Activity 21, The Media's Performance
California's Senator Hiram Johnson stated during World War I that "the first casualty when war comes is truth." This statement has been true during every war since then and was particularly true during the Gulf War.
The military deceived the press by serving up contradictory or confusing figures about battle damage, and about the destruction of Iraqi targets. The most significant deception was the impression that a Marine landing was planned when in fact it was a means to convince Iraq that it had to deploy troops to block an invasion from the sea. As Pentagon press officer Pete Williams put it, "We were not trying to deceive the press. We were trying to fool Saddam Hussein." He said a Marine trial exercise was scheduled and the television reporters clamored to cover it.
A former State Department spokesman noted that "Our government is in the business of propaganda, which is not the same thing as lying, but definitely not the same thing as truth." The Pentagon-released pictures of precision-guided "smart" bombs going down chimneys of Iraqi targets left an impression that we rarely missed, but these were a small part of the total bomb load dropped in 43 days of aerial attacks. Some 82,000 tons of unguided bombs were dropped, and their accuracy rating was 25 percent, not the 90 percent of the smart bombs. Of 88,500 tons of bombs dropped, 70 percent missed their targets. That was not the impression left by the videotapes.
Of course, the censorship imposed by the American military was not the only censorship imposed during the war. Turkish state television barred scenes of anything hinting at U.S. bombing raids originating in that country. Saudi Arabia censored all foreign publications, and banned those with articles dealing with the Palestine Liberation Organization or Iraqi civilian bombing casualties. The newest U.S. ally, Syria, detained writers and intellectuals for expressing support for Iraq. France banned any pro-Iraqi publications and the BBC dropped a report on the export to Iraq of British-built super guns on the grounds that the tone was wrong. In Iraq, CNN reporter Peter Arnett was heavily restricted in what he could write or show. He was not allowed to show or discuss any military damage nor was he permitted to talk freely to ordinary citizens without a government escort. Israel placed restrictions on reporters regarding the effects of the damage caused by Iraqi Scud missiles.
Governments try to put the best face on their actions, try to hide embarrassing matters, mislead reporters if it serves their goals. In a free society, the press in its traditional role as witness and watchdog should ferret out as much fact as it can. In the euphoria that followed the Gulf War and with the tremendous public acclaim for the president and the military, these were not issues that the journalist could press, at least with any expectation of public support.
Governments have always censored reporters and it is likely that they always will. What was new in the Gulf War was the extent to which the military successfully spoofed the press until conditions permitted journalists to break away from those restrictions, and also the extent to which the new technologies spawned by satellite communications permitted the public to be a witness to the raw material of press coverage.
In many ways the war was not really televised. Most coverage was from hotels in Saudi Arabia or Baghdad. Rather than filming the action during the war, the coverage mainly consisted of talking heads telling about the war. These programs engaged in speculation, but conveyed little information about the war itself. The military supplied the news that came out of the gulf through videotapes and briefings. In this way, the military used the press to promulgate its own policies and spread disinformation to the Iraqis. The well-prepared military briefers were viewed more favorably than the journalists who appeared rude, uninformed and inarticulate.
A German publication observed that "the impatient television gobbles up all time for consideration, all time for checking and weighing information--time that democracy urgently requires. Thus the triumph of the news could spell the demise of democracy, which would be replaced by the rule of speed. The highest-speed journalism avails itself of military methods, draws near the military, and thus risks losing its independence and credibility. Democracy can protect itself only by rediscovering slowness."
Student Questions
Why were reporters upset with their own coverage of the war?
Why did most of the governments and military restrict and censor the activities of reporters?
Should the governments have restricted reporters more? Less?
Should these restrictions have lasted for longer periods of time?
Return to Activity 21.
Go to the Contents page for International Conflict and the Media.
Go to the Bibliography.