Iraq war coverage questioned

If the possible war with Iraq becomes a reality, journalists will be among the reality of combat. But this coveted access will only exist on terms set by The Pentagon, raising questions about the relationship between the media and the government.\nIn most circumstances, media coverage links viewers to the government's activities, providing information the viewer could not obtain alone, said Mike Wagner, whose political science class, "Media Bias and the War on Terror," critiques this media coverage.\n"Most people don't wake up and think, 'Well, how am I going to hold my government accountable today,'" Wagner said. "They rely on the media to do that for them. They look to the media to keep them abreast of what's happening."\nIf any war in Iraq were to occur, journalists would be "embedded" with troops, meaning they would be on the frontlines with the troops, rather than observing the war from the sidelines. The U.S. First Marine Division has already set some rules of reporting the war. Some of these terms seek to protect the journalists, such as combat training. Other terms seek to protect national security, such as requiring journalists to gain approval from a field commander before any live footage can be broadcast, ensuring that combat secrets remain secrets. The division will also place further restrictions on the timing and use of communications equipment.\n"I worry about this on two levels," Bonnie Brownlee, associate dean of undergraduate studies in the School of Journalism, said. "One is journalists with the military. If they're just going with the military, then there are lots of places off the radar screen. The other is what happens to their reporting when it has to go through the military censors."\nWhile these embedded journalists might have the opportunity to witness a war through the eyes of a soldier, the media consumer must realize the circumstances that allow these first-hand accounts to exist, Paul Voakes, associate professor of journalism, said.\n"Objectivity is a difficult concept in the easiest of circumstances, and it's a much more difficult concept in war coverage," Voakes said. "The best way of achieving objectivity is looking at the totality of news coverage that one news organization can give. Now, if you are going to rely solely on your reports from embedded journalists, then (there will be) no objectivity. It's not going to happen."\nBecause the military has control over the information a reporter may broadcast, relying on embedded journalists may give a distorted view of reality.\n"There have been cynics that have called embedding a really, really cool looking (public relations) campaign," Voakes said. "I could understand how a battalion commander could say 'not now, not here, let's wait three hours,' but if he says 'not now, not here' for an extended period of time, then we're in a position of censorship dressed up."\nWagner also questioned the reliability of access.\n"It will be very interesting to see what kind of missions they get to go on," Wagner said. "Are they going on ones that are low risk with a high probability of success, or are they going on touchy, more dangerous missions?"\nHaving such a close relationship with soldiers in tense situations may also have some affect on what the reporter will report. Even without the censorship of the commanding officer, some journalists may face self-censorship, he said.\n"Reporters try to distance themselves from those situations and try to be as objective as possible," Wagner said. "But if you are living with people who are protecting you and potentially saving your life, it would certainly cross the reporter's mind about reporting something that could reflect very negatively on the people they're depending on for protection."\nIn this situation, self-censorship can be quite powerful, Voakes said.\n"At some point it's very likely that self-censorship can become such a strong force among journalists that censorship is no longer necessary," he said. "When you are living with and eating with these guys you get a very highly developed sense of what is appropriate for the public to know, what the military wants the public to know and when it wants them to know it."\nDespite all of the censorship and relationship issues, the embedded reporters will have access to a very human aspect of any potential war, without heavy political and philosophical considerations, Voakes said.\n"Embedded reporters certainly belong in the mix," he said. "It provides ears and eyes that have been much too uncommon in recent military action."\nThe view of the soldiers rather than a representative version will add perspective to the possible war, Wagner added.\n"If I were a reporter, I would like the increased access," he said. "I would like to get to talk to actual soldiers and not people speaking for the military or people speaking for the government."\nThe question of it remains important, and even with the preparation for war and the controls that will be placed upon journalists, the information may have the opposite effect of military propaganda.\n"Especially with the discontent in this country and the opposition to this war there will be a lot written back over here and a lot of questions about this reporting," Brownlee said. "It could very much feed an anti-war sentiment"