporter and every general wants: a few facts, good pictures and nothing
dirty to make the viewers throw up on the breakfast table. I remember how, back
in 1991, only those Iraqi soldiers obliging enough to die in romantic poses – arm
thrown back to conceal the decomposing features or face down and anonymous in
the sand – made it on to live-time. Those soldiers turned into a crematorium
nightmare or whose corpses were being torn to pieces by wild dogs – I actually
saw an ITV crew film this horrific scene – were not honoured on screen. ITV's
film, of course, couldn't be shown – lest it persuade the entire world that no
one should go to war, ever, again.
The Americans
are actually using the word "embedded". Reporters must be
"embedded' in military units. The fears of Central Command at Tampa,
Florida, are that Saddam will commit some atrocity – a gas attack on Shiites,
an air bombardment of Iraqi civilians – and then blame it on the Americans.
Journalists in the "pool" can thus be rushed to the scene to prove
that the killings were the dastardly work of the Beast of Baghdad rather than
the "collateral damage" – the Distinguished Medal for Gutlessness
should be awarded to all journalists who even mention this phrase – of the fine
young men who are trying to destroy the triple pillar of the "axis of
evil".
Already, the
"buddy-buddy" relationship – that's actually what the Ministry of
Defence boys called it 11 years ago -- has started. US troops in Kuwait are
offering courses in chemical and biological warfare for reporters who might be
accompanying soldiers to "the front", along with "training"
on the need to protect security during military operations. CNN is, of course,
enthusiastically backing these seemingly innocuous courses – forgetting how
they allowed Pentagon "trainees" to sit in their newsroom during the
1991 Gulf War.
So here's a
thumbnail list of how to watch out for mendacity and propaganda on your screen
once Gulf War Two (or Three if you include the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq conflict)
begins. You should suspect the following:
Reporters who
wear items of American or British military costume – helmets, camouflage
jackets, weapons, etc.
Reporters who
say "we" when they are referring to the US or British military unit
in which they are "embedded".
Those who use
the words "collateral damage" instead of "dead civilians".
Those who
commence answering questions with the words: "Well, of course, because of
military security I can't divulge..." Those who, reporting from the Iraqi
side, insist on referring to the Iraqi population as "his" (ie
Saddam's) people.
Journalists in
Baghdad who refer to "what the Americans describe as Saddam Hussein's
human rights abuses" – rather than the plain and simple torture we all
know Saddam practices.
Journalists
reporting from either side who use the god-awful and creepy phrase
"officials say" without naming, quite specifically, who these often
lying "officials" are.
Stay tuned.
Robert Fisk is an award winning foreign
correspondent for The Independent (UK), where this article first appeared. He is the
author of Pity Thy Nation: The Abduction of Lebanon (The Nation Books,
2002 edition)