Activity 23, Peter Arnett in Baghdad
Blaming the carrier of bad or disturbing news was evident in the conduct of the Gulf War. The criticism of the press in general, and of Peter Arnett of CNN in particular, for distributing and carrying information and opinion that seemed unsupportive of the allied forces is the most obvious case.
Source: Thomas McCain and Leonard Shyles, The 1,000 Hour War; Communication in the
Gulf. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994.
American journalists who attempted to present balanced reporting of the war met with hostility from the public and the government. When media outlets aired alternative interpretations of the U.S. war with Iraq, some condemned the media for giving comfort and aid to the enemy. Senator Alan Simpson accused CNN's Peter Arnett of complicity with Iraq for his reporting the Baghdad government's side of the war. At CNN's Atlanta headquarters, pickets protested the network's coverage of the enemy's perspective. Other U.S. media entities that tried to present Baghdad's side of events were also criticized for giving a perspective other than that of the United States. Readers of the Philadelphia Inquirer objected to a headline about the bombing of the civilian bunker in Baghdad. It gave too much credence to the Iraqi government's contention that the building was civilian bomb shelter and not a military command and control center, as asserted by the U.S. military.
Source: Thomas McCain and Leonard Shyles, The 1,000 Hour War; Communication in the
Gulf. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994. p. 27.
The reason I stayed in Baghdad is quite simple: reporting is what I do for a living. I made the full commitment to journalism years ago. There was no question about CNN staying in Baghdad---it became a question of who would do it. I was summoned to Baghdad at the eleventh hour unexpectedly when it became clear to CNN that the Iraqis might permit our coverage beyond the January 15 deadline. Would I help?
Upon my arrival in Baghdad, on the eve of war, I saw a repeat of what happened during the fall of Saigon. Reporters were bailing out for various reasons. I watched with wonder as this rich journalistic prize fell into fewer and fewer hands. Four days after the war began, only 17 journalists remained from the hundreds who had covered Baghdad.
Everybody out, the Iraqis said, except CNN. Even CNN isn't sure why they made that decision. Perhaps it is because CNN alone is seen globally. What the Iraqis told us is that they had found our coverage since August to have been "fair."
My means of communication was the INMARSAT [International Maritime Satellite] phone, a suitcase-sized link with the world. I'd drag it out each evening and aim at the heavens, while dialing into the International Desk at CNN Atlanta. At my end, we crouched in the chill of the evening, "we" being I and at least one Iraqi censor, or "minder" as these censors became called. I prepared a simple, two-minute script that the minder approved, and that I then read into the phone.
From the first day, I established a procedure that I believe saved my credibility and made my presence in Baghdad a valuable one. That procedure was a question-and-answer routine between the CNN anchor of the hour and me that followed each prepared script. The Iraqis were uncomfortable with it from the beginning because they could neither censor the questions nor my answers.
The only rule I followed in these Q&A sessions was that I would not discuss matters of military security. Thus I didn't talk about Scud missiles I'd seen barreling northwards on camouflaged trucks; I didn't mention the antiaircraft weapons on buildings around the Al Rashid Hotel, and I gave no details on military targets. Why did the Iraqis allow these Q&A sessions? I told them from the beginning that I was risking my life in Baghdad, but I was not prepared to risk my credibility. I accepted the limitations of military security, I said, but I needed the freedom to better explore the phenomenon of being in a capital at war.
Criticism I accept--and expect. It's the labeling that angers me. For covering the Vietnam War the way we did, many of us were labeled "enemy sympathizers," if not communists. For being in Baghdad when I was, I was again labeled a sympathizer, if not a fascist.
I'd go anywhere for a story if there was enough viewer interest and CNN wanted coverage.
Source: Adapted from Peter Arnett, "Why I Stayed Behind," Hedrick Smith, ed. The Media and
the Gulf War: The Press and Democracy in Wartime. Washington, DC: Seven Locks Press,
1992. pp 308-314. Used with permission.
It was important for Arnett and other reporters to be in Baghdad. It was important that people see something more of the consequences of the bombing than the photographs through targeting cross hairs beloved of Pentagon warriors. Nothing is harder or more essential to remember in the heat of war than that the other side is made up of human beings, too.
What was missing from most of the Baghdad reports was a degree of distance from the approved material, a touch of the skepticism that Washington reporters display when talking about American politicians. Wherefore the untypical deference? Were the correspondents afraid they would be kicked out if they hedged their reports a bit? Were they carried away by the professional temptation to squeeze emotion from scenes of pain? Were they feeling normal sympathy for people under attack?
All right, the coverage from Baghdad was only part of television's effort; Washington and Riyadh supplied most of the news. Judging Arnett and other television reporters in Baghdad from afar is an easier assignment than the one they carried out, under tough conditions and with admirable perseverance. Yet aspects of their performance remain troubling, not from a patriotic point of view, but from a professional one. The question nags, whether they adapted too readily to their host's scenario, whether they might not have found more ways to talk to viewers over, behind, beneath, and around those friendly minders.
Source: Adapted from Walter Goodman, "Arnett," Hedrick Smith, ed. The Media and the Gulf
War: The Press and Democracy in Wartime. Washington, DC: Seven Locks Press, 1992. pp
330-335. Used with permission.
Numerous opinion polls were conducted throughout the war. With regard to the views on the American news media, the evaluations by respondents were generally positive and became more positive as the war went on. Regarding the special case of "American news organizations broadcasting news from Iraq that has been censored by the Iraqi government," equal numbers of respondents in late January 1991 supported and disapproved. By mid-February, two-thirds of the respondents said that having reports cleared by Iraqi censors was better than no reporters in Iraq at all, and that reporters were gathering valuable information that they might report after they leave. When Iraqi censorship was not mentioned, 51% of the respondents approved of Arnett and other news organizations broadcasting from Iraq and 38% disapproved.
Source: Adapted from J. Ronald Milavsky and Ignacio Galceran, "The Public's Reaction to a
Mediated War," in Bradley S. Greenberg and Walter Gantz, eds. Desert Storm and the Mass
Media. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc., 1993, p 256.
Cheyenne, Wyo. (AP) Sen. Alan Simpson said Tuesday that reporters in Iraq covering the Gulf War are hurting the U.S.-led allies and can only be considered sympathizers of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Saddam's military is using reporters to shield movements of Scud missiles, the Wyoming Republican said, and seeing that they file stories on injuries to civilians by allied bombing runs.
Last week Simpson called Peter Arnett, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter in Baghdad for the Cable News Network, an Iraqi sympathizer for his reports, which clearly are marked as subject to Iraqi censorship.
Simpson said Tuesday that part of his distaste for reporters in Iraq stems from the views of reporters covering World War II. At that time, any reporter working behind enemy lines and staying with Axis forces was considered a sympathizer, he said.
A coalition of conservative organizations announced in Washington on Tuesday that it is asking CNN to withdraw Arnett from Baghdad, saying his broadcasts are "far more effective propaganda" than those of Tokyo Rose in World War II.
"At no time has the network misrepresented the conditions under which the news in that country is gathered and reported," Ed Turner, CNN's executive vice president, said in a statement from Atlanta. "We remain in Baghdad to do our best to report that side of the story."
Simpson also said Tuesday that while he believes journalists who submitted their work to Iraqi censorship are "compromising" themselves, he does not believe that is true for people reporting on the allied side.
"This is a limitation done by the United States for a singular purpose," Simpson said, "To protect the lives of men and women in Desert Storm."
Used with permission from the Associated Press. Adapted from The Japan Times, February 14,
1991.
Evidently, CNN will be praised for its coverage of Desert Storm and never castigated for allowing Peter Arnett and, in return, themselves to be used by Saddam Hussein's propaganda machine. Iraq failed to turn the American public against the war. They flunked in their effort, solely, because the war lasted only 42 days. An extended war might have had a negative influence on American opinion, especially with an elevation of charges against the U.S. military of premeditated attacks on the civilian population of Iraq.
We all know about the Arnett reports being censored by the Iraqis, but that didn't seem to have much weight when you consider what brought about the end of the Vietnam War no matter how vindicated we feel ending that action.
Vo Nguyen Giap, North Vietnam's most famous general, once said, "The war was fought on many fronts. At that time, the most important front was the American public opinion."
If there was ever any doubt that Saddam Hussein was planning to copy the successful strategy of Ho Chi Minh, his January 28 interview with Peter Arnett should have removed it, aired on CNN. He said:
"I hope that you will tell the Americans that we wish them well and we pray that none of their sons will die, that none of their lives will be lost. And that all the people of Iraq are grateful to all the noble souls amongst the U.S. people who are coming out into the streets and demonstrating against this war . . . We follow with keenness this sublime level of humanity, which comes out to counter the policies of aggression that are being planned through the corridors of evil, penetrated and dominated by criminal Zionism . . . "
Saddam Hussein appreciated what the media was doing on his behalf. Because it fitted his strategy, he permitted CNN to keep Peter Arnett in Baghdad and allowed them to bring in expensive equipment needed to transmit his reports by satellite. CNN served as the Voice of Baghdad, and Saddam Hussein didn't even have to pay one penny of the costs. We have embargoed his oil and other exports to keep him from earning dollars, but we permitted him to earn dollars from the airing of his propaganda to the 105 countries that can pick up CNN transmissions.
After World War II, we captured and tried Iva Toguri, the American citizen who broadcasted the "news" from Tokyo under the name of "Tokyo Rose."
The British hanged as a traitor William Joyce who, as "Lord Haw Haw," broadcasted the "news" from Berlin.
What Iva Toguri and William Joyce did for our enemies in that war was less than what CNN was doing for Iraq during Desert Storm.
Incredible as it may seem an American TV network has put its worldwide facilities at the disposal of a dictator with whom we were at war.
Source: Adapted from Ed DeMello, At the Expense of Victory: A Desert Storm Diary of News Media Coverage. PO Box 766, Fairview, New Jersey: Kenobi Productions, 1994, pp 303- 304. Used with permission.
Return to Activity 23.
Go to the Contents page for International Conflict and the Media.
Go to the Bibliography.