Iraq in the News: Positive Vs. Negative Coverage

Every time there is a tragedy or major event, it will be in the news for a few weeks, perhaps months. But what happens when the press stops covering the event? Is the issue non-existent, or worse, not important to the average citizen? In the recent months, America has had several tragedies, and they all seam to be phased out of the common media within a few weeks or months, when in reality, it is still a concern of many people.

Perhaps it is the belief of American news media agencies, such as Fox News Corporation or the Communist News Network that they will not attract viewers or readers if they continue to show depressing content. At the same time, many news organizations fail to show the "good" aspects of the War in Iraq.

Men and women of the United States Army, Marines, and Navy are positively contributing to the war, whether it is by helping children learn how to read, or rescuing innocent Iraqi citizens. The news media chooses to show the acts of violence that the soldiers are not proud of. No man, or woman, enjoys killing another human being. Killing another human being is not ethical, but neither was bombing the World Trade Center or killing thousands of Americans. The soldiers are simply doing their job, just as a receptionist answers phone calls.

There are two major ethical dilemmas in regards to the war in Iraq. Why do the media constantly focus on one event, i.e. the first days of the War in Iraq, then phase out their coverage? When is the last time Afghanistan was in the news, yet we have thousands of soldiers dying. The second issue with media coverage and the war in Iraq is why do the major networks only choose to show the negative elements of the war?

These ethical issues will be analyzed via the Potter Box, which is a series step that will guide the user to making an ethical decision making. The first step is to define the dilemma, and then one must identify the stakeholders. The third step entails creating a system which ensures accountability.

The fourth step is to apply the moral development theory, which as defined by Dr. Kristen Alley Swain of the Dept. of Journalism & Media Studies from the University of South Florida. The first section of the theory entails evaluating risks and rewards directly associated with the analyst. Then, determine the royalties, and determine interpersonal expectations. The next step is to evaluate the current organizational structure and define the values. The fifth step is to conduct a cost-benefit analysis, and then deliver a universal response.

The fifth step is to compare alternative options, and then the sixth step entails implementing the decision, and lastly develops a policy and monitors the consequences of the decision.

In the cross cultural comparison of the media coverage in the war in Iraq, Aday et. al. compares the five major news networks (FOX, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN) and Al Jazeera. Aday differentiates Western journalism versus Eastern journalism and cites objectivity as the main difference. Patriotic journalism was often used during World War II, where the journalists felt like they were part of the team of infantry.

In the Iraq war journalists were condemned to certain areas, and they were not allowed outside certain boundaries.. The army acts as if journalists are a distraction, and they are often unwelcomed. It is important to note that during World War II there was a much more supportive tone. There are several reasons for the change in attitude within the army. Journalists have the ability to show their viewers what they want them to see, everybody has a hidden agenda.

In many ways the war in Iraq is similar to the Vietnam War, which was the first battle in which the media had full access to the battlefield. Aday cites one reason is the fact that the media cites the White House as the most reliable source. However, every administration has their own agenda. The best objective tactic would be to get the news from a foreign correspondent. Although bias will still be present based on the networks agenda, the public is not going to be subjected to the bias of the current administration.

One of the key aspects to consider is the validity of the claims the White House makes, up until the Bush regime, many of the statements made by officials could be considered the truth. Bush was able to undermine the American press. This is seen through the false claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

In an article by Norman Solomon, he cites CNN and Headline News as the most straightforward and objective, and wishes to bring their coverage to local television. It is with this information that one can assume local network television is more corrupt than national news.

In Solomon's article, Vice President Cheney claims that the media industry is becoming monopolized and is driven by a few white rich men. For the most part, this is true, with Viacom, Fox News Corp, and Time Warner dominating the industry. The same though is true for the white house. Cheney failed to mention that this works in his favor: the news agencies get their information from very few white house officials. Bush can easily control a few people rather than a large group of them.

One thing to consider when dealing with coverage is what did the news networks have on film, and what did they choose to air? According to an article by Michael Pfau, when the United States first went to war with Iraq (the first phase of Project Iraqi Freedom) over six hundred journalists were alongside the soldiers, at an alarming cost of $100 million to the news networks. As the war progressed, journalists were then more of a problem than anything else.

When assessing the loyalties of all who are involved in covering the war, the journalists should only be loyal to themselves and their viewers. In the end, the networks have the say of what is aired, so they should make every effort to have fair coverage of the scene. Yes, some journalists have a mission from the get-go, and they are only loyal to their network: they do not care about the American people. The best journalists are freelancers, who do not have any loyalties or written contracts with networks. Each network has their own agenda, and they edit all content to fit their mold.

There needs to be a system in place which ensures credibility and accountability to all parties. This is difficult because networks receive a plethora of feed; the problem is not the journalists, but the white rich men sitting in their offices. There should be a golden rule, for example, for every five minutes of negative coverage, there needs to be one minute of positive contribution being shown. There needs to be a uniform code of ethics for media coverage in a war that all entities adhere to.

There are several risks and rewards involved; the biggest risk is providing the American people with a false sense of reality. The reward in the end would be to show the families and loved ones of the soldiers that they are doing good things as well. Perhaps if more positive content is shown, more Americans would support the war.

There are many alternative options; the networks can choose to broadcast non-partisan stories from networks such as CNN, who are known for their straightforward approach. Perhaps networks could also use alternative media outlets, there are many out there. Sometimes being "different" in the industry is "frowned upon".

In an interview with Jean Wasp, Media Relations Coordinator for Sonoma State University she explained how one must be very careful when selecting events or stories to cover. She constantly gets e-mails from organizations wanting us to run a press release on their event. The truth is there is not enough time, and not all events deserve coverage. One must evaluate all events and create an organizational chart of what is important. Does the event fit into the overall goal and mission of the University?

Kant's Categorical Imperative is best used in the wartime media coverage. Kant sets up a list of items or things that should never be done, and then makes them universal law. The networks need to sit down and create universal laws, and a universal code of ethics they can all abide by. Mill's principle of utility works as well, but is difficult during a war, because Mill believes one must try and please everyone, and seek the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In conclusion, the best principle to use is the Judeo-Christian (or Adage) principle in which one tries to follow the "golden rule" and doing the most good for the most people. During war, it is difficult to please everyone, and simply does not happen (Riccihiardi).

There is not a right or wrong decision, but each decision has its own benefits and risks. What need to happen is there needs to be uniformity among the media networks. Television news is not about providing biased reporting, it is the opposite. What needs to happen is the people need to run the news stations, not rich white yuppies that are making six figure salaries each year for doing absolutely nothing. Rupert Murdoch comes to mind.

Each day as a society we are faced with ethical decisions, whether we buy a shirt made from slaves in South America, or spend the extra $10 and buy one made in America. The same applies to the war. What is filmed, and what is chosen to be on air is a substantial aspect of the media nobody looks at. Where does all that footage go? Why is it difficult to find the footage? Alternative media sources should not be one's only option.

The tone of the war changed throughout the years, those who were in support of the White House are no longer with them, and probably will never trust them again. It is the first time in years where the American people were deceived by their own government. For the first time, a source such as a white house official, or even our president, may not be the truth.

Works Cited

Aday, Sean, Steven Livingston, and Maeve Hebert. "Embedding the Truth: a Cross-Cultural Analysis of Objectivity and Television Coverage of the Iraq War." The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics os 10 (2005): 3-21. Academic Search Premier. EBISCO. Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. 12 Apr. 2007. Keyword: framing • war coverage • embedded journalists • bias.

Pfau, Michael, Michael Haigh, Mitchell Gettle, Michael Donnelly, Gregory Scott, Dana Warr, and Elaine Wittenberg. "EMBEDDING JOURNALISTS IN MILITARY COMBAT UNITS: IMPACT ON NEWSPAPER STORY FRAMES AND TONE." Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 81 (2004): 74-88. Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBISCO. Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. 12 Apr. 2007. Keyword: media AND war AND iraq.

Ricchiardi, Sherry. "Obstructed View." American Journalism Review os 39 (2007): 26-33. Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBISCO. Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. 12 Apr. 2007. Keyword: coverage AND war AND media.

Solomon, Norman. "Find More Like ThisBlaming the Media for Bad War News." Humanist 66 (2006): 35-36. Academic Search Premier. EBISCO. Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. 12 Apr. 2007. Keyword: war AND media AND negative AND coverage.