How do we keep ourselves not on the side of activist, not on the side of the relief workers, not on the side of the parties who are fighting the war or the state we ourselves come from? The professional and the personal comes under serious scanner by various stakeholders when we go on reporting war. Nor is it an easy task to be accomplished on an individual level as a sensitive human being especially as the Press plays an increasingly important role in such conflicts.
The news media have long been players in the drama of war. The Spanish–American War of 1898 was provoked in part by a jingoistic press in the United States. Seventy years later, the lack of public support for the U.S. effort in Vietnam was blamed in part on correspondents who looked skeptically at Pentagon war claims. But rarely has the work of war correspondents come under the kind of scrutiny it does today. It is no longer enough for journalists not to aggravate conflicts; now we should help end them . . . or so argue the "conflict resolution" experts.
Advances in information technology have made it possible for journalists to report instantaneously from remote locations. In 1984, television pictures shaped the international response to the war and famine in Ethiopia. During the Haiti intervention that year, the U.S. Atlantic Command "Operation Room" was dominated not by maps and charts, but by four television sets. Officers tracking and coordinating military operations wanted to monitor in real time all broadcasts concerning the intervention, so they could react accordingly.
****
The diplomats, military officers, policymakers, and aid workers who examine the performance of the news media are increasingly critical in their assessment. Humanitarian aid agencies, finding their own activities increasingly affected by news coverage, complain that we in we the media focus too much on tragedy and misery, that sensationalize the news, and that we oversimplify complicated stories. People working on programs and strategies to prevent or resolve conflicts recommend that we think more about the impact our reporting may have on a conflict's development. Human rights monitoring organizations insist that we be aggressive in uncovering atrocities and injustice.
Advocates of a free press are wary of calls for journalists to steer their reporting deliberately toward some broader social good. Journalists cannot always anticipate the consequences a story may have—and those consequences should not be our chief concern. Our obligation is to report the news as we see it, not as diplomats or government leaders or aid workers would prefer to have it reported. Our guiding principle should be to tell the truth, without trying first to identify what news is helpful or harmful.
A journalist’s responsibility is to understand the interaction between all the parties in a conflict or crisis situation, the news media included. While this is not a time for journalists to re-imagine their profession, one does need to be more diligent in reporting, more sophisticated in description of world events, more thoughtful in analysis, and more clear about the role journalists play. In short, journalists need to be more professional.
Quite complex!
War in many cases now a day is provoked by local demagogues who, in a time of rising social and economic discontent, see benefits to be gained by turning people against their neighbors. State disintegration is an increasingly common phenomenon. Old ethnic rivalries are rekindled, even when linguistic and cultural differences between groups are slight. Much of the fighting takes place between and among civilians, and it is especially brutal. Rules of war and international humanitarian conventions are often ignored.
The conflicts create enormous problems for neighboring states; the outside world is not sure whether, when, or how to intervene. In case of warring parties, to mobilize his people, a leader must portray a conflict as a fight for collective survival, and this means getting people to identify with an exclusive group, defined perhaps by religion or ethnicity.
****
The media presentation of the conflicts at the international level becomes just as important, because it influences the response of the external players. Governments and international agencies increasingly rely to a greater extent on the information provided by international news agencies. At times press reports may be the only information available to the outside world. The more unfamiliar the locale, the more important the media's role may be.
Policy decisions may well be influenced by the pattern of news coverage that the crisis receives. Pictures of starving children shamed the Bush administration into sending American forces to Mogadishu to help distribute food aid. Months later, pictures of a dead U.S. Army Ranger being dragged down a Mogadishu street prompted the Clinton administration to bring the troops back home.
Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once argued that television's influence is so profound that CNN could be seen as "the sixteenth member" of the UN Security Council. This "CNN effect" on policy-making, of course, can be overstated but news reports are most likely to prompt a government response when no one knows what is happening on the ground, except the journalist!
Whose Truth?
To the extent that news reports do influence public attitudes, the effect can be subtle. The negative reporting when television images of human tragedy add to the viewer's frustration and cynicism about the ability of his or her government to do anything about the world's seemingly unsolvable and ever present problems. If government officials are more likely to be influenced by news coverage when they are uncertain what to do about an overseas crisis, the same is probably true for the general public. Local leaders even manipulate news coverage to suit their ends.
Responsible news coverage in crisis or conflict situations requires that the competing agendas of all the interested parties be kept constantly in mind. If news coverage is unduly influenced by any of the interested parties, portrayals of the conflict will be distorted and could lead to misguided policies and avoidable tragedies.
The competing agendas mean that all the involved parties are regularly in conflict. A complete story of the war, for example, has to include an explanation of the antagonism. It is only in the context of that troubled relationship that pronouncements by either side can be fully understood.
Impartiality:
The media must not get drawn into these conflicts and it should not be inclined toward. Every stakeholder has a propaganda machine and while reporting one should not become part of that machine. Mischievous distortion of reality can only undermine the work of those who are pursuing the path towards peace. At times the news media and the one of the stakeholders can have conflicting responsibilities. Journalists, with no aid to deliver or roads to keep open, better will have a more abstract notion of impartiality, based on facts and principles. For us, reporting impartially should be telling the truth, without regard for who was most affected by our reporting or who would be most angered by it.
Disinterested Reporting:
As professional journalists one should be able to report developments in Bosnia more objectively and accurately than military officers because a journalist is trained to do so and because they not have competing responsibilities. They do not have to deliver aid across front lines, and no "discussions" to maintain. They need not worry whether their reports might "complicate" their relations with the opposing sides.
For the sake of accuracy and fairness, journalists might need to challenge any interpretation of events there that reflected the agenda of an interested party rather than the reality on the ground. They need not to worry about the consequences of readers or listeners underestimating or overestimating the war. Our concern was to report truthfully.
As a world citizen and as a concerned human being it is natural for a journalist to have some concerns but it is not for him to play favour to such or any other concerns and do reporting in a half-hearted manner or to suspend it or not to do it. In an ideal world, journalists would adopt the same disciplined perspective in their work.
Moral Responsibility:
The question of what constitutes moral and responsible war reporting is especially complicated when we are dealing with atrocities and preventable human suffering. Whether professional ethics require that we care about the people we cover or remain indifferent to their plight? The arguments can be many.
A journalist should have faith that good journalism intrinsically serves the public interest. But we need to think more carefully about the responsibilities we have, individually and professionally, when we find ourselves in a place where crimes of war are occurring and where our actions as journalists and as people may change the course of events.
Most journalists want their reporting to make a difference in the world. A journalist who witnesses the commission of a crime is not absolved of the responsibility to report the crime to the proper legal authorities.
Roy Gutman, who won a Pulitzer Prize for revealing the existence of Serb-run concentration camps in Bosnia, hoped his stories would save lives. "You've got to do everything in your power to stop these things," Gutman said, "and exposing it is one of the best ways to do it." Gutman is careful, however, to limit the journalist's role: "Our job is to supply the facts so other people can make the judgments. The worst thing is to step across the line and recommend what should be done."
Some media analysts argue that journalists should maintain total moral detachment. If reporters are now to adopt a moral attitude toward their stories, then the public is almost certain to be shortchanged.
“You never did it for money, because you knew it was the poorest paying job in the world. . ... . . you can try to work for what is presumed to be good, if nothing else, by bringing accurate information to people", a journalist should always remember this.
Reporters can demonstrate moral and social responsibility without becoming proactively involved in their own stories. Finally journalists do not need to "re-imagine" their overseas work in order to contribute more to the prevention or resolution of conflicts around the world. We simply need to do our job better, by the traditional standards of our profession.
No comments:
Post a Comment