Images as weapons of war: representation, mediation and interpretation

Abstract

Belief that images have become the critical ‘weapon’ in contemporary warfare has enjoyed great currency in the past decade. This belief rests upon certain understandings about the impact visual footage of terrorist attacks or still images of the abuse of prisoners have had on public opinion in different parts of the world. These understandings, in turn, reflect simplistic models of representation and mediation in which citizens are assumed to know little of the ‘true’ situation of war but are easily and primarily shocked by unexpected graphic images. To explore these relationships, this article presents analysis of original research from a three-year study of military practitioners, media coverage of security events, and collaborative audience ethnography across towns and cities in the UK. While military practitioners feel frustration that communicating with publics is ‘like talking to a brick wall’, analysis of audience interpretations of Abu Ghraib and other events suggests varied and negotiated understandings in which audiences account for processes of mediation as well as reflect on the event being represented. Images cannot necessarily be considered primary to explaining how an individual interprets a news story, and, to the extent and manner in which images do matter, this often depends on what longer historical narratives such images are situated within – by media or audiences themselves. No image is intrinsically shocking. For policymakers concerned with public diplomacy, for journalists and for audiences themselves there is a need for further research into the role images – Weber's ‘visual language’ – play amid today’s conditions of diffused war.

Visual Jihad: Constructing the “Good Muslim” in Online Jihadist Magazines

“…34 And, where agonistic imagery is used (such as photographs depicting victimization), information processing is more extensive. 35 Secondly, whilst the impact of image content will hinge on the "complex relation between between specific images and the underlying beliefs, narratives and ideologies held to by particular audiences," 36 there exists the potential for visual content to be taken at face value, especially when embedded within non-fictional media genres such as news photography. 37 It seems that we are less skilled at guarding our judgment against visual than verbal persuasion.…”

ISIS’s media strategy as image warfare: Strategic messaging over time and across platforms

“…Terror organizations understand the significant role that images play in modern conflicts and try to use them to their advantage. Visual images in general, and videos in particular, have significant implication on the perceptions of political actors involved in the conflict (Gow & Michalski, 2008; O’Loughlin, 2011). These visual images serve as shortcuts to the understanding of situations, and shape the public’s views about the conflict and the actors involved in it (Gow & Michalski, 2008), since they make complicated situations easy to interpret (Gillespie, Gow, Hoskins, O’Loughlin, & žveržhanovski, 2010).…”

Understanding militarism after the end of the Cold War: History, international relations, and media studies ask new questions

“…The mediation of war through, for instance, amateur videos posted online challenges traditional state‐centric approaches to understanding the causes, effects, and continuation of war (e.g., Kuntsman & Stein, ). Though questions around audience reception and response are often left unexplored because of the focus on the meaning constructions of the images themselves, recent IR work has included digital anthropology on whether threat narratives have been successful (Gaufman, ); audience ethnography on audience perceptions (O'Loughlin, ); the quantification of visual signifiers and the potential of constructing meaningful generalizations about audience perception and online messaging (Robinson & Schulzke, ); and, a multi‐modal approach to audio‐visual analysis of militarism in video (Jackson, ).…”