Thursday, October 23, 2003
Answers from Iraq
The following post is a compilation of thoughts on the subject of Media and Wartime composed by Major Stephen Renner in response to research topic questions previously posted. Major Renner is an A-10 pilot and Assistant Operations Officer in the 74th Fighter Squadron, currently deployed in Iraq. Major Renner holds a Masters of International Public Policy from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, located in Washington, D.C. In addition, Major Renner also completed post graduate work at the Budapest Institute for International and Diplomatic Studies.
How far can censorship be stretched in regards to a public need to know basis of war? What are the determining factors of that basis? Who determines them and how?
MAJ Renner: What is "censorship?" This is the heart of the issue and the answer one gives will usually tell you whose side he'll come down. (Think "When does life begin?"-- the answer usually determines one's view on abortion. Same idea.) If censorship is fairly narrowly defined as the prior restraint by the government of the publishing of information lawfully obtained, then I think you will find that it happens extremely rarely, and that most people, including policy makers and senior military officers, are steadfastly opposed to it. If, however, you accept the broadest definition--that is censorship the government withholds information or restricts access to personnel or operations, you will find it everywhere. Unfortunately, it seems that the modern media establishment subscribes to the latter view. I do not. The "public need to know:" This should, I believe, really be called the "journalist right to tell," since the vast majority of polls indicate that Americans do NOT believe that they have a need to know the details of military operations or diplomatic initiatives while they're being conducted. Journalists, as you might expect, tend to value this "need" or "right" much more than the public whose interests they so fervently claim to serve.
Has the race between networks to be the first to deliver news alerts outrun the importance of accuracy?
MAJ Renner: I think this is of critical importance. The first reports on complex events (no human endeavor is more complicated than war, except maybe marriage) may not always be wrong, but they are of necessity incomplete. They also have the most impact. It is axiomatic that news organizations never give a correction the same prominence they gave the headline. Additionally, we don't HAVE to have the news immediately. Our American system of government (presidential as opposed to nearly all of Europe's prime ministerial) shouldn't be susceptible to quick changes in the polity's temperament, as we have no provision for the change of government based on a parliament's vote of no confidence. This argues against the need to place immediacy above accuracy.
How are some of effects of war chosen to be covered more extensively over others? How often is footage repeated?
MAJ Renner: Also extremely important, as it points to one of the most controversial (and tasty) aspects of media coverage of political events: bias. I've no wish to drone on and on about this. Suffice it to say that objectivity may still be the journalist's goal (though I find that proposition highly unlikely), but it is rarely acheived. I would caution you about trusting any news agency (especially PBS--notoriously partisan) to report on government / media relationships. I'd also suggest a couple of alternatives to FAIR: http://www.aim.org/ and (for Middle East coverage) http://www.memri.org/ . Read Bernie Goldberg's book "Bias" (or at least read the reviews and responses to it--I haven't read the book either, but the reaction is interesting).
Have media ethics and practices remained the same, or have some been lost, or added?
MAJ Renner: I think that the combination of Vietnam and Watergate fundamentally altered the nature of government / press interaction. Before these crises there was a collegial relationship; afterward, it became adversarial. I don't necessarily think that that's healthier. The feeling seems to be widespread among American journalists that they're journalists first, then Americans. I find that a bizarre idea, especially w/ regards to war coverage, because the journalists are dependent upon the military for their very lives in a combat zone, and the enemy clearly does not make the distinction between writer and rifleman. But it's endemic, nonetheless.
MAJ Renner also recommends the following book, which I am presently waiting to receive from Amazon
The title is Impact by Martin Linsky.
The following post is a compilation of thoughts on the subject of Media and Wartime composed by Major Stephen Renner in response to research topic questions previously posted. Major Renner is an A-10 pilot and Assistant Operations Officer in the 74th Fighter Squadron, currently deployed in Iraq. Major Renner holds a Masters of International Public Policy from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, located in Washington, D.C. In addition, Major Renner also completed post graduate work at the Budapest Institute for International and Diplomatic Studies.
How far can censorship be stretched in regards to a public need to know basis of war? What are the determining factors of that basis? Who determines them and how?
MAJ Renner: What is "censorship?" This is the heart of the issue and the answer one gives will usually tell you whose side he'll come down. (Think "When does life begin?"-- the answer usually determines one's view on abortion. Same idea.) If censorship is fairly narrowly defined as the prior restraint by the government of the publishing of information lawfully obtained, then I think you will find that it happens extremely rarely, and that most people, including policy makers and senior military officers, are steadfastly opposed to it. If, however, you accept the broadest definition--that is censorship the government withholds information or restricts access to personnel or operations, you will find it everywhere. Unfortunately, it seems that the modern media establishment subscribes to the latter view. I do not. The "public need to know:" This should, I believe, really be called the "journalist right to tell," since the vast majority of polls indicate that Americans do NOT believe that they have a need to know the details of military operations or diplomatic initiatives while they're being conducted. Journalists, as you might expect, tend to value this "need" or "right" much more than the public whose interests they so fervently claim to serve.
Has the race between networks to be the first to deliver news alerts outrun the importance of accuracy?
MAJ Renner: I think this is of critical importance. The first reports on complex events (no human endeavor is more complicated than war, except maybe marriage) may not always be wrong, but they are of necessity incomplete. They also have the most impact. It is axiomatic that news organizations never give a correction the same prominence they gave the headline. Additionally, we don't HAVE to have the news immediately. Our American system of government (presidential as opposed to nearly all of Europe's prime ministerial) shouldn't be susceptible to quick changes in the polity's temperament, as we have no provision for the change of government based on a parliament's vote of no confidence. This argues against the need to place immediacy above accuracy.
How are some of effects of war chosen to be covered more extensively over others? How often is footage repeated?
MAJ Renner: Also extremely important, as it points to one of the most controversial (and tasty) aspects of media coverage of political events: bias. I've no wish to drone on and on about this. Suffice it to say that objectivity may still be the journalist's goal (though I find that proposition highly unlikely), but it is rarely acheived. I would caution you about trusting any news agency (especially PBS--notoriously partisan) to report on government / media relationships. I'd also suggest a couple of alternatives to FAIR: http://www.aim.org/ and (for Middle East coverage) http://www.memri.org/ . Read Bernie Goldberg's book "Bias" (or at least read the reviews and responses to it--I haven't read the book either, but the reaction is interesting).
Have media ethics and practices remained the same, or have some been lost, or added?
MAJ Renner: I think that the combination of Vietnam and Watergate fundamentally altered the nature of government / press interaction. Before these crises there was a collegial relationship; afterward, it became adversarial. I don't necessarily think that that's healthier. The feeling seems to be widespread among American journalists that they're journalists first, then Americans. I find that a bizarre idea, especially w/ regards to war coverage, because the journalists are dependent upon the military for their very lives in a combat zone, and the enemy clearly does not make the distinction between writer and rifleman. But it's endemic, nonetheless.
MAJ Renner also recommends the following book, which I am presently waiting to receive from Amazon
The title is Impact by Martin Linsky.
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
Eye-Catchers
The Space Cadet provides well written commentary on the world of blogrolling. Click on the link to discover the explanation behind dubbing blogrolling as a "popularity list." Careful filtering has also given some great links for exploring the depths of space.
The Big Stick is a realistic layout of the consequences of war that are not broadcast. The site provides links to soldier's blogs, some coming directly from deployment locations. Although the truth is sometimes painful to read, the mental highs and lows of the soldiers are valuable in bringing a personal side to the war, even for those who are not familiar with what lies behind the headlines.
A site to see for informative links is The Cynthia Chronicles . One particular link that caught my interest led to the e-learning centre, a site presenting theories of distance education, including the disadvantages and advantages to the learning method. As someone who is new to this type of learning, I found myself in agreement with points from both sides.
The Space Cadet provides well written commentary on the world of blogrolling. Click on the link to discover the explanation behind dubbing blogrolling as a "popularity list." Careful filtering has also given some great links for exploring the depths of space.
The Big Stick is a realistic layout of the consequences of war that are not broadcast. The site provides links to soldier's blogs, some coming directly from deployment locations. Although the truth is sometimes painful to read, the mental highs and lows of the soldiers are valuable in bringing a personal side to the war, even for those who are not familiar with what lies behind the headlines.
A site to see for informative links is The Cynthia Chronicles . One particular link that caught my interest led to the e-learning centre, a site presenting theories of distance education, including the disadvantages and advantages to the learning method. As someone who is new to this type of learning, I found myself in agreement with points from both sides.
Saturday, October 18, 2003
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
Media and Wartime
A Research Proposal
Elizabeth Nielsen
As an American who values our freedom and a loyalist to our country, I find myself torn between when to tune in and out of the media frenzy that occurs during wartime. It is a difficult and personal battle, one that is fought between me and the plethora of news resources that exist. My personal claim in the current war, besides being a proud American, is that I am also married to an active duty Army Captain. Carrying both of these titles is what has brought me to my current conundrum of when to determine how much information is too much, and what pieces on the effects of war haven’t been highlighted enough.
Throughout this research project I hope to discover answers to questions I have formulated while trying to digest the influx of wartime media coverage. How far can censorship be stretched in regards to a public need to know basis of war? What are the determining factors of that basis? Who determines them and how? Has the race between networks to be the first to deliver new alerts outrun the importance of accuracy? How are some effects of war chosen to be covered more extensively over others? How often is footage repeated? Other than the obvious introduction of cable and internet, how has media expanded to cover war news since WWI? Have media ethics and practices remained the same, or have some been lost, or added? Where is the line drawn between government secrecy and public demand for further knowledge? Has more media access been granted by the government because of public demand for information?
Some key words that have introduced me to some informative and well structured websites are:
a) Wartime Media
b) Wartime Censorship
c) Frontline Reporting
d) Media Wartime Role
e) Wartime Chronicles
f) Media Tactics of Wartime
The websites that I have explored thus far have been:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/mediamatters/302/resources.html
This site is a leader in this topic, providing several useful links that assist in furthering research. Those websites are:
http://aaupnet.org/news/bfu/mediwar/list.html
The Association of American University Press page provides a search tool that presents a list on “Books in the News.” A request on the media during wartime provides a list of roughly thirty book titles on the topic along with a detailed synopsis of each. There is also a resource link available to converse with media associates on the issue and gain perspective of their work.
http://www.fair.org
This particular web site is good for the flip side of the argument for more or less media wartime coverage. The organization is run by supporters of the first amendment who are against censorship. They “encourage the public to…become media activists rather than passive consumers of news.” The site also provides a link titled Iraq and the Media, leading to several articles printed on the topic.
http://www.usnewsclassroom.com/resources/activities/war_reporting/index.html
This site provides a valuable timeline of media coverage from WWI all the way up to the War on Terrorism. Each section gives a bulleted list of major historical media events during each covered war era; these events are also categorized under Government Censorship, Technology Used by Media, and Danger to Media.
A Research Proposal
Elizabeth Nielsen
As an American who values our freedom and a loyalist to our country, I find myself torn between when to tune in and out of the media frenzy that occurs during wartime. It is a difficult and personal battle, one that is fought between me and the plethora of news resources that exist. My personal claim in the current war, besides being a proud American, is that I am also married to an active duty Army Captain. Carrying both of these titles is what has brought me to my current conundrum of when to determine how much information is too much, and what pieces on the effects of war haven’t been highlighted enough.
Throughout this research project I hope to discover answers to questions I have formulated while trying to digest the influx of wartime media coverage. How far can censorship be stretched in regards to a public need to know basis of war? What are the determining factors of that basis? Who determines them and how? Has the race between networks to be the first to deliver new alerts outrun the importance of accuracy? How are some effects of war chosen to be covered more extensively over others? How often is footage repeated? Other than the obvious introduction of cable and internet, how has media expanded to cover war news since WWI? Have media ethics and practices remained the same, or have some been lost, or added? Where is the line drawn between government secrecy and public demand for further knowledge? Has more media access been granted by the government because of public demand for information?
Some key words that have introduced me to some informative and well structured websites are:
a) Wartime Media
b) Wartime Censorship
c) Frontline Reporting
d) Media Wartime Role
e) Wartime Chronicles
f) Media Tactics of Wartime
The websites that I have explored thus far have been:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/mediamatters/302/resources.html
This site is a leader in this topic, providing several useful links that assist in furthering research. Those websites are:
http://aaupnet.org/news/bfu/mediwar/list.html
The Association of American University Press page provides a search tool that presents a list on “Books in the News.” A request on the media during wartime provides a list of roughly thirty book titles on the topic along with a detailed synopsis of each. There is also a resource link available to converse with media associates on the issue and gain perspective of their work.
http://www.fair.org
This particular web site is good for the flip side of the argument for more or less media wartime coverage. The organization is run by supporters of the first amendment who are against censorship. They “encourage the public to…become media activists rather than passive consumers of news.” The site also provides a link titled Iraq and the Media, leading to several articles printed on the topic.
http://www.usnewsclassroom.com/resources/activities/war_reporting/index.html
This site provides a valuable timeline of media coverage from WWI all the way up to the War on Terrorism. Each section gives a bulleted list of major historical media events during each covered war era; these events are also categorized under Government Censorship, Technology Used by Media, and Danger to Media.
Thursday, September 18, 2003
A first, perhaps the forerunner.
