Media Concerns About Covering the War
By Joel Campagna
The Boston Globe
March 19, 2003
The Pentagon insists that a war against Iraq could be the best-covered
conflict in recent history. The plan to ''embed'' more than 500 reporters
with front-line troops will give journalists their best access since Vietnam.
But will they really be able to cover fighting more freely than in the
past? Perhaps. However, much depends on the Pentagon's attitude toward
the many journalists who will report independently, outside the embed
system. So far, the media have embraced the embed plan while quietly acknowledging
concerns about reporters' ability to file timely stories, movement restrictions,
and self-censorship that may result from living with a military unit.
The embedding guidelines are vague, and commanders have broad discretion
over reporting. The Pentagon has been frank: It plans to use embedded
media as a counterweight to enemy ''propaganda'' and to garner good press.
As a reporter for a major US newspaper said, ''We're supposed to be the
anti-Al-Jazeera.''
But many news organizations admit that their embeds will provide only
part of the story; many outlets will send their most hardened correspondents
to report independently from the region. But to what extent will US forces
tolerate ''unilaterals'' -- Pentagonese for nonembedded reporters? Dozens
of unilaterals are in Kuwait, Jordan, and northern Iraq awaiting war.
Many expect to cross into Iraq after fighting begins, while others already
in Baghdad plan to stay after an assault. They will face not only the
traditional safety hazards of covering a conflict, but also restrictions
on their freedom to report.
During the 1991 Gulf War, the US ''pool'' system barred journalists without
a military escort from battle scenes and imposed prior censorship on all
news and photographs. Many who attempted to work outside the pool were
harassed or detained by US troops. In Afghanistan, the US military restricted
access to troops and was sometimes hostile to reporters.
In one case, officials prevented journalists from reporting on an errant
US bomb that killed three Special Forces soldiers and five anti-Taliban
Afghan fighters. In another, Afghan tribal fighters harassed photojournalists,
apparently because US Special Forces soldiers did not want to be photographed.
In February 2002, US soldiers detained a Washington Post reporter at gunpoint
and prevented him from investigating reports of civilian casualties and
confiscated a New York Times photographer's film several months later.
Bush administration officials embrace the embed plan but have not provided
details or assurances about the access non-embedded reporters will be
allowed. Officials have warned unilateral journalists to leave Iraq when
war begins.
''The battlefield's a dangerous place . . . even embedded with our forces,''
according to Bryan Whitman, deputy assistant secretary of defense for
public affairs, who designed the embed plan. And more dangerous, he says,
for reporters outside the embed system.
Beyond such statements, military spokespersons say they are reluctant
to answer ''hypothetical'' questions. The potential scenarios for interference,
however, abound. Will troops stop unilateral reporters at roadblocks and
bar them from covering news? Will troops lock out the press by creating
''closed military zones'' -- as Israel did during its West Bank offensive
last April? Because the Kuwaiti government already implemented a ''military
exclusion zone'' in the country's northern half, access is uncertain,
leading some reporters to contemplate camping in Bedouin farms or riding
skiffs from Iran to the southern Iraqi port of Basra.
And then there are the journalists in Baghdad. In addition to the perils
posed by US missiles and by Saddam Hussein's possible use of journalists
as ''human shields,'' members of the media are concerned about attempts
to jam broadcasting out of Baghdad. ''Transmissions could be a problem,''
predicted one US correspondent. ''The Iraqis might not want the fall of
Saddam aired live, and the Americans won't want `enemy propaganda.' ''
How will US officials react to Qatar's Al-Jazeera, if it beams unsavory
images of a US assault, including Iraqi civilian casualties? Al-Jazeera's
staff is worried about a repeat of the November 2001 incident in which
US missiles destroyed their Kabul office. US officials alleged (without
providing detail) that the office was an ''Al Qaeda facility'' and that
there were no indications that Al-Jazeera was using it.
Few journalists have any illusions about the dangers of working in a war
zone and the difficulties accessing a battlefield. Yet reporters have
an obligation to cover the news -- particularly during war, when public
information is crucial. Any US military action must consider the safety
of working journalists and their ability to report developments freely
-- something the United States has failed to do in other recent conflicts.
Given the international opposition to war in Iraq, the political stakes
of conflict will be high, as will the urge to contain negative news.
---
Joel Campagna is a senior program coordinator at the Committee to Protect
Journalists.