Reconstruction 10.4 (2010)
Return to Contents»
The Art of War Reporting: Theorising Contemporary Embedded Journalism as Public Discourse / Jay Reid and Rob Cover
Keywords: Communication, Culture Studies, Globalization
Introduction
<1> While war and conflict have always been present to some extent throughout history, since the September 11, 2001 attacks in America there has been a rise in overseas conflict and troop deployments under the banner of ‘The Global War on Terror’. For the Australian public, these conflicts take place overseas in the far reaches of the Middle East, a place to which few have first hand contact, leaving them reliant on the media establishment to inform them of events (Taylor 63). Questions however have been raised about the current forms of wartime journalism, with many in the industry itself acknowledging that it no longer provides the public service that the ideals of journalism dictate (McGoldrick 5, Poster 158).
<2> Relations between the media and the military have always been a source of heated debate (Montanari 1). In the modern warzone, actual access to a story can be a challenge not faced by journalists back home, with the military often saying where they can and can’t go, potentially leading to a reliance on official sources (Taylor 64). Once in the field, objectivity for a journalist may be hard to maintain; they themselves become part of the story, and may grow to despise the enemy who puts their lives in danger, an emotion which can permeate in their reporting (McGoldrick 1). Motives of censorship should also be considered; does one report the whole truth and nothing but the truth, even when this information could be used to hurt the journalist or the men protecting them (Taylor 65-68)?
<3> The topic of contemporary wartime journalism is an important one. Transparent and truthful media reporting is a required cornerstone of any informed democracy (Taylor 63); without it, the public’s ability to monitor and intervene with government policy is all but diminished. As such, this paper will examine current methods of wartime journalism by investigating the role played by Australian embedded journalists in reporting events, and the use of language and discourse in the presentation of war reports that include themselves as a subject of news in order to examine if current war reporting provides the public service it was once established to carry out. The increase in war time reporting appears to closely follow the rising need of technological production to enable conflict to occur; only with the support of a home front made loyal and passive through media can such a war go ahead (ibid: 208). With the shift from ‘total war’, such as World War One and Two, to ‘limited’ conflicts such as Vietnam, the Falklands and the Global War on Terror, unified public opinion is becoming increasingly challenging to acquire, leading to changes in reporting styles and methods and an increased need for governments to validate their actions (ibid: 209-212).
<4> This new style of reporting is unlike anything journalism has ever seen before; war is made into a spectacle (Baudrillard 48), its gore and death is removed and replaced with high-tech gadgetry that assure us only the ‘bad guys’ are targeted and harmed, leaving the innocent safe (ibid: 64). It is an ‘info war’ or ‘net war’, where he who best manages the story through technology is ensured victory (Montanari 7). Stories of valour or loss on the battlefield are simply retold to the awaiting public, with little attention to the ‘why’ (McGoldrick 4). Careful selection ensures that the public only sees what those controlling the news want them to see, with the motives for war being seldom questioned (Karnik 611; Hoijer 1). The use of information, facilitated through new communications technologies, allows for the very outcome of events to be transformed by the time the public learns of them (Montanari 3).
<5> As part of of a broader project on which this paper is based, we gathered and examined within an academic framework newspaper articles pertaining to the Australian involvement in the ongoing Global War on Terror focused in the Middle Eastern countries of Iraq and Afghanistan. The articles were gathered during the month of August 2009 from two major newspapers, the South Australian edition of the national broadsheet-style publication The Australian, and the Adelaide based tabloid style paper The Advertiser. Acknowledging that The Advertiser is printed in two formats which often differ in layout and content, we will limit this study to the ‘Metro’ edition, also known as the ‘Retail’ edition, and ignore the ‘Subscription’ edition for the sake of manageability.
War Reporting and Contemporary Journalism
<6> We begin by focussing on the role of journalists who construct the war stories using the work of David E. Morrison. Keeping in mind that the mindset, attitudes and opinions of the reporter can affect the outcome of the article, we set out to examine the extent to which journalists themselves influence the reporting of war and conflict. This becomes especially true for embedded journalists and foreign correspondents who are located within geographical proximity of the conflict, as the danger to the individual themselves may influence the way they construct their stories (Poster 159, McGoldrick 1). Using the work of Morrison we will explain these possible influences and also look at how editing practices and institutional values of the papers can affect the published work, as well as the relationship between the media and the military on which they report.
<7> Morrison argues that research focus should be moved away from traditional influences of news production – such as formal editing and institutional values – and attention drawn to the role the reporter themselves play in the construction of news stories (ibid: 305; 211; Tiffen 191). He argues that a divide exists between the military and the journalists reporting them, an argument opposed by Philip M. Taylor, a Professor of Propaganda, Psychological Operations and Military Media Relationships at the University of Leeds, who argues that embedded forms of reporting are more about co-operation than conflict (Taylor 70). This conflicting argument shall be built on and examined in more detail below. He highlights the problems with the current systems of embedded war reporting, whereby those sent into the field are often young and inexperienced reporters and who have had little prior journalistic experience (Morrison 213). The reporters in the Falklands were physically ill-equipped for the demands put on them during their deployment, and they had not undergone the training, both psychologically and mentally, that the soldiers have in order to prepare themselves for the conflict zone (Morrison 219-225). Morrison points out that unlike the military personnel in the conflict zone, the journalists seldom form bonds with those around them, which can create a support network for when the reporter encounters something they do not understand or find disturbing (Morrison 318).
<8> Morrison argues that when journalists are embedded with military units in the field, it is impossible for them to remain objective and impartial and it is inevitable that what happens to them while on deployment will effect what they write (Morrison 306). Embedded journalists, during their time living, interacting and in some cases surviving through the actions of the soldiers around them, build relations and form identification toward the subjects of their reporting, and when living with the threat of constantly impending death, have a hard time remaining impartial to ‘the other’ (Morrison 219-222). Journalists cannot remove themselves from the action, but rather become a type of social actor within their reporting (Morrison 306). It is impossible for them not to become emotionally attached to the men serving around them as it is not simply the result of individual attitudes but rather the results of the dynamics of the situation they find themselves in (Morrison 221-22). Impartiality and objectivity, while vital in everyday reporting, seldom find a home within the words of the embedded reporter (Morrison 221). He goes on to present the flip side of this argument, stating that the reporters were unruly and not team orientated; key traits of the cohesive units they served with (Morrison 214). They had little knowledge of the ways in which the military operated which would often lead to clashes and conflicts (Morrison 317; Morrison: 1994b, 217). In order to make meaning of their new environment while on embedded assignment, reporters are required to take into consideration and negotiate the language, cultures and beliefs shared by the military community (Morrison 317).
<9> While acknowledging that the journalist represents only one link in the chain of news production, Morrison describes their role as an important one, as they shape the news which will be consumed by an audience that lacked the first hand experience of the events being covered, in this case the Global War on Terror (Morrison 305). He also highlights the fact that journalistic selection dictated what makes it into the public sphere and as such what becomes official an record of an occurrence (ibid: 305). Even the journalists themselves acknowledged the importance of their work in ensuring the public’s right to self-determination (Morrison 318). Regardless of this, Morrison maintains the importance of embedded journalism, claiming that the near/eye-witness accounts provided by the reporters serving with the troops are invaluable to media outlets to allow them to show what is really happening in the conflict zone (Morrison 306). It is the element of eye-witness account that gives the embedded journalist the authority required to report and pronounce the true nature of war to those at home (Morrison 306).
The Australian Experience of Embedded Reporting
<10> The primary reporter for The Advertiser (South Australian daily newspaper) during this time is Ian McPhedran, the chief defence writer for Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd in Australia. A journalist his entire working career, McPhedran has covered numerous conflicts in the Asia Pacific and the Middle East, as well as winning a Walkley Award in 1999 (Harper Collins, 2009). In addition to his journalist work, McPhedran has penned two books on the Australian Special Air Service Regiment, the country’s premier special forces and counter terrorism team, titled The Amazing SAS and Soldiers Without Borders (Infinitas Bookshop).
<11> Writing for The Australian during this period is Amanda Hodge, another News Ltd correspondent. Previously assigned to South Asia, Hodge reports on the conflict from Kabul, some 370km from the location of the Australian troops. In addition to these two journalists is Canberra based News Ltd photographer Gary Ramage who provides photography for both newspapers. Australian Broadcasting Commission’s South Asian correspondent Sally Sara, who has covered the region previously from New Delhi, is said to be travelling with McPhedran and Ramage, though her focus appears to be providing content for ABC radio. Prior to their deployment to the field alongside the troops they were to be embedded with, McPhedran, Ramage and Sara went through four days of field medicine and crisis training to prepare them for life with the troops in Afghanistan (Murdoch 31). While the article on their training and preparation does not mention the levels of physical fitness the reporters posses – a problem highlighted by Morrison during the Falklands conflict (Morrison 219) – it does show an effort is being made to acclimatise the journalists to the combat environment into which they are entering. Morrison argues that due to the dangerous nature of embedded reporting, only young and inexperienced reporters volunteer or are chosen for such assignments (Morrison, 1994b, 213). In the case of the August coverage of the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, this appears to not be the case. As stated above, McPhedran and Sara are experienced journalists, with years of experience as reporters between them. McPhedran in particular is quite experienced in conflict reporting, having “...covered conflicts in Burma, Somalia, Cambodia, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq,” (HarperCollins, 2009). Having written two books on Australian special forces, McPhedran can be expected to have at least a second hand knowledge of the trauma and challenges faced by individuals in combat.
<12> While little can be found in the analysed articles about the training undergone by reporters before they entered the field with our troops, it is apparent that a degree of preparation has been carried out by their news agencies. It would appear that rather than the young, brash and ill equipped reporters described by Morrison, the embedded journalists covering Australians’ contribution to the Global War on Terror are experienced, awarded and seasoned journalists who are trained and prepared for their embedded tours.In order to gauge such influences and effects on reporting, a comparative study between field and desk journalists would need to be carried out in a framework such as Hall’s study of language and representation, work which is beyond the scope of this paper. However, the effects on reporters during their times embedded with troops should not be entirely dismissed, and it is easy to imagine the level of bond formed between soldier and reporter, both in hostile situations and times of peace, which may well result in overtly positive coverage being granted to the soldiers working to ensure the safety of the reporters. By examining excerpts from the gathered articles, it is possible to highlight and identify possible conflicts between the civilian reporters and the military establishment, a conflict well documented in the work of Morrison. In an article on Monday August 10th in The Australian, Murdoch states that the 21 day embedded tour being undertaken by McPhedran, Sara and Ramage is the first of its type, an “...unprecedented trial,” (Murdoch 31) that will impact on future embedded deployments. Prior to this lengthy embedded tour, journalists were only allowed to stay with Australia troops for short amounts of time – eight or ten days – a limitation that was imposed by Australian Defence Force officials according to the article (ibid).
<13> These limitations have led to frustration for Australian news organisations; Editorial Director of News Ltd, Campbell Reid, states that the inability of journalists to fully report and access the lives of Australian troops has led to tensions between the media and the military (ibid). Conversely, the military has been unimpressed with prior media coverage from the field, stating that journalist’s reports have been affected by the trauma of their exposure to a warzone, and have not fully encompassed the objectives of the campaign (ibid). On August 19th, McPhedran reported in The Advertiser that despite the fact journalists were embedded with the troops, “...Australian journalists were banned from leaving the outpost by rear-based commanders in Tarin Kowt,” (McPhedran 19), some 25km away. Two days later, a diary-style article was published by McPhedran, detailing a patrol with Australian troops. The details of the patrol appeared to exactly mirror the description of the patrol described by McPhedran on the 19th of August, suggesting that either the situation with leaving the base was resolved, or that in the end the journalists relied on first-hand reports from the troops to write their article.
<14> As can seen from this short excerpt, there appears to be in place tensions between the Australian military and the Australian media establishment, conflicts highlighted by Morrison in his work on embedded journalists during the Falklands War (Morrison, 1994b, 214). The journalists were given training and indoctrination prior to their deployment with the troops, and the image accompanying the articles shows McPhedran and Sara undertaking first aid training in some form of temporary military structure, seemingly in the Middle East, surrounded by army personnel. This image, if in fact representative of their training, shows that rather than working in opposition to the journalists, the military is interested in lending a hand toward training them to better cope in this dangerous environment. Opposition to the argument of media-military conflict is provided by Philip M. Taylor, who argues that rather than working in opposition to each other, modern embedded forms of reporting rely on and work around co-operation between both parties to achieve a common goal (Taylor 70). Murdoch’s article suggests that this new style of longer deployments, based on the experiences of British, American and Dutch journalists, could herald in a new era of conflict reporting (Murdoch 31). Both parties appear to gain from the new arrangement; the media is allowed access to personnel and activities normally not permitted on short trips, and the military hopes to be better represented by journalists who have become accustomed to working in the conflict area. As such, the relationship between the Australian media and military appears to be starting to shift from one of conflict as described by Morrison to one of co-operation as described by Taylor.
Embedded Journalism and Public Discourse
<15> It is only through the acquisition of first-hand experiences and witness accounts that media outlets are fully able to show the public at home what is actually happening in a war zone (Morrison: 1994a, 305). The importance is acknowledged by the journalists themselves; McPhedran states that this is the first time an in depth level of first hand reporting can be carried out with the Australian troops, and reports that come out of the August embedded tour will go a long way to bridging an existing gap in reporting coverage (Murdoch 31). Editor of The Daily Telegraph, a Sydney-based newspaper, Garry Linnell has gone on the record and stated that this embedded journalism will allow readers for the first time to “...have an opportunity to understand what it is like on the ground... what our troops are dealing with at ground zero,” (ibid). He goes on to claim that such levels of intimate conflict reporting have been absent since the Vietnam conflict some thirty years earlier and it will open the public’s eyes to the everyday lives of our troops over in the Middle East (ibid). He closes by suggesting that even though embedded journalists have operated within the American media for some time and that their coverage is heavily controlled and censored, Australian journalists will have more freedom with what they report (ibid).
<16> The media serves an important role in any conflict by ensuring public support and popular opinion on the home front, required to ensure the constant stream of personnel and materials (Hallin, 1994: 150). The use of embedded journalists allows this to occur in the most efficient fashion, as reporters are within close geographical proximity to the issues on which they report. Thus, embedded journalists can be seen to be of great importance in the newspaper function within the political economy, especially in regard to the maintenance of the home front to ensure support and public consensus. Unlike the young and inexperienced reporters described during the Falklands conflicts in Hallin’s work, modern Australian embedded journalists appear seasoned professionals, most of whom have previously written or reported on the military or the Middle Eastern theatre of operations. Unlike their Falkland counterparts before them they are trained and readied prior to their deployment, and enjoy a co-operative rather than competitive relationship with the Australian Defence Force. Their reports provide to us an important series of firsthand accounts of conflict, coverage previously lacking in Australian war reporting. The first argument of Hallin’s we examine is his claim that, rather than acting as a catalyst or influencer of public and elite or government consensus, the media’s reporting during times of war operates solely as a reproducer and gauge of such consensus (Hallin 1). This claim works in opposition to the commonly held notion that the media establishment is in fact one of the greatest influences in public opinion (O’Heffernan, 1994: 238). Such was said to be the case during Vietnam, where critics were quick to blame the failure of the military campaign on the poor press attention the war received back home (Hallin, 1984: 5). In response to these claims, Hallin argues that it was the breakdown in consensus which occurred first, followed by and reported in the media through articles negatively orientated toward the Vietnam War (Hallin, 1984: 4-5).
<17> Examining the articles gathered during the course of the study, the trends observed in Vietnam appear to be non-existent in the reporting of Australia’s involvement in the Global War on Terror. Of the articles examined, no negative assertions or commentary about Australian troops, their campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the government’s decision to maintain their presence in the Middle East can be found. Stories about Australian’s involvement in war and conflict are positive and in no way critical of the conflict itself or those partaking in it. This lack of criticism for the Global War on Terror appears representative of the Australian community’s positive outlook on the conflict. Patrick Walters, national security editor for The Australian comments that the Afghanistan conflict in particular has enjoyed “...bipartisan support and... has generated no substantial domestic political debate,” (Walters, 2009a: 21). From this we can see Hallin’s argument in action; a common and positive consensus about the war held through the strata of the community is being reflected through their print media outlets. Public opinion, in this case seemingly in favour of the conflict, shapes and influences the news producing articles which favour and support the continued Australian commitment to the conflict (Hallin 3-4). Supporting analogies can be drawn to the news outlets of other countries involved in the Global War on terror whose public have lost support for the conflict in recent time. In the United States, where over 800 servicemen have lost their lives in Afghanistan and almost 4,500 have been killed in Iraq since the commencement of hostilities with August 2009 being one of the deadliest months for US since the conflict commenced (Youssef & Landay 38).
<18> As it can be seen, Hallin’s argument holds steady when applied to Australian media coverage of the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, where only eleven Army personnel have lost their lives (Walters 21). Public and political consensuses have resulted in a unified media depiction of the conflict, in stark contrast to the media coverage seen in countries where support for the war is slipping. Looking at the gathered articles it is quickly noted that the two primary journalists; Amanda Hodge of The Australian and Ian McPhedran of The Advertiser, are both reporting from the Middle East, very near to the region in which the conflict is taking place. This close proximity to the area they are reporting allows for the journalists to gather information first hand, thereby lessening their reliance on official government sources. While the consequences and results of embedded journalism will be examined in more depth later in this article, it is easy to see how by placing the journalists in proximity to the conflicts they are covering, a greater potential for the gathering of firsthand accounts and information exists, allowing the reporter to construct their articles based on what they experience and not simply what their government tells them.
<19> Within their articles, Hodge and McPhedran rely heavily on the stories and accounts of the Australian soldiers deployed into the field, so much so that of the approximately thirty sources they quote within their articles, two thirds of them are military personnel. Of these personnel, all but four of them are junior officers or enlisted men, many of whom are part time reservists. The remaining military personnel interviewed are senior leaders, both at home and abroad, along with a small minority of government officials and representatives. Living in what Hallin describes as a source-driven society, articles need to rely on and be built on sources, preferably first hand (Hallin 40). In the gathered articles, the word being broadcast back to the public is very much that of the ‘man on the ground’. Privates/Sappers/Troopers, Lance Corporals and young Lieutenants, the men on the ground doing the actual fighting, feature predominately while administrators and decision makers take a back seat. This trend is seen in the accompanying images with each article, where the only person of serious political significance shown is the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and only once during the entire month of conflict reporting.
<20> In order for news reporting to be objective and fulfil its role as an informative public service, it needs to operate on its own accord and not rely on official government sources to produce news content (Hallin, 1984: 19-20). As we have shown, both The Australian and The Advertiser in their reporting of the Global War on Terror draw the majority of their stories not from official government sources, but rather from the everyday individuals taking part in the conflict. Some articles read like pseudo honour roles; soldiers names, ranks and hometown are listed in great length and detail (McPhedran, 2009c: 10-11; 2009k: 23; 2009i: 42-43; 2009l: 24-25). Soldiers such as Captain Close are followed over the course of the month, from their initial deployment right up until the end of the campaign. The level of personification of these soldiers is carried across all articles, with their families, prior occupations and hobbies being explored in great detail. The soldiers are not simply rendered as faceless troops, but are rather given a history and personality, allowing for the public back home to relate and empathise with them, heightening their interest in the conflict.
<21> Through their coverage of the conflict, both The Australian and The Advertiser appear to adhere to Hallin’s theory of home front maintenance. The Advertiser leads off the month’s coverage with a full page article detailing the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Within the article by a senior military officer that “...Coalition commanders... were full of praise for Australia’s contribution,” (Advertiser, 2009a: 4) to the conflict and that they were wholeheartedly farewelled from their base. These images paint a picture of celebration for the reader, glossing over the fact these men and women have just returned from a dangerous conflict in which a number of lives were lost. A fortnight later The Advertiser featured an article on a soldier named Josh Raward who was injured during a roadside bomb blast (McPhedran, 2009d: 48). Rather than describe the horror of war and just how close the young Lance Corporal came to losing his life, the article uses the incident to highlight just how safe the soldiers are in the conflict zone. In the piece, the soldier credits his survival to his body armour and helmet, and most importantly the Australian built Bushmaster infantry fighting vehicles Australians use in the region, going so far as to say “I now have a lot of faith in the Bushmaster. Anything else and I would be dead,” (ibid: 48). The audience concludes that the safety of the troops is due to Australian built products such as the Bushmaster – especially amid calls their United Kingdom allies are in need of a new vehicle to better defend against roadside bomb attacks (Advertiser, 2009d: 24) – encouraging further production and development, a particularly relevant topic given South Australia’s push to have itself recognized as the ‘defence state’ (Enright & Robert, 2001:75). This reassurance works to calm public concerns for troop safety, highlighting just how safe they are thanks to their equipment when on deployment.
<22> Having reassured the community as to the good work being carried out by the soldiers and the safety they enjoy while in the Middle East, the articles proceed to describe just how important the peacekeeping work of our troops is. Readers are told of the vital work being carried out by Australians to ensure safety and stability in the August democratic elections in Afghanistan, including just how important these elections are to bringing peace to the region (McPhedran 19; Hodge, 2009b: 8). The importance of the Australian mission to the country is confirmed by an interview with a regional Afghan Governor, who states the troops need to remain for another five years to ensure local police and military forces can be fully trained to take over (McPhedran, 2009e: 9). The war is later described as being fundamental to national security by US President Barack Obama, who states the war is one of choice rather than necessity (Crawford 29). Australian media coverage on the Global War on Terror reflects rather than influences strong public and political consensus in favour of the conflict, one that is conveyed without a strong reliance on government sources as is commonplace in conflict reporting (Hallin 40). These reports form a rare public concern for political activity due to the disruptive nature they have on families and communities, whose support is maintained though articles which reassure and describe the safe yet important work the soldiers are carrying out.
Representation: The Parties of War in Afghanistan
<23> Having studied the higher political, industry and journalistic elements of conflict reporting, we focus the remainder of this paper on the study of the articles and images themselves, drawing on the work of Stuart Hall and his study of language and representation. Using Hall’s framework, we explore the representation of the newly reformed Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP), the Australian soldiers serving in the region and then finally the native inhabitants, including a brief look at the representation of the Taliban. This will allow for a study of the differing representations of these groups, allowing for explanation within the academic framework previously used in this paper. Looking first to the ANA and ANP, it is easy to see their coverage taking a decisively negative approach. When organising patrols, Australian troops state it takes much talking to achieve only a simple patrol, saying that “From 40 minutes of chat, there is five minutes of actual business, the Afghan way.” (McPhedran, 2009l: 25). They are often asleep when missions are scheduled to begin, only heading into the field after being coaxed by their commanders or literally kicked into action, and when patrols do start they are often up to twenty minutes late (McPhedran, 2009l: 24-25; 2009f: 19; 2009i: 42). It is hard not to receive connotations of a ‘lazy’ soldier force when reading the description of the ANA and ANP in the gathered articles.
<24> Apart for their laziness, the Afghan soldiers are said to have little understanding or care for their weapons and equipment. The articles tell that the ANA soldiers “...roll up half prepared, weapons all over the shop,” (McPhedran, 2009l: 25), that “...their weapons drills are at best lax,” (McPhedran, 2009l: 24), and that the mentoring Australian troops need to regularly check up on the ANA guard towers to ensure their weapons are actually facing out into the field (McPhedran, 2009i: 43). Again, the denotative words of the article conjure the mental image of a group of men with little idea about how to carry out their job as protectors of peace and democracy. Furthermore, the ANA and ANP personnel are depicted as lacking in discipline when it comes to military matters and operations in the field. When returning from patrol they lose discipline and “...are off at a gallop regardless of the threat,” (2009a: 24) back to their base, and are described as ‘wild horses’ that constantly need to be kept in check by their Australian mentors (McPhedran, 2009i: 43). During combat they fail to maintain adequate spacing and huddle around their Australian mentors, often panicking (McPhedran, 2009d: 48). The only mention of their off-duty lives involves two ANP officers attempting to speed through a roadblock without their uniform, resulting in them being shot dead due to their failure to stop and identify themselves (Dodd 4). Their religious lifestyles are also shown to negatively impact on their ability to carry out their jobs; they can only patrol for a few hours during Ramadan due to the tradition of fasting and hours of prayer, leading to frustration for their Australian mentors. All this negativity is embodied in a quote from an Australian soldier, when he states the ANA and ANP personnel “‘naturally’ do not embrace concepts such as time, weapons, discipline or effective patrolling,” (McPhedran, 2009l: 24). While they are on occasion referred to as fearless and hardened fighters, the article is quick to add in the same sentence that they are ineffective as soldiers and liable to corruption, forcing them to be assigned away from their local regions (McPhedran, 2009l: 24; 2009f: 19).
<25> Having summarised the common themes of the connotations implied through the denotations of the personnel of the ANA and ANP, we shall now examine comparative signifiers assigned to the Australian personnel deployed to the region, to both ensure stability and peace against the Taliban and to mentor and train the ANA and ANP into becoming a capable security force. By comparison, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel are depicted as a professional army, composed of senior and capable soldiers, all of which have been intensively trained for their deployment, some troops being so qualified they are carrying out tasks usually reserved for much higher rank individuals (McPhedran, 2009l: 25; 2009b: 10). Unlike the ANA troops who always turn up late for patrol, the ADF soldiers are always ready and prepared to depart on time for their duties (McPhedran, 2009l: 25). While the Afghan soldiers are said to be unreliable and unprepared, Australian personnel have received much praise from allied commanders, as well as local community leaders (Advertiser, 2009a: 4; Dodd 4; Hodge, 2009b: 8; McPhedran 4). As mentioned above, their mission while in Afghanistan is dual pronged; to train local forces and fend off the Tabilban. While the troops themselves believe in their mission and gain much job satisfaction from it, their task is difficult (McPhedran, 2009b: 11). Having initially jumped for the opportunity to be deployed overseas, soldiers state that frustration with the local personnel is rife and even keeping the Afghan soldiers on task is a daily challenge (Advertiser 2009c: 8; McPhedran, 2009l: 24; 2009e: 48). Regardless of their frustrations, the ADF personnel maintain their job is all about “...diplomacy, advocacy, friendship driven by a deep commitment to making the ANA an effective force able to protect and secure its own people,” (McPhedran, 2009l: 25).
<26> Carrying out this mission is no easy task if one is to believe the connotations put forward by the reporters from The Advertiser and The Australian. The ADF troops “...spend weeks on end sleeping on rocks in the dirt, eating rations out of plastic bags and walking for hours lumping heavy loads in unbearable heat,” (McPhedran 19). They have to put up with the extreme heat and dust without the comfort of air conditioning, staving off sleep deprivation and constantly being suddenly called out on early morning operations (McPhedran, 2009i: 420). They find themselves in frequent danger of death and injury, and are working way beyond their comfort zones (McPhedran, 2008d: 48; 2009i: 42; 2009k: 23). In this harsh and inhospitable environment, the threat from the enemy is never ending; they are a prime target for the Taliban and their insidious roadside bombs which means it is safer to walk than drive (McPhedran 19). Even their headquarters far behind safe lines and high levels of security have been attacked, and many know friends who have been injured or killed (McPhedran, 2009a: 1; 2009d: 42).
<27> Despite all the hardship and danger facing them, the Australian soldiers remain positive and upbeat. They are said to not adopt aggressive poses when on patrol, treat the locals with respect and dignity, and are casual when informing their families back home they survived a roadside bomb attack (McPhedran, 2009d: 48; 2009l: 25). Even the name of their formation – the ‘Reconstruction Task Force’ – hints at a non-aggressive organization (McPhedran, 2009a: 1). They talk with reporters under a canvas tent enjoying a hot cup of coffee and wander their base in thongs and shorts when not on duty, enjoying hearty breakfasts and schnitzels for tea followed by movies in the evening (McPhedran, 2009i: 42-43). Within this relaxed and informal setting they talk about how they love their job and especially using their ‘big boys toys’, and speak about how lucky they are to work with mates (Hodge, 2009b: 8; McPhedran, 2009b: 11; 2009f: 19; 2009i: 42). The articles tell how important love is to their lives, especially that of friends and family (McPhedran, 2009b: 10; 2009i: 42; 2009k: 23). The third party of the conflict, the local Taliban forces that the Australians troops are deployed to directly and indirectly deal with, are mentioned only infrequently in the August news coverage of the conflict in Afghanistan. What the reader is told is that the Taliban are hardline militants and insurgents who launch strikes and suicide attacks, who are of the Islamic faith (Hodge, 2009c:1; 2009d: 4; 2009f: 1; McPhedran 19). They indiscriminately target and kill American and Australian soldiers, as well as targeting unarmed civilian contractors working to rebuild the region (Crawford 29; Hodge 9; McPhedran 1; Norington 9). Due to the Taliban, everyday in the country is said to start with an explosion or gun battle (Hodge 9). Members of the Taliban are intent on disrupting the elections held during August, and disrupting democracy (Hodge 1; McPhedran 19). In order to achieve this they carry out a campaign of intimidation again voters, including use of their ‘night letters’ which warn that anyone found to be helping foreigners will be killed (Hodge 4; McPhedran 19; 1; 25). They burn schools and beat farmers in their own fields, carry out rocket attacks against polling booths, dress up as women to carry out suicide bomb attacks, and are able to detonate bombs at the doorstep of the Australian headquarters (Hodge 1; McPhedran 4; 25). Locals who are found to be collaborating with American and Australian troops are tried before a Taliban court and if found guilty are hung or have their throats cut, with these executions being taped and sold by the Taliban in local markets (McPhedran 25).
<28> From the above examples it is easy to see how each of the three groups are represented in distinctly different fashions. The general representation is that the Afghan police and army personnel are currently undisciplined, inept and currently unable to maintain peace and security in their own country. This appears to work in tandem with Hallin’s work on the maintenance of the home front; by setting up a signified notion of the ANA and ANP being unable to carry out their job in Afghanistan, the reader can be shown that the government’s decision to continue troop deployment in the country is validated and justified. The representation of the Australian personnel deployed in the region further works to build and garner public support for the conflict. Unlike their Afghan counterparts, the ADF troops are shown as highly trained and qualified, and very capable of carrying out their mission. While they are shown to be operating in a very dangerous and inhospitable environment, they retain the sense of humour, their loyalty and the hard working selfless nature that helped build the early ANZAC spirit during World War I (Soutphommasane 11). This representation is described by Hallin as the way in which the reporting of conflict can help build or reinforce national identity and self-expression (Hallin 150). Finally, the representation of the Taliban in the articles works to sustain the home front, albeit in a different fashion. According to theorists such as Peter Andreas, a criminalizing aspect is required in conflict reporting in order to sustain the basis for war (Andreas 29). By having the Taliban signified as evil terrorists who are actively working against democracy, the Australian public is positioned to see the virtues and importance of the conflict and continued troop involvement in the region.
Conclusion
<29> When analysing articles published in The Advertiser and The Australian during the month of August 2009 through the framework of political economy as laid out by Daniel Hallin, a number of trends and statements about Australian conflict reporting can be made. While the argument put forward that during the Vietnam era negative media coverage of the event was said to inspire a negative community backlash against the war, coverage of the Global War on Terror appears overwhelmingly positive. Rather than influencing public opinion, media coverage of the war is influenced by these factors; the generally positive consensus to Australia’s involvement in the conflict leads to positive media coverage of the war. As we have also shown, this positive coverage is constructed primarily through the use of firsthand accounts from the soldiers in the field, and does not adhere to the widespread notion that the media relies too heavily on government sources when constructing news stories.
<30> Furthermore, the articles show how stories of war represent within society a rare case of public concern for politics, and provide a unique platform for everyday individuals to take political centre stage. This concern is of course justified, as without public interest and support in the conflict, the consensus of the home front cannot be maintained. Through their composition and editing, the articles can be seen to form a cohesive message to the Australian public that the soldiers are carrying out an important and vital mission in the Middle East, and that despite the dangers they are safe and prepared for the task at hand. These positive connotations act to solidify public support for the campaign, and ensure the constant and uninterrupted supply of personnel and materials needed to continue participating in the war. Operating within this industry environment are the journalists themselves, who appear not to follow the model of reporters in the Falklands Wars as set out by David Morrison. During previous conflicts, the reporters deployed overseas have often been junior reporters, keen to make a name for themselves yet lacking experience. By comparison the Australian reporters working out of the Middle East during August 2009 all appear to hold a great depth of prior knowledge in either the military or the region, allowing them to better understand what they see. In addition to their experience, modern embedded journalists from Australia appear to undergo training and preparation before their deployment under the guidance of the military, something seemingly lacking from earlier wartime correspondents. Despite this cooperative training it appears tensions still exist between the Australian Defence Force and the media. As outlined in this paper, evidence from the studied articles suggests military leaders still control and restrict the movement of journalists, and that prior to this round of embedded deployments they would been unwilling to allow reporters in the field for a prolonged period of time. As stated previously, this appears to be changing with steps seemingly being taken to bridge these gaps, a move that editors say will usher in a new era of transparent and in depth conflict reporting.
<31> Finally this paper shows the role representation plays in war and conflict reporting. Drawing on the work of Hall We have shown how the denotations of the local Afghan forces within the articles leads to the audience perceiving the connotation that the ANA and ANP are composed of young, undisciplined and inexperienced soldiers. Through the process of signification as detailed by Hall, the articles maintain the position that these local soldiers are not yet ready or capable to ensure the peace and stability their home country so desperately needs, a stance supported both in the text and images of the articles. The articles build a representation of the Taliban as an evil and unseen enemy, one which the Afghan, United States and United Kingdom forces have trouble combating. A solution is presented through the representations of the Australian personnel, who are shown in the articles as being well trained and capable of the task at hand. The audience is assured of their safety while in this dangerous environment, and shown how these troops still maintain and hold up the ideals that form the Australian sense of identity. Just as The Art of War was written to enlighten and educate military leaders in the finer points of waring war and conflict, The Art of War Reporting has set out to study the issues relevant to the reporting of such conflicts, including which external elements can distort or alter the coverage events. While this text may not last the two centuries Sun Tzu’s writings have, my hope is that it will form the basis of a new era in the study of Australian war and conflict reporting.
Work Cited
Advertiser (uncredited). “Good to see you – had no idea that you were home.” The Advertiser 1 August 2009a: 4.
__(uncredited). “It’s a holy month – but the fight goes on.” The Advertiser 29 August 2009c: 5.
__. “Brown in surprise visit to troops.” The Advertiser 31 August 2009d: 24.
Andreas, Peter. "The Clandestine Political Economy of War and Peace in Bosnia." International Studies Quarterly 48 (2004): 29-51.
Baudrillard, Jean. The Gulf War Did Not Take Place. Sydney: Power Publications, 1995.
Enright, Michael & Brian Roberts. “Regional Clustering in Australia.” Australian Journal of Management 26 (2001): 65-86.
Crawford, Carly. “We need this war: Obama.” The Advertiser 19 August 2009: 29.
Dodd, Mark. “Diggers shoot two cops who failed to stop.” The Australian 13 August 2009: 4.
Hallin, Daniel. "The Media, the War in Vietnam, and Political Support: A Critique of the Thesis of an Oppositional Media." The Journal of Politics 46.1 (1984): 2-24.
__. "The Media and War." International Media Research: A Critical Study. Eds. John Corner, Philip Schlesinger & Roger Silverstone. United States: Routledge, 1997: 206-231.
__. "American Media and Warfare Challenges." March 2003. <http://sanford.duke.edu/centers/tiss/pubs/documents/Hallin.pdf>.
Hallin, Daniel & Todd Gitlin. "The Gulf War as Popular Culture and Televison Drama." Taken by Storm: The Media, Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Gulf War. Eds. Lance Bennett & David Paletz. United States: Chicago UP, 1994: 149-164.
Harper Collins Publishing. "Ian McPhedran". 2009. <http://www.harpercollins.com.au/authors/50019722/Ian_McPhedran/index.aspx>.
Höijer Birgitta, Nohrstedt; Stig Arne & Ottosen Rune (2002). 'The Kosovo War in the Media - Analysis of a Global Discursive Order.' Conflict & Communication Online 1(2). <avail. at: http://www.cco.regener-online.de>.
Hodge, Amanda. “Aussie at helm for Afghan poll security.” The Australian 17 August 2009b: 8.
__. “Kabul under attack ahead of poll.” The Australian 19 August 2009c: 1.
__. “Waiting for the end of the killing time.” The Australian 21 August 2009f: 9.
__. “Deadly bomb ‘not linked to Afghan vote’.” The Australian 27 August 2009h: 9.
Infinitas Bookshop. "Ian McPhedran." 2009. <http://www.infinitas.com.au/ProductsByAuthor.php?autid=26178>.
Karnik, Niranjan. "Rwanda & the Media: Imagery, War & Refuge." Review of African Political Economy 78 (1998): 611-623.
McGoldrick, Annabel. "War Journalism and 'Objectivity'." Conflict and Communications Online 5.2 (2006): 1-7.
McPhedran, Ian. “War Zone.” The Advertiser 10 August 2009a: 1.
__. “New Digger force moves into frontline.” The Advertiser 10 August 2009b: 10.
__. “Fired up for live action.” The Advertiser 10 August 2009c: 11.
__. “How do you tell someone I was blown up today.” The Advertiser 15 August 2009d: 48.
__. “Aussie troops in for at least 5 years.” The Advertiser 17 August 2009e: 9.
__. “Polls apart.” The Advertiser 19 August 2009f: 19.
__. “Afghans ‘too scared to vote’.” The Australian 19 August 2009g: 1.
__. “Afghans take on Taliban to register their votes.” The Advertiser 21 August 2009h: 4.
__. “Dangerous life of our Diggers.” The Advertiser 22 August 2009i: 42-43.
__. “Terror toll on Afghan poll.” The Advertiser 24 August 2009j: 23.
__. “Bomb experts dive into danger.” The Advertiser 24 August 2009k: 23.
__. “Volatile mix in war on terror frontline.” The Advertiser 29 August 2009l: 24-25.
Montanari, Federico. "Semiotics and Representation of International Conflicts: The Example of Journalistic Communication during the Kosovo war." Semiotics 143.1-4 (2003): 1-10.
Morrison, David. "Journalists and the Social Construction of War." Contemporary British History 8.2 (1994a): 305-320.
Morrison, David & Howard Tumber. "Information, Knowledge and Journalistic Procedure: Reporting the War in the Falklands." Mass Communication Research: On Problems and Policies. Eds. Cees Hamelink & Olga Linne. United States: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1994b: 211-226.
Murdoch, Scott. “Journalists embedded for Afghan election.” The Australian 10 August 2009: 31.
Norington, Brad. “War with militants a necessity: Obama.” The Australian 19 August 2009: 9.
O'Heffernan, Patrick. (1994). A mutual exploitation model of media influence in U.S. foreign policy. In W. Lance Bennett & David L. Paletz (Eds.), Taken by storm: The media, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy in the Gulf War (pp. 231-249). Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
Poster, Mark. The Second Media Age. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press, 1995.
Soutphommasane, Tim. “Why Can’t Patriots be Multicultural?” AQ: Journal of Contemporary Analysis, 77.4 (2005): 10-12.
Taylor, Philip. "Journalism Under Fire: The Reporting of War and International Crisis." News, Public Relations and Power. Ed. Simon Cottle. United Kingdom: SAGE Publications, 2003. 63:80.
Tiffen, Rodney. "The Press." The Media in Australia: Industries, Texts, Audiences. Eds. Stuart Cunningham & Graeme Turner. Australia: Allen & Unwin, 1997: 191-200.
Walters, Patrick. “US to urge bigger role for Diggers.” The Australian 22-23 August 2009a: 1.
__. “Afghanistan test looms for leader.” The Australian 22-23 August 2009b: 2.
__. “War changes are on the way.” The Australian 22-23 August 2009c: 21.
Youssef, Nancy & Jonathon Landay. “Troop toll grows for coalition.” The Advertiser 27 August 2009: 38.
Return to Top»