🚀 go-pugleaf

The Development Of War Propaganda
Friday, 28 March 2003, 11:16 am
Opinion: David Miller
Eliminating Truth: The Development Of War Propaganda

By David Miller
Stirling University

The attack on Iraq looks set to be the most censored conflict of
modern times. Media coverage in mainstream media will be controlled as
never before. The US is determined to eliminate independent reporting
of and from Iraq and it will go to unprecedented lengths to ensure
that its propaganda and spin will dominate media agendas in the UK and
US and it will expend massive resources in minimising critical
coverage across the world.

The US and UK governments have shown themselves adept at learning
propaganda lessons from successive conflicts. In both Suez (1956) and
most importantly Vietnam, the UK and US governments came to believe
that propaganda and media control were key to winning wars. In the
Suez debacle General Sir Charles Keightley concluded in an internal
government report in 1957 that the 'over-riding lesson' was that
'world opinion is now the absolute principal of war' [1] The role of
the media in the Vietnam war was believed by many to have been a key
factor in the defeat of the US and the victory of the Vietnamese. But
in fact the US media only started to feature dissent after the US
ruling elite became split on the war. Nevertheless America's future
war planners decided not to risk uncensored press coverage of their
own conflicts. 'They determined - evidently beginning in the Reagan
Administration - that reporters would never again have the opportunity
to confuse the American public about the government's war aims,
whether deliberately or by accident' [2].

The lessons of Vietnam were put into effect in the Falklands conflict
in 1982. There was close control of the 29 journalists who were
allowed to accompany the military to the South Atlantic and no
independent facilities for reporting. A dual system of censorship
operated which ensured that journalists' copy was censored on naval
vessels in the South Atlantic and then again at the Ministry of
Defence in London before being released. The success of the news
management in the Falklands was not lost on the US government as Lt
Commander Arthur Humphries of the US Navy noted in 1983: 'In spite of
a perception of choice in a democratic society, the Falklands War
shows us how to make certain that government policy is not undermined
by the way a war is reported� Control access to the fighting, invoke
censorship, and rally aid in the form of patriotism at home and in the
battle zone.' [3] This policy was followed in the invasions of both
Grenada (1984) and Panama (1989)

Humphries also noted that if there was one deficiency in the policy,
it was in failing to fill the resulting information void with
pictures. 'In the Falklands the British failed to appreciate that news
management is more than just information security censorship. It also
means providing pictures'. [4]

By the time of the Gulf War in 1991 this lesson had been well learned.
In the Saudi desert journalists were isolated from the fighting and
newsrooms were supplied every day with new footage of �precision'
bombs hitting their targets. This was the new clean war in which
civilians would not be harmed as �smart' technology enabled �surgical
strikes'. This was a systematic charade. Only 7% of the ordnance was
�smart'. The other 93% being indiscriminate weapons including weapons
of mass destruction. The smart technology turned out not to be so
smart and missed its target in 40% of cases according to official
figures. [5]

Needless to say we didn't see any of the footage of either the �dumb'
bombs or the smart bombs which missed. But even when the smart weapons
hit their targets, civilians died, as in the case of the al-Amariyah
bunker in Baghdad which was not a military installation but an air
raid shelter. This time the US and UK are claiming that most bombs
will be of the smart variety and that the technology has been
improved. According to the British Ministry of Defence, �greater
attention to precision-guided weapons means we could have a war with
zero civilian casualties'. [6] This statement was falsified on the
first night of bombing when between three and five Iraqi civilians
were hit by shrapnel.

The emphasis on the clean war again is an attempt to divert attention
from the fact that weapons of mass destruction such as depleted
uranium tipped shells and �bunker buster' and �daisy cutter' bombs
will be used. Conjuring up the smell of freshly mowed grass, the daisy
cutter is actually a bomb the size of a small car which destroys
everything in an area the size of a football pitch. It is said to
resemble a small nuclear bomb.

************

The Pool

In past wars including the 1991 gulf war, the pool system has been the
main means of control of journalists �in theatre' � a propaganda term
adopted by many journalists. The pool allows the military to control
the movement of journalists as well as almost everything they see. In
1991 the Pentagon tried to bully journalists not to operate outside
the pool and some adopted the value system so fully that they turned
in any journalists who tried to report independently.

This time the Pentagon has got more sophisticated and more determined
to eliminate the possibility of independent reporting. They have
pressured journalists to leave Baghdad and by 18 march about half of
the 300 there had left, including many of the key UK and US
journalists (from US networks such as NBC and ABC and UK press such as
the Times and Telegraph) who would likely have more credibility in
their own countries. [7]

The rules issued by the Pentagon were themselves part of a process of
spin. They are presented as voluntary and appeared to some to offer
�unprecedented freedom to report the facts'. But on closer inspection,
a number of clauses buried in the text indicate the iron fist in the
velvet glove. While the rules state that there is �no general review
process' of reports by the Pentagon, a later section notes that �if
media are inadvertently exposed to sensitive information they should
be briefed after exposure on what information they should avoid
covering'. A security review also becomes compulsory if any sensitive
information is released deliberately. In a classic passage attempting
to present strict censorship rules as voluntary, the Pentagon notes
that �agreement to security review is in exchange for this type of
access must be strictly voluntary and if the reporter does not agree,
the access may not be granted'. [8]

The pool this time has a further new feature known as �embedding'
which entails that reporters operate in close proximity to military
units. They will not be allowed to travel independently and some
suggest that control of the technology of communication will be
controlled by the military too. These new rules mean that journalists
will don military uniform and protective clothing and, the Pentagon
hopes, start to identify with the military.

According to reports there are 903 journalists embedded with US and UK
forces, six times the number of journalists in Baghdad. At US military
headquarters in Qatar the daily briefings will be delivered from a
huge press centre complete with a mocked up studio with five large TV
screens to show accurate bombing runs. Topped of by tastefully
deployed camouflage netting installed by a specially flown in
Hollywood designer, the centre cost in the region of $250,000.

In a little noticed interview on Irish radio, veteran BBC war
correspondent Kate Adie has argued that the Pentagon is �entirely
hostile to the free spread of information'. �I am enormously
pessimistic of the chance for decent on the spot reporting', she said.
But the threat to independent journalism is potentially more severe.
Adie reported being told by a �senior officer' in the Pentagon that if
broadcasters' satellite uplink signals were detected by the military
they would be �targeted down' even if there were journalists there.
�Who cares�they've been warned' said the officer. [9]

War does strange things to both military and media. The Director of
Corporate Communications for the British Army Brigadier Matthes Sykes
has a reported enthusiasm for conflict. He �is most animated when
talking of his spells in the field, indeed he admits that is where his
heart belongs.' [10]

Journalists too suffer from the malaise of getting too involved.
According to widely respected Middle East reporter Robert Fisk many
are back to �their old trick of playing toy soldiers'. [11]

The former Daily Telegraph editor Max Hastings admits he got too close
in the Falklands war: �I was accused of getting too involved with the
troops � I have to plead guilty to that.' In Iraq now he worries for
younger colleagues: �TV stations and newspapers tend to get
overexcited in wars� It's a case of boys with toys, but the hardest
thing to remember is that this is ultimately all about lives'. [12]

On the first day of the attack, Iraqi missiles fired into Kuwait were
unequivocally reported on the main BBC bulletins as consisting of Scud
missiles, even though this had not been confirmed and doubt was cast
on the hypothesis by minority audience BBC programmes. [13]

BBC News 24, the globally available service continually repeated the
propaganda. Just after midnight (GMT) on the morning of the 21st March
BBC reporter Ben Brown repeatedly used the word �scud' without any
qualification. [14]

As many news outlets pointed out the use of Scuds would be a material
breach of UN resolution 1441. But in fact the missiles were not Scuds
as was confirmed the next day. But by then the damage was done and the
correction did not gain the prominence of the original reports.

This is all a familiar pattern from previous wars where the BBC
bulletins seen by the mass UK audience follow a distinctly
propagandist pro-war agenda. As war approached in the UK the
government attempted to eliminate dissent by arguing that past
differences must be put aside to support �our' troops.

Dissent had already been under pressure from at least the beginning of
February when the Director of News at the BBC Richard Sambrook issued
a confidential memo to senior BBC management. Quickly leaked by angry
BBC staff, the memo showed that even before the biggest ever
demonstrations in British history the BBC was attempting to
marginalise the broadcasting of anti-war voices.

Too much dissent was being broadcast, it claimed, which 'forces our
presenters to put the Bush/Blair position to callers -- sometimes
making us appear to be siding with govt. Not true in all cases.' A
tacit admission, if ever there was one, that much BBC output is shaped
to support war. As war started the first signs of patriotic censorship
appeared. The owner of more than 100 weekly newspapers Sir Ray Tindle
wrote to the editors of all his papers asking them �to ensure that
nothing appears� which attacks the decision to conduct the war'. [15]
Drawing immediate protests from free media campaigners, this example
is sure to be the first of many infringements of independent
reporting.

The hackneyed phrase maintains that truth is the first casualty of
war, but this does not suggest nearly clearly enough that it is a
casualty because the US and UK governments are making a concerted
attempt to destroy it.

************

ENDNOTES
[1] Cited in T. Shaw (1996) Eden, Suez and the Mass Media, London: I.
B. Tauris: 196.
[2] John McArthur, (1992) Second Front, Berkeley: University of
California Press: 138.
[3] Lt Commander Arthur Humphries, Naval War College Review, May-June
1983, cited in McArthur, 1992: 138.
[4] cited in McArthur, ibid: 140.
[5] Kellner, D. (1992) The Persian Gulf TV War, Boulder CO: Westview:
163.
[6] 'Fury at no dead "lie"', Daily Mirror, 21 March 2003: 9.
[7] Ciar Byrne 'Media mull Iraq evacuation' The Guardian, Tuesday
March 18, 2003 http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,916727,00.html
[8] Patrick Barrett, 'US reporters condemn Pentagon press controls'
The Guardian, Thursday February 27, 2003
http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,903552,00.html
[9] The Sunday Show, RTE1 Radio, 9.3.03.
http://www.GuluFuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm
[10] Ian Hall 'BRIGADIER MATTHEW SYKES, THE ARMY - ARMY COMMS CHIEF
FIT FOR PR CHALLENGES' PR Week December 6, 2002, Pg. 24
[11] Robert Fisk, 'The war of misinformation has begun' Independent,
16 March 2003.
[12] Ciar Byrne 'Media mull Iraq evacuation' The Guardian, Tuesday
March 18, 2003 http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,916728,00.html
[13] BBC2's Newsnight cast doubt on the story, the BBC1 main evening
bulletin did not (20 March 2003).
[14]For example: 'The priority of the day was to shoot the incoming
scuds out of the sky� we've come running down to this shelter which
the British Army calls their �scud bunker.'� One Scud missile landed
within yards of an American military camp� British and American
commanders are hoping tonight is that as their ground forces push
forward they will drive Iraqi troops further back so that they won't
be able to launch any more of these scud attacks but I have to tell
you in the last few minutes there has been another scud alert. We've
had to go down to the shelter yet again so it doesn't seem that for
the moment the scud attacks are over.' BBC News 24 00.12 hours 21
March 2003.
[15] Gina Coles, 'It's too late for debate - Now we must all support
our Local heroes at war', Ivybridge and South Brent Gazette, 21 March
2003: 1.

******* ENDS *******