Restricting the Press During Times of War

Troop movement, suicide bombing and civilian casualties all delivered to your home in a continuous digital stream coming live from the war front. With new cutting edge technology, this is the reality facing the American people today. This allows for a more educated and better informed public. When the cameras are turned on there is no limit to the images it can capture. The question is simple, how much of the wartime reality should the press be granted access to?

The question is not a new one, it has been around since the Revolutionary War, but with the enhancement of technology the question has grown in significance and has become more extensive. According to Mark Dennis, the rise can be credited to the Persian Gulf War, "During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the news media - a pillar of the American democratic system - were constrained by government censorship and exclusionary tactics. These events created exceptional tensions between the two institutions and generated a heated discourse on the role of the media in wartime." While seditions and other similar restrictions are not new, they have never been completely justified, or completely unwarranted during times of international conflict.

Stories are told of the horrors and casualties of war, but the press seems determined to keep the American people informed of every single detail no matter how filled with violence. This unfiltered content could greatly hinder current and future war efforts. Restriction free coverage of war would most certainly be entailed by the visual presence of violence, which will most definitely have an effect on the American people. By reporting every detail the press runs the risk of compromising troop position and operations. When left unchecked during times of war, journalist have shown a tendency to knowingly endanger their collogues and themselves.

One of the most common arguments used in support of restricting the press during times of war is protection of American people from the harsh reality of war. Protecting the American people from reaching a thorough and complete understanding of the events of such a horrendous nature is not a new idea. Experts advised against the continued airing of the planes crashing into the twin towers saying that repeated exposure to the tragic events would only breed anger. The effects of repeated exposure to televised violence are well documented and wide spread. A study conducted by Paul M. Haridakis, found just how wide spread and diverse the effects of repeated exposure to violence can be. "Although not all effects of televised violence are necessarily negative, it has been asserted that exposure to media violence can lead to a number of adverse effects, such as imitation arousal desensitization seeing violence as acceptable; decreased faith in others, fear, and distorted perceptions of actual crime and violence; and priming of violent constructs in memory." While the majority of the television reporting does not contain explicit violence, often times showing the effects can be just as disturbing.

Others contradict Mr. Haridakis findings saying that the effects that violence has on viewers depends on the context it is presented. According to W. James Potter and Stacy Smith in a study published in the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, "Key to this chain of reasoning is the context in which violence is portrayed on television. Contextual factors in portrayals cue viewers about how that action is to be perceived and hence interpreted." There is reason to believe that in the context of news, the violence of war would not have the effect as described by Mr. Haridakis and his associates. Like an over heard portion of conversation, things work out better when the proper context is applied to the situation.

Still the others insist that the public has the right to know, and that right outweighs the numerous consequences of repeated exposure to violence. They maintain that what little information is given to the press is watered down and made for television. Many believe that the First Amendment guarantee of the freedom of the press and the fourteenth Amendment guarantee to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness give the American people an inherent right to know, regardless of content. They contended that limiting the press during times a war is censorship and denies the American people their right to know. Their contentions have been supported by research. A study published in the Columbia Journalism Review found that, "We sought to examine whether television, with its extensive coverage of terrorism, contributed to a culture of fear. We found that the young adults in our sample did not exhibit a high degree of faith in others. However, these young adults, contrary to what we expected, were not fearful and generally felt safe, despite the almost around-the-clock coverage of terrorist acts and the war on terrorism." Coverage of war on terrorism seems to have little effect on how the majority of Americans feel about their safety. With the horrors of war how could this be?

The American Government has a history of trying to protect their citizens from the horrors of war. The government has never been hesitant to put a positive spin on the negative fall outs of war. The Second World War is a prime example of such a spin. George H. Roeder Jr. explains, "Photographs published during the war created the impression that American bombs, bullets, and artillery shells killed only enemy soldiers. Pictures of young, elderly, and female victims always ended up in the files of censored images. So did photographs of the residents in allied and occupied countries killed in traffic accidents involving military vehicles. Wartime necessities often required weary soldiers to rush these vehicles through unfamiliar terrain. Investigators visually recorded the numerous casualties that resulted. Authorities censored all the documents they produced, such as a poignant photograph showing a little Italian girl killed by an army truck after American troops occupied the southern part of her country." The censorship prevented the American public from witnessing the by products that cost American soldiers and innocent bystanders their lives.

According to Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel of The New York Times, Americans are not allowed to see the full effect of war. They go on to state that reporters are unable to paint a truly realistic picture of warfare, "Reporters are rarely allowed to be with American troops in the war zones, where they can see for themselves what is happening. We know little firsthand about the risks our soldiers are taking, how well they are equipped and supported and whether they are well led. We know almost nothing about standards of conduct being applied in this new kind of warfare." Even if the press were granted full access to war zones and satisfy the Americans people's right to know, will they need or even want to know what the press is presenting to them. Even today with the current restrictions on the press, public interest groups are regularly protesting the graphic images that are constantly streaming over the air waves.

Some fear that increased uncensored coverage of war in Iraq would lessen the support for the cause and weaken the war effort. Some even have accused the press of using what freedom they have to purposely try to weaken the war effort. Norman Podhoretz tried to explain the accusation in his article The Panic Over Iraq saying, "Obviously, then, the reporters and their editors in the mainstream media have been working overtime to show how badly things have been going for us in Iraq . Meanwhile, the op-ed pundits, the academic theorists, and the armchair generals have chimed in with analyses blaming it all on the incompetence of the President and his appointees. By now, the proposition that the aftermath of the invasion has been marked by one disastrous blunder after another is accepted without question or qualification by just about everyone: open opponents of the Bush Doctrine eager to prove that they were right to denounce the invasion; Democrats whose main objective is to discredit the Bush administration; and erstwhile supporters who have lost heart and are looking for a way to justify their desertion." The affect of such coverage can be clearly seen in the steady decline in support for the war in Iraq as well as the decline in President Bush's approval ratings.

Bill Kovach and Tom Rosentiel insist that this is not the case. They contend just the opposite that public opinion influences the media's agenda stating, "It's interesting that public enthusiasm for the press's performance began to decline even while the press was overwhelmingly supporting the government." They continue to be adamant concerning the effect that a lack of censorship would have on support for the war effort saying, "History suggests that the more government restricts press coverage, the less the public is likely to sustain support of a war effort. Pictures of body bags on television did not lead to public disaffection with Vietnam: there were few if any body bags on television. The problem was the government's deceitful accounting of the war, which led to what popularly became known as the credibility gap." The American people have a hard time supporting events when they feel that they are being lied to. Censorship has the potential to leave a more bitter taste in the mouths of the American people than the truth of about the War in Iraq.

If Kovach and Rosentiel hypothesis correctly, there is also reasons to believe that the American people are not as concerned about images of war as one would tend to believe. Time reporter James Poniewozik suggests that the American media as a whole has a limited interest in matters of war, "And unlike in the Vietnam War, images of battlefield dead, even when available, rarely make it into the American media, in part because of concerns that they would seem intrusive or distasteful. We will spend millions for pictures of Angelina Jolie's baby, but we hesitate to part with a dime of audience capital for the biggest story of the age." If the media is more concerned about reporting the diaper brand used by Angelina Jolie's baby then what real effect could they have on the war in Iraq? This apparent lack of concern most likely is a simple anomaly rather than a concrete correlation. Nonetheless, it is disturbing. With suicide bombings, gun fights in Iraq and a tyrant dictator with a nuclear weapon program in North Korea, it is worrisome that the American people are more in tune to the lives of celebrities than the threats that face our country and our way of life. It is probable that pop-culture will always have its place in our society and will overshadow other sections of the media, even in times of war.

According to recent polls Americans are still concerned with Iraq as the November elections approach, but they are more concerned with the home front, more specifically the education of American children. In an article published in PR Newswire explains the Americans people's choice of priorities, "With national elections in less than a month, elected officials have been criticized for the underperformance of public schools. Americans believe that current elected officials are not doing enough to ensure that all children receive a quality public education. And recognizing that public education has not been at the forefront in the 2006 election campaigns, 62 percent of voters say that candidates are not focusing enough on the issue of public education." When distanced from the war, Americans will carry on with their lives and focus on the things that matter to them that are in close proximity to their homes.

What is the worst that could happen if journalists were to be granted unlimited access to the war zones? In recent years, the risk of troop position and operations, not to mention the war effort in general being compromised have come into the light and giving a new prospective to the question. The most recent occurrence that comes to mind is that of Geraldo Rivera who essentially drew a map in the sand during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Scott Collins described the incident shortly thereafter in the Hollywood Reporter, saying, "Rivera, during a report broadcast Monday morning, drew a map in the sand designed to show viewers his relative position in Iraq and where troops might move next. The correspondent has been traveling with the Army's 101st Airborne Division, which is reportedly near the central Iraqi city of Najaf." While many believe Rivera's actions to be little more than an isolated incident, it became a black eye on the face of imbedded journalism. Not so Collins also states that freelance writer Philip Smucker was ejected from the Iraqi War zone by the Pentagon, even before Rivera, for allegedly revealing the location of a Marine unit during an interview with CNN.

Questions have arisen concerning Geraldo Rivera integrity due to his history as a tabloid journalist and his conduct on his former television show. Deborah Potter of the American Journalism Review gives an insight on Rivera career leading up to being disembedded saying, "True enough. After launching his broadcast career almost 30 years ago with a groundbreaking expose of abuse at a New York state mental institution, Rivera's reputation as a journalist quickly declined as he loaded story after story with his personal views. By the mid-'80s, he was staging silly TV tricks on syndicated specials, like opening Al Capone's empty vault, and hosting his own tabloid show complete with flying chairs that left him with a broken nose." She goes on to commentate on Rivera's previous work as a war correspondent while in Afghanistan, "So it shouldn't have surprised anyone when Rivera's reports from Afghanistan were as much about him as the war." Making a self-serving, egotistical self promoter like Rivera the poster child for the embedded journalist is a poor representation of the majority of journalist and is an injustice to the journalism community.

Beyond Rivera's blatant disregard for troop safety and the terms set forth by the government at the onset of being embedded with 101st Airborne Division and the alleged transgression of Philip Smucker, the embedded journalist program experienced limited if any other breach in troop safety. At one point there were over 700 embedded journalists with United States Forces around the world since that time the number has dropped considerably. Even at the height of the embedded journalist program, the amount of disciplinary action deemed necessary by the Pentagon was minimal with the noticeable exception of Geraldo Rivera. Thanks to the embedded journalist program, the American people were allowed to gain a comprehensive and more thorough understanding of the War in Iraq. In a sense the American people could witness the birth of Iraqi's freedom firsthand and view up close what it cost to be free.

This view is shared and endorsed by many in the news community. One of the most outspoken supporters of the program has been Bob Arnot a journalist of the Columbia Journalist Review and former embedded journalist. He praised the Pentagon for making the war more accessible to journalist so that they could bring Americans a clear picture of America at war, he writes, "The embedding process is the best single move the American military has ever made in its relations with the press. The Pentagon went from one blunder after another - the 1991 gulf war, Grenada, Panama - to placing us inside the story. Television pictures showed why the northward advance was at times slow. Viewers at home experienced the sandstorms. You witnessed NBC's David Bloom out there getting blown around by the sand and not being able to see his hand in front of his face. In the middle of a prolonged live firefight, viewers could observe for themselves how strong the resistance was, and how the U.S. forces were trying to protect their soldiers and marines." Journalists seem to be in favor of unlimited access to the war zones in times of conflict. The ability to obtain the information first hand, onsite appears to be near and dear to hearts of journalist like Mr. Arnot, but at what price?

Should journalist be allowed to risk their own lives just to satisfy the American people's right to know? If they should or should not, many journalists are jumping at the chance to risk their lives in the pursuit of exposing the latest news stories. The dangers faced by journalists both embedded and unilateral, which is journalist who travel separate and independent of the any unit, are real. According to the New York Times fifty-four journalist were killed in Iraq in 2004, the deadliest year for news media in a decade. Committee to Protect Journalists reported "At least 22 journalists were kidnapped in Iraq, the group said. Of those, Enzo Baldoni, an Italian freelance journalist, was the only one killed." Despite these intimidating statistics journalist are still more than willing to risk their lives to get a story. The government of the United States of America passes statutes to protect public safety regularly. Drug abuse and reckless behavior have all been addressed by the legislature due to their tendencies to endanger human life. It is not unreasonable to apply these same principles to prevent journalist throwing caution to the wind.

Many journalists have received aid from their employers who have worked to guarantee their safety. John Burns, of the New York Times, spoke of the some of the measures that are being taken by some news outlets to assure their people safety, "We are very well rewarded for what we do. And I have to say in the case of The New York Times, at a time of some stringency in the economics of newspaper journalism in America, The New York Times, and the same is true of The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the bigger papers, have been unstinting in their willingness to buy us as much protection as we could possibly have. An armored car, of which we have several, costs $300,000." Larger media outlets furnished proper protection to their employees, but smaller outlets are forced to depend on courageous journalist who may or may not have a death wish.

The journalism community is not without courage, many journalist have given their lives in the in an effort to bring the news to the American people. Melissa Ludtke spoke with Anne Nivat journalist about the courage need to succeed in the field while on assignment in war zones, "For me courage is when journalists should be able to go to the field, stay on the field, and report from the field as long as something is going on there. Independently, if we talk about a war, on neither side, which means not to be embedded or to stay in a hotel for journalists, but to try to make their way through the civil population. In other words, to blend in. Courage in journalism means not to be afraid of going back and back to the same place, trying to attract the public's attention to forgotten wars, such as the war in Chechnya, to mention the war I know the best and the war that is completely forgotten by the mainstream media." Nivat affection for the courage of her collogues is very endearing, but being brave does not merit their disregard of safety. Their bravery is admirable, but being willing to do risk ones life does not make it right.

Restrictions on the press are inevitable, especially during times of war. They are logical and in some cases necessary. Don Pember and Clay Calvert write, "Some government secrecy is imperative to the protection of the nation and for successful prosecution of the war. Some censorship is not only justifiable, but needed." To assure the success of the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and future conflicts where ever they may be. The Government has and needs the power to restrict essential information from leaking to press. This is necessary for the protection of the troops, the war effort and to protect American lives, but the Government should not forget to keep the American people informed. Americans need to know where their hard earned tax dollars are going. Restrictions are necessary to save American troops and to win the wars, but the freedom of the press is necessary to win reelection. Which will win?