|
|
AMERICA’S BIASED VIEW REGARDING
INTERNATIONAL NEWS: IRAQ
By Jessica Tara
Smith
It was almost two months ago when President George W. Bush gave Iraq’s Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq or face “the full force and might” of the American military.“The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities,” said Bush. “So we will rise to ours.”
On March 20, despite world-wide protests and a nation divided on whether to support war in Iraq or not, the United States launched a pre-dawn missile attack on what the government called strategic targets of military importance in Iraq.
As the war went underway, a deeper ridge was drawn between many European nations and those who opposed war. Those who were uncertain as to whether they were in favor of the war or not still could not make a decision.
“I had positions before but both sides don’t seem that great,” said Kate Graham, a Marist College Student.
“The hidden agenda in the war is very disturbing,” said Graham. “American’s were confused about it at first because he [Bush] didn’t explain it all.”
“Personally, I am against the war,” said Rahul Narayan, a student from Great Britain. “Because I feel that the west has no right to interfere in the matters of the world, and they have no right to be the policemen of the world so to speak.”
United States-led forces gained control of Iraqi capital Baghdad on April 9 and soon after Saddam Hussein’s hometown, Tikrit, was secured on April 15. The Pentagon called an end to the major fighting in Iraq. They then began to withdraw a number troops, warships, and aircraft from the region.
People today reflect back on the war in Iraq and are questioning the ethics of the journalists in the field and the objectivity with which the war was covered by journalists embedded in the American military. For many American’s, their main news source was that of American televised news broadcasts.
Those In other countries had access to not only their country’s news networks but to that of America as well and noticed the differences between the way news of the war effort in Iraq was covered.
“I have some access to ABC and CBS News coverage, a bit of Fox, and a fair amount of BBC World,” said Peter, a journalist reporting and living in Shantou, China. “No one has mentioned a fact of most wars: more civilians die in wars than soldiers.”“Smart bombs can be dumbly directed,” said Scott Simon, a NPR commentator. “There are people in Iraq who live across the street from army bases, presidential palaces and government ministries.”
“We also know his [Hussein’s] regime has placed military facilities in civilian neighborhoods,” said Simon.
In mid-April, Chief news executive of CNN, Eastern Jordan, told NPR commentator Scott Simon about the fate of a number of Iraqi’s who worked for or furnished information to CNN’s Baghdad news bureau. These Iraqi’s were imprisoned, tortured and murdered by the Iraqi government and security police.
One woman who phoned in information to the bureau was dismembered by Iraqi security police who then returned her remains to her family in a plastic bag. CNN never reported these events so as to maintain their bureau in Baghdad believing it would benefit American’s to know about the events occurring in Iraq.
One may wonder if American’s would have been better informed if CNN had instead closed their bureau and reported to American’s the reasons why. The reasons could have shown more vividly the atrocities committed under Saddam’s regime to maintain censorship.
American news broadcasts also neglected to report on many of the Iraqi casualties in the war, placing more emphasis in broadcasting images of soldiers giving children candy, Iraqi soldiers happily surrendering to their army, and Iraqis joyfully destroying relics of Hussein’s crushed regime.
Little attention was given to two young children that were killed in the village of Nazarea, Iraq by US Marines. The children were in a mini-van with nine adults. When the mini-van failed to stop at a road block that the marines set up in an attempt to prevent suicide attacks the Marines opened fire reports Bob Edwards on NPR’s Morning Edition.
“There is a sharp contrast between what I am seeing on Italian TV and what is on CNN/BBC,” said Michelle Schoenung, an American journalist living and working in Italy. “CNN has its theme music, and its pictures of U.S. soldiers giving out candy to jubilant Iraqi children. Italian TV shows dead Iraqi children. Oh, and plenty of pictures of the dead and captured American soldiers.”
With about 500 American news people embedded in combat units in Iraq, a new ethics in journalism has begun to emerge, said NPR news correspondent Daniel Schorr. The news media is questioning what is appropriate to show and what to withhold. The most controversial subject of reporting that has risen in the field is whether to show or withhold images of dead American soldiers on American news broadcasts.
In one instance of this matter, a dozen American soldiers were captured near a Euphrates river bridge. The Arabian news network, Al- Jazeera, broadcast the tapes of the soldiers dead and others being interrogated.
American networks withheld the tapes due to Pentagon requests and out of regard of relatives of the soldiers not yet aware of what happened.
“If anchormen and others in the media have viewed it [the tapes], why can’t the average citizen?” said Matt Drudge on his website soon after the incident.
For those American’s who were able to watch international news coverage, or read articles on the war from other countries, they believed that America’s news coverage was lacking.
“I watched a few Al-Jazeera things here and there,” said Michael Meyers, a Marist College Student, “Coverage of protests on RNN and such. I was a war junky.”
Regarding America’s news coverage of the American and British occupation of Iraq “I think it was biased,” said Meyers.
“I think the media is afraid to speak out against the government,” said Meyers. “I think showing the war in real time was a good thing, but it was a tactic to keep us from paying attention to war coverage from other countries that were talking smack about us. I'd rather see that than see us waltz through Iraq.”
Some American’s are very critical of the white house press secretary Ari Fleicher as well.
“He told the press what Bush wanted them to hear,” said Meyers.
“I get a lot of people sending me articles so fairly often. Random articles from other countries,” said Kate Graham. “It’s interesting to see what other countries say about it other than what our country says about it.”
Graham said she believed that televised news was far more biased than other news media.
“Watch as we take down the statue and they cheer for us,” said Graham. “Nevermind about the innocent people we killed.”
Still, “I’m glad the people in Iraq aren’t under Saddam anymore,” said Graham. “I’m not sure how much better it is for them than it is for us.”
England, an ally and major help for the US in gaining control of Iraq from Hussein’s regime, has been very opposed to the war from the start. Their war coverage has been divided into pro-war tabloids and anti-war news coverage.
“The streets of London -- and the European street as a whole --were crowded and angry,” said Sylvia Poggioli, who has been reporting from Europe. “All polls showed that the vast majority of people throughout Europe, "old" and "new," were opposed to the war.”
Narayan said that most British people don’t want to be at war. Many protests were held in streets, cities and towns across the nation before and during the British and American invasion of Iraq.
Prime Minister Tony Blair has also lost a lot of popularity. Narayan doesn’t think that Blair will be re-elected in the next election year.
Additionally, he and many other British believe that England is “getting involved just to appease the state because if we [England] don’t, then people would’ve pointed fingers at us like they [Americans] did with France.”
It might have been part of Blair’s motivation to side with Bush said Narayan.
Many Europeans are upset about America’s disregard of the United Nations weapons inspections and movement to find a peaceful solution other than to invade Iraq.
“The U.N. inspectors haven’t found anything,” said Narayan, “and the U.S. ignored the UN and if the US doesn’t find any chemical plants or whatever, it pretty much shows how pointless the US’s involvement in Iraq was.”
“I have watched a little American news,” said Ewa Wychorska, an English professor in Poland. “I thought it showed mainly the American viewpoint of the war and didn’t cover enough of global reactions to the war and also censored a lot of news that might not have supported the stance American officials wanted Americans to have.
American news has been delinquent in international news coverage in other areas of news as well. This ranges from giving more adequate coverage of the global protests before and during the war in Iraq asking for a peaceful alternative to neglecting to give sufficient coverage to the Bolivia versus American-based company Bechtel conflict.
America’s news coverage has been primary centered to the mainland and to news that interests American’s directly.
The events of September 11, though, show that America is not as isolated a nation as we think it is. More attention needs to be given to events that are happening around the world and such events must be met with the objectivity and honesty that is expected of journalists. By giving more attention to the world around us, American’s can be more considerate, open-minded and willing to recognize the views and conditions of other nations who are trying to get out attention.