Do media know that war kills?
go to article

MEDIA WATCH BRIEFS
go to briefs

Pentagon threatens to kill
independent reporters in Iraq

By Fintan Dunne

Mar. 10— The Pentagon has threatened to fire on the satellite uplink positions of independent journalists in Iraq, according to veteran BBC war correspondent Kate Adie. In an interview with Irish radio, Adie said that, when questioned about the consequences of such potentially fatal actions, a senior Pentagon officer had said: “Who cares... They’ve been warned.” According to Adie, who twelve years ago covered the last Gulf War, the Pentagon attitude is “entirely hostile to the free spread of information.”

“I am enormously pessimistic of the chance of decent on-the-spot reporting, as the war occurs,” she told Irish national broadcaster Tom McGurk on the RTE1 Radio Sunday Show. Adie made the startling revelations during a discussion of media freedom issues in the likely upcoming war in Iraq. She also warned that the Pentagon is vetting journalists according to their stance on the war, and intends to take control of US journalists’ satellite equipment in order to control access to the airwaves. Another guest on the show, war author Phillip Knightley, reported that the Pentagon has also threatened that they “may find it necessary to bomb areas in which war correspondents are attempting to report from the Iraqi side.”

The show’s transcript follows: Guests include: Kate Adie, BBC; Phillip Knightley, author of The First Casualty, a history of war correspondents and propaganda; Chris Hedges, award winning human rights journalist; and former Irish Times Editor Connor Brady.

Tom McGurk: “ Now, Kate Adie, you join us from the BBC in London. Thank you very much for going to all this trouble on a Sunday morning to come and join us. I suppose you are watching with a mixture of emotions this war beginning to happen, because you are not going to be covering it.”

Kate Adie: “Oh, I will be. And what actually appalls me is the difference between twelve years ago and now. I’ve seen a complete erosion of any kind of acknowledgment that reporters should be able to report as they witness.

“The Americans... and I’ve been talking to the Pentagon... take the attitude which is entirely hostile to the free spread of information. …I was told by a senior officer in the Pentagon that if uplinks — that is, the television signals out of... Baghdad, for example — were detected by any planes ...electronic media... mediums of the military above Baghdad... they’d be fired down on. Even if they were journalists ... ‘Who cares!’ said...[inaudible] .”

McGurk: “...Kate ...sorry Kate ...just to underline that. Sorry to interrupt you. Just to explain for our listeners. Uplinks is where you have your own satellite telephone method of distributing information.”

Adie: “The telephones and the television signals.”

McGurk: “And they would be fired on?”

Adie: “Yes. They would be ‘targeted down,’ said the officer.”

McGurk: “Extraordinary!”

Adie: “Shameless. He said.. ‘Well... they know this ...they’ve been warned.’ This is threatening freedom of information, before you even get to a war.

“The second thing is there was a massive news blackout imposed. In the last Gulf War, where I was one of the pool of correspondents with the British Army. We effectively had a very, very light touch when it came to any kind of censorship. We were told that anything which was going to endanger troops’ lives which we understood we shouldn’t broadcast. But other than that, we were relatively free. Unlike our American colleagues, who immediately left their pool, after about 48 hours, having just had enough of it.

“And this time the Americans are: a) Asking journalists who go with them, whether they are... have feelings against the war. And therefore if you have views that are skeptical, then you are not to be acceptable.

“Secondly, they are intending to take control of the Americans technical equipment ...those uplinks and satellite phones I was talking about. And control access to the airwaves. And then on top of everything else, there is now a blackout (which was imposed, during the last war, at the beginning of the war), ....ordered by one Mr. Dick Cheney, who is in charge of this.

“I am enormously pessimistic of the chance of decent on-the-spot reporting, as the war occurs. You will get it later.”

Source: GuluFuture.com

back to top

Do media know that war kills?

Mar. 14— Despite daily reports about the “showdown” with Iraq, Americans hear very little from mainstream media about the most basic fact of war: people will be killed and civilian infrastructure will be destroyed, with devastating consequences for public health long after the fighting stops. Since the beginning of the year, according to a search of the Nexis database (1/1/03-3/12/03), none of the three major television networks’ nightly national newscasts — ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, or NBC Nightly News — have examined in detail what long-term impact war will have on humanitarian conditions in Iraq. They’ve also downplayed the immediate civilian deaths that will be caused by a US attack. The closest thing to a report on the likely humanitarian impact to appear this year on the nightly newscasts was a Jan. 23 CBS Evening News story about the mood in Iraq. Noting that “many [Iraqis] are genuinely scared” of war, the report stated that “almost half” of the country “would starve without government food handouts.” But CBS’s report shifted responsibility for any humanitarian disaster away from the US, suggesting that what Iraqis fear “perhaps even more than an American military attack” is that domestic “hatred and revenge could tear [Iraq] apart” in the aftermath. The networks’ failure to integrate humanitarian concerns into their war coverage is especially striking in light of the numerous humanitarian and relief agencies that have issued urgent warnings about the impending crisis. Human Rights Watch, for instance, issued a 25-page briefing paper (2/13/03) warning of a “humanitarian disaster” impacting hundreds of thousands of people if the US attacks Iraq. ABC, CBS, and NBC did not cover HRW’s findings.

Nor did they cover the announcement made (also 2/13/03) by the United Nations’ undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs, Kenzo Oshima, that as many as 10 million people might need food assistance during and after an Iraq war, 50 percent of Iraq’s population might be without potable water, and that between 600,000 and 1.45 million people might become refugees and asylum seekers.

Also unreported on ABC, CBS, and NBC were the internal UN estimates revealed in leaked documents publicized by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq and the Center for Economic and Social Rights. The UN predicted that 30 percent of Iraq’s children under five “would be at risk of death from malnutrition” in the event of war (CASI press release, 2/17/03), and that 500,000 people could “require medical treatment… as a result of direct or indirect injuries,” with potentially 100,000 Iraqi civilians wounded “and another 400,000 hit by disease after the bombing of water and sewage facilities and the disruption of food supplies” (London Guardian, 1/29/03).

It’s worth noting that the silence on ABC was not total; it did address some humanitarian issues on Nightline (2/24/03). In a segment about the “aftermath” of war, Nightline reported that “millions of Iraqis will need food, fresh water and medical care” and that “tens of thousands” of refugees may be created. But the central question posed was: “Who will take care of them? The American military or private humanitarian groups?” Seen through Nightline’s lens, the main humanitarian problem would be the quandary confronting the US as it both attacks Iraq and attempts to relieve the devastation it wreaks there; as correspondent Chris Bury put it in his introduction, “how exactly does an invading force juggle its military and humanitarian hats?”

Reporter John Donovan presented valuable information about the potentially “catastrophic” impact of war, but bracketed this with a tortured attempt to suggest that the US would not be the real cause of civilian suffering: “And even if Saddam is the source of so many of the Iraqi people’s problems, very likely it’s the US the world would choose to blame.” Therefore, said Donovan, the US was developing a relief plan, because “it is in American interests” and because “it’s the right thing to do.”

What could charitably be called Nightline’s credulity was topped off by Donovan’s closer. Humanitarian assistance is necessary to ensure that the war will have a “positive impact,” he said, because “it is assumed that some Iraqi civilians, perhaps many, will be killed…. Not deliberately, but as a result of what is called collateral damage.”

Unfortunately, Nightline is not alone among major media outlets in asserting that civilian deaths can be considered accidental even if the Pentagon predicts them ahead of time and factors them into its battle plans; it’s a conceit that’s widespread in the mainstream press. NBC Nightly News, for instance, aired a story (2/19/03) about the Pentagon’s “growing worries” about civilian casualties, in which it reported that military officials predict that thousands of Iraqi civilians may “be killed entirely by accident in an intensive bombing campaign.” Correspondent Jim Miklaszewski offered details of the “devastating” air assault planned, and explained that “despite the most advanced technology” and “all the painstaking efforts the US military,” a large percentage of bombs “will stray off target, increasing the likelihood that civilians will die.” Of course, predicted deaths from an aerial bombardment of a major city cannot be said to come about “entirely by accident.” Civilian casualties also came up in an earlier NBC Nightly News report (2/10/03) about the financial costs of war. Reporter Campbell Brown raised the question of “human costs, casualty numbers impossible to pinpoint,” and addressed it with a soundbite from an academic analyst stating that “if there are going to be heavy civilian casualties, they’ll mainly be caused by the Iraqis.” Brown let this assertion stand without comment, and failed to contextualize it (with information about casualties from the Gulf War, for example, or about the people who can be expected to die as a result of damage to the public health infrastructure over the long term). Commendably, CBS Evening News aired one segment on the prospect of “door-to-door urban warfare” in Iraq (1/13/03) that took a more grounded approach. CBS’s Bryon Pitts reported that fighting in cities like Baghdad, “filled with women, children, and unarmed men,” would involve heavy casualties, both military and civilian. Offering a rare glimpse of an ordinary soldier’s criticism of the planned urban fighting, Pitts interviewed a private who said, “If it was up to me, I don’t want no part of it. You know, it’s too dangerous, too deadly.” There have been other scattered mentions of civilian deaths on the three network nightly newscasts. All made brief mention (3/3/03) of Iraq’s charges that US and British warplanes killed six civilians near Basra in early March. CBS and NBC (2/16/03) reported on the anniversary of the US destruction of the Amiriyah bomb shelter during the Gulf War, an attack which killed over 400 civilians. (CBS thoughtfully noted that “apart from the tragedy” involved, “the images of the civilian dead and wounded were a major public relations setback.”) All three have also done stories about peace activists volunteering as “human shields;” these stories necessarily alluded to the activists’ concerns about civilian casualties, but did not elaborate.

Overall, however, death and disaster have been discussed as troubling details rather than fundamental facts of war— unless media can blame Saddam Hussein. One segment on ABC News’ Good Morning America (2/20/03), for instance, focused on the evils that Hussein may wreak. ABC News reporter Claire Shipman opened with a strident emphasis on Hussein as “somebody who’s happy to kill his own people.” Explaining “what the Bush Administration most fears,” Shipman asserted that Hussein might “starve thousands of his own people, destroy their infrastructures, even cities in order to slow down US troops, and then blame the United States.” This remark was followed by a soundbite from a spokesperson from the Center for Strategic & International Studies asserting that Hussein “is very likely to try and commit some kind of humanitarian disaster” in the event of war. It’s important for journalists to investigate the Iraqi regime’s atrocities, but media must just as tirelessly investigate the US’s role in Iraq’s sufferings — and not merely as actions committed “by accident.” Journalists might remember, for example, that the US deliberately targeted Iraq’s water system during the Gulf War, even while predicting that this would lead to large-scale epidemics (The Progressive, 9/01). When media fail to acknowledge the hundreds of thousands of deaths that US policy has contributed to in Iraq, they obscure the plain fact that war is always, in its own right, a humanitarian disaster.

Source: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

back to top