Media Treatment of the War in Iraq: U.
When the war in Iraq first broke out in March 2003, the military allowed journalists to be "embedded" among the troops in the field. Where the troops went the journalists went, side-by-side live coverage. One of the main criticisms of the Gulf War was that the media had been restricted form actually viewing situations on the field, and were instead restricted to reporting from briefing that would come about one to two times a day. They only reported what they heard from those briefings, instead of what they actually witnessed as in today's current war in Iraq. In trying to prevent similar complaints, the embedded journalists were allowed.
Looking at the war now, a year later from the Gulf War, how has media coverage been as it pertains to events in Iraq. How have American journalists (domestic media) covered the event, versus their overseas (foreign media) counterparts? As can be expected, there have been various slants on various events, depending on the news organization and country. Each viewpoint or media source reports different sides either familiar to their counterparts or contradicting to their counterparts. This paper will examine some attitudes and positions reporters from around the globe have taken as it pertains to the Iraq War. .
There has been a whole slew of criticism about the American media coverage of the war in Iraq. In fact other media coverage (foreign media) have been quick to really lay it on the line that American journalists have been criticized for basically being a mouthpiece of the Pentagon and by "playing up" the positive aspects of the war, while downplaying the negative aspects (Diemand, 2002). These days, of course, reports are sporadic unless something major happens, like the killing of American civilians or the capture of Saddam Hussein. Critics have been emphatic by noting that the role of the press in the war, at least the American press, was to "deter dissenting opinions and to be cheerleaders for the ongoing battle" (Diemand, 2002).
