The News Media At War by Tarek Cherkaoui

Author:Tarek Cherkaoui [Cherkaoui, Tarek]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: History, Military, Iraq War (2003-2011), Social Science, Media Studies, Middle East, General, Political Science, Comparative Politics, Language Arts & Disciplines, Communication Studies, Technology & Engineering, Military Science
ISBN: 9781786721433
Google: 29SLDwAAQBAJ
Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing
Published: 2017-01-30T22:30:01+00:00

By characterising Saddam Hussein as an ‘evil dictator, who possesses brutal weapons,’ a religious dimension is added to racial ‘otherness’. The ‘other’ thus becomes a monster controlled by a malevolent force in need of exorcism (read military intervention) (Gunn, 2004).

In the subsequent CNN coverage, the pre-emptive war sub-frame complemented the military sub-frame. The latter focused on military prowess, praised the power of military technology and the courage of the troops. This sub-frame pervades a popular culture, which valorises violence (as news professionals acclimatise the public to the acceptability of war). Mainstream American media undeniably adhered to this sub-frame by featuring analysts with very close connections to the Pentagon. The Pentagon’s military perspective was therefore always prominent. In the case of CNN, its main military analyst was General (ret.) Wesley Clark, the former head of NATO, and former chief commander of NATO troops during the War in Kosovo. General Clark’s past credentials heavily influenced his commentary. As I have indicated, he always identified himself with coalition troops, and used the pronoun ‘We’ when discussing military situations. The following extract from General Wesley Clark reiterates the point:

We’ve got continuous visibility over much of Iraq. We’ve got scouts forward. We’ve got special operations forward. We’ve got satellites. We’ve got aircraft. We’ve got moving-target indicators off those aircraft. (CNN, 19 March 2003 22:44 EST)

Although General Clark was hired by CNN in his capacity as an analyst rather than a military commander, his comments blurred the line between journalism and military discourse. Other military analysts on CNN’s payroll included Retired Generals Don Sheppard and David Grange who gave a favourable spin to the military plans. The reproduction of military discourse was further revealed when on numerous occasions CNN’s journalistic commentary incorporated aspects of psychological warfare. One important aspect is that of perception management; this combines ‘truth projection, operational security, cover and deception and psychological operations’ (Dearth, 2002: 2). To this end CNN, wittingly or unwittingly, contributed to the tactic of encouraging the Iraqi population to accept the war on the grounds that it was not the target of it. Aaron Brown (CNN anchor):

I was saying the president was making a lot of the points that he has been making for a long time. This is not a war on the Iraqi population, not a war on Islam, it is a war on Saddam Hussein and his regime (CNN, 19 March 2003 22:35 EST).

Additionally, CNN coverage contributed to the psychological tactic of inducing Iraqis to surrender (on the grounds that American victory is guaranteed). Aaron Brown (CNN anchor):

I don’t think anybody, I suspect, on the planet doubts that the American forces will overwhelm, ultimately, the Iraqis and win this. It is a complicated process that comes after, putting Iraq together. (CNN, 19 March 2003 23:29 EST)

On Al Jazeera, coverage of the ‘Decapitation Strike’ was fundamentally different. The resistance theme was recurrent throughout their coverage. Unlike the American media for whom the outcome of the war was never in question, Al Jazeera’s anchors recurrently asked whether Iraq would resist the coalition assault.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.