TV VIEWERS SAID NOT INTERESTED IN PROTESTS
Antiwar protestors may have a harder time geting coverage on some television stations if the stations take the advice of consultants who say viewers don't want to hear more about the protests. Only 13 percent of viewers responding to a survey said TV news should pay more attention to "antiwar protestors and peace activists," according to Frank N. Magid Associates, a major TV news consulting firm.
McVay Media, a radio consulting firm, is urging stations to play the National Anthem every day and use patriotic music as "production pieces."
Major cable TV channels didn't wait for the memos to decorate their coverage with patriotic themes.
The patriotic flavor of the coverage is obvious on Fox News, which keeps a U.S. flag flying in the upper left-hand corner of the screen and whose commentators are cheering on the fighting forces. MSNBC has an "America's Bravest" display of photos of service personnel sent in by their families. CNN's U.S. service is attempting to play the news relatively straight, while its international service leans in a more skeptical direction.
National Public Radio would sooner die than support a war, of course, and is maintaining an even-handed tone with lots of news of civilian casualties in Iraq. NPR reported unskeptically an Iraqi claim that the U.S. is deliberately targeting civilians.
On the print side, war coverage is offering proof of the claim made by journalists that news coverage is (usually) independent of editorial commentary. The Washington Post, which editorially supported the war, is devoting much of its news coverage to the theme that the campaign is already bogged down and could last for months. On the other hand, the New York Times, which was editorially opposed to the war, is offering far more upbeat news coverage. While the Post is predicting a lengthy war, for example, today's Times introduces the subject delicately with: "The United States military now faces a series of difficult calculations in its efforts to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his government."
Quite possibly, both are correct.
UPDATE: Phil Smucker, the freelance journalist who broadcast the location of the 1st Marine Division on CNN, is being escorted out of Iraq by the military. Smucker is not being allowed to use his cell phone until he reaches Kuwait. (Even there, he could be arrested by the Kuwaiti police since he apparently does not have a visa.) Smucker is writing for the Christian Science Monitor, which defended him by saying he gave its readers "valuable insights into the campaign." Just a bit too valuable for Iraqis monitoring western TV, the Marines decided.
Friday, March 28, 2003
Thursday, March 27, 2003
FREE-LANCE JOURNO GETS SPECIFIC, GETS NABBED
A free-lance journalist in Iraq has learned that the U.S. military isn't kidding when it says that reporters aren't supposed to give out sensitive information. A writer named Phil Smucker was apparently detained by military police after giving details of his geographical location while traveling with the 1st Marine Division.
Smucker is not one of the "embedded" journalists, who have to agree in advance to abide by certain restrictions on their reporting. According to one of his articles in the Monitor, Smucker and other independent journalists evaded Kuwaiti and U.S. military police and slipped into a column of Marines heading north.
Interviews Smucker gave to CNN and National Public Radio apparently raised the hackles of U.S. commanders as Smucker gave out details of the unit's location. Shocked by the level of detail provided by Smucker, CNN anchor Carol Costello told him, "Don't be too specific. We don't want exact specifics."
After the broadcasts, military police showed up and apparently seized Smucker's gear and may have detained him. As an independent journalist, Smucker can be treated like any other civilian in the war zone.
Smucker's father is an antiwar activist who has been arrested twice during antiwar protets in recent weeks.
A free-lance journalist in Iraq has learned that the U.S. military isn't kidding when it says that reporters aren't supposed to give out sensitive information. A writer named Phil Smucker was apparently detained by military police after giving details of his geographical location while traveling with the 1st Marine Division.
Smucker is not one of the "embedded" journalists, who have to agree in advance to abide by certain restrictions on their reporting. According to one of his articles in the Monitor, Smucker and other independent journalists evaded Kuwaiti and U.S. military police and slipped into a column of Marines heading north.
Interviews Smucker gave to CNN and National Public Radio apparently raised the hackles of U.S. commanders as Smucker gave out details of the unit's location. Shocked by the level of detail provided by Smucker, CNN anchor Carol Costello told him, "Don't be too specific. We don't want exact specifics."
After the broadcasts, military police showed up and apparently seized Smucker's gear and may have detained him. As an independent journalist, Smucker can be treated like any other civilian in the war zone.
Smucker's father is an antiwar activist who has been arrested twice during antiwar protets in recent weeks.
NEW FRONT OPENED IN BATTLE . . . AGAINST RUMSFELD
U.S. military officers have opened a new front in their battle against the Donald Rumsfeld regime currently dominating the Pentagon, launching a surprise attack on the front page of The Washington Post (read it here).
The Post article, by Thomas Ricks, reports that senior U.S. military commanders are saying that the shooting war in Iraq is bogging down and could last for months instead of the weeks that most analysts expect.
Officers quoted -- anonymously -- in the article sound positively despondent about the course of battle, predicting that it will take quite a while to mop up the Republican Guard divisions and various paramilitary units and goon squads between the U.S. forces and Bahgdad.
The officers are obviously upset that Rumseld chose to go to war without the overwhelming superiority of force that conventional military doctrine recommends. Despite all the pre-war hype about 200,000 or 300,000 allied forces in the region, the fighting is being done mostly by 20,000 soliders of the 3rd Infantry Division, 80,000 U.S. marines of the Marine Expeditionary Force, and 25,000 British marines and soldiers. The allies are strung out for hundreds of miles and their supply lines are being harassed by scattered Iraqi forces.
Meanwhile, the 4th Infantry Division is still at home while its equipment is being shipped to Kuwait, a result of Turkey's refusal to join the fight, and the mighty 1st Armored Division is in Fort Hood, Texas, and hasn't even put its equipment on ships yet.
Rumsfeld and his advisors felt all along that commandos and light forces could overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime, one of the theories that have not endeared Rummy to the military. Many officers in the Pentagon regard Rumsfeld and his advisors as unbearably arrogant and disdainful of professional advice. The Ricks story is part of their counterattack. One wonders how Rumsfeld will respond.
U.S. military officers have opened a new front in their battle against the Donald Rumsfeld regime currently dominating the Pentagon, launching a surprise attack on the front page of The Washington Post (read it here).
The Post article, by Thomas Ricks, reports that senior U.S. military commanders are saying that the shooting war in Iraq is bogging down and could last for months instead of the weeks that most analysts expect.
Officers quoted -- anonymously -- in the article sound positively despondent about the course of battle, predicting that it will take quite a while to mop up the Republican Guard divisions and various paramilitary units and goon squads between the U.S. forces and Bahgdad.
The officers are obviously upset that Rumseld chose to go to war without the overwhelming superiority of force that conventional military doctrine recommends. Despite all the pre-war hype about 200,000 or 300,000 allied forces in the region, the fighting is being done mostly by 20,000 soliders of the 3rd Infantry Division, 80,000 U.S. marines of the Marine Expeditionary Force, and 25,000 British marines and soldiers. The allies are strung out for hundreds of miles and their supply lines are being harassed by scattered Iraqi forces.
Meanwhile, the 4th Infantry Division is still at home while its equipment is being shipped to Kuwait, a result of Turkey's refusal to join the fight, and the mighty 1st Armored Division is in Fort Hood, Texas, and hasn't even put its equipment on ships yet.
Rumsfeld and his advisors felt all along that commandos and light forces could overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime, one of the theories that have not endeared Rummy to the military. Many officers in the Pentagon regard Rumsfeld and his advisors as unbearably arrogant and disdainful of professional advice. The Ricks story is part of their counterattack. One wonders how Rumsfeld will respond.
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
WAR COVERAGE: SKEPTICISM AND JUDGEMENT NEEDED
The need to separate rumor and supposition from fact isn't always being remembered by journalists covering the war in Iraq.
Headlines today blared the news that a thousand tanks and vehicles of the Republican Guard were rumbling toward the U.S. Marines in southern and central Iraq.
Not.
"We've not seen any significant movements of the type of force you've described," Brigadier General Vincent Brooks. U.S. Central Command, said when asked about the report. "There have been local positionings and survival positionings, but not serious attacks and we certainly remain, we believe, well in control of the situation at hand."
The Marines no doubt wish that the Republican Guard would rush towards them, since that would expose the RG to withering attacks from the air and ground. A frontal assault by an Iraqi division would be a quick way to get rid of it. That's pretty obvious to any armchair general.
So why didn't the reporters see that? Probably a combination of misunderstood information and a desire to be first with a big story.
The press can be skeptical when it wants to be, however. The apparent murder of two U.S. Army soliders -- shown dead with bullet wounds to the head -- has been handled in a low-key manner by most media. Presumably they are waiting for the postwar investigation.
Journalists are also quick, as usual, to interpret facts according to their presupppositions. Everyone is waiting to see if the Iraqi populace will revolt against Saddam's regime. So reports of shooting inside Basra were quickly turned into an uprising.
Maybe, maybe not.
"We saw fighting in the city between Iraqis - some of them in uniform, some not," General Brooks said. "It was a very confusing situation, to say the least."
Some of the less reliable news accounts are originating with British and other non-U.S. journalists. At the risk of sounding xenophobic, it must be said that American journalism is usually far more accuracy-oriented than British or European journalism. Some really wild stuff is printed in British newspapers that would never get past the copy desk in any big American city.
Best advice: watch for hard facts. Best source so far: The New York Times.
The need to separate rumor and supposition from fact isn't always being remembered by journalists covering the war in Iraq.
Headlines today blared the news that a thousand tanks and vehicles of the Republican Guard were rumbling toward the U.S. Marines in southern and central Iraq.
Not.
"We've not seen any significant movements of the type of force you've described," Brigadier General Vincent Brooks. U.S. Central Command, said when asked about the report. "There have been local positionings and survival positionings, but not serious attacks and we certainly remain, we believe, well in control of the situation at hand."
The Marines no doubt wish that the Republican Guard would rush towards them, since that would expose the RG to withering attacks from the air and ground. A frontal assault by an Iraqi division would be a quick way to get rid of it. That's pretty obvious to any armchair general.
So why didn't the reporters see that? Probably a combination of misunderstood information and a desire to be first with a big story.
The press can be skeptical when it wants to be, however. The apparent murder of two U.S. Army soliders -- shown dead with bullet wounds to the head -- has been handled in a low-key manner by most media. Presumably they are waiting for the postwar investigation.
Journalists are also quick, as usual, to interpret facts according to their presupppositions. Everyone is waiting to see if the Iraqi populace will revolt against Saddam's regime. So reports of shooting inside Basra were quickly turned into an uprising.
Maybe, maybe not.
"We saw fighting in the city between Iraqis - some of them in uniform, some not," General Brooks said. "It was a very confusing situation, to say the least."
Some of the less reliable news accounts are originating with British and other non-U.S. journalists. At the risk of sounding xenophobic, it must be said that American journalism is usually far more accuracy-oriented than British or European journalism. Some really wild stuff is printed in British newspapers that would never get past the copy desk in any big American city.
Best advice: watch for hard facts. Best source so far: The New York Times.
Tuesday, March 25, 2003
PRIVATE SECTOR DOING MORE WAR CENSORSHIP THAN GOVERNMENT
Censorship, it appears, is not limited to government. MTV in Europe is avoiding videos that include "representations of war, soldiers, bombing, destruction of buildings and public unrest at home." All songs by the unfortunately named group B-52s are temporarily banned.
MTV has confirmed that a leaked memo containing the guidelines is accurate, and says that similar efforts are underway in the United States. In addition to the original MTV channel, the company owns MTV2, VH1 and CMT.
Songs that include words such as "bomb, missile or war" in their titles should be kept off the air for the time being, according to the memo. Artists or groups whose names include the forbidden words are also kept off, which presumably is the problem with the B-52s.
The video of "Miss Sarajevo," a tune by politically hip Irish rocker Bono, is also off the air, because it "contains missiles, guns and buildings being blown up," according to the memo.
Ironically, the U.S. government is making it possible for the media to show pictures of war actually taking place by carrying journalists along with fighting units. It is the private sector that is banning even artistic allusions to war and fighting.
The entertainment industry in general is anti-war, but is apparently petrified of offending public opinion. Several stars at the Academy Awards wore pins, flashed peace signs, or otherwise expressed low-key anti-war sentiments. But the audience booed documentary filmmaker Michael Moore when he unloaded on President Bush while receiving an Oscar. Many of them probably agree with Moore in private but didn't want to hear his criticism in public.
The film community is well aware that 70 percent of the nation supports the war and doesn't want to antagonize filmgoers. As the saying goes, in Hollywood, the answer to all your questions is money.
Censorship, it appears, is not limited to government. MTV in Europe is avoiding videos that include "representations of war, soldiers, bombing, destruction of buildings and public unrest at home." All songs by the unfortunately named group B-52s are temporarily banned.
MTV has confirmed that a leaked memo containing the guidelines is accurate, and says that similar efforts are underway in the United States. In addition to the original MTV channel, the company owns MTV2, VH1 and CMT.
Songs that include words such as "bomb, missile or war" in their titles should be kept off the air for the time being, according to the memo. Artists or groups whose names include the forbidden words are also kept off, which presumably is the problem with the B-52s.
The video of "Miss Sarajevo," a tune by politically hip Irish rocker Bono, is also off the air, because it "contains missiles, guns and buildings being blown up," according to the memo.
Ironically, the U.S. government is making it possible for the media to show pictures of war actually taking place by carrying journalists along with fighting units. It is the private sector that is banning even artistic allusions to war and fighting.
The entertainment industry in general is anti-war, but is apparently petrified of offending public opinion. Several stars at the Academy Awards wore pins, flashed peace signs, or otherwise expressed low-key anti-war sentiments. But the audience booed documentary filmmaker Michael Moore when he unloaded on President Bush while receiving an Oscar. Many of them probably agree with Moore in private but didn't want to hear his criticism in public.
The film community is well aware that 70 percent of the nation supports the war and doesn't want to antagonize filmgoers. As the saying goes, in Hollywood, the answer to all your questions is money.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)