The Public and Media Coverage of the War on Iraq

Abstract

Before the war in Iraq in early 2003, there was a great deal of debate about the role played by journalists during the conflict. Journalists needed access and also, in a dangerous war zone, to be secure. The concept of the 'embedded' journalist was widely discussed. This meant that journalists would effectively join military units, follow them around, get close access to the action, and receive protection. But if the 'embed' conceded some editorial authority to military press officers, was this a price worth paying? This paper reviews findings from public opinion surveys conducted during the war itself about the media coverage. The big broadcast brands such as the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, and Sky News were dominant in terms of patronage and along with The Guardian and The Times were also the most trusted sources. The BBC and Sky also received the most votes for accurate, balanced, informative, and interesting coverage. While the public believed that care should be taken with imagery that could be upsetting to children, many also acknowledged that the media had a duty to show the truth of war rather than a sanitized version of it. On the subject of embedded reporters, there were mixed feelings. There was a majority view that embedded reporting did bring people at home closer to the action. In addition, many people thought that it might be difficult for journalists to remain impartial if they got too close to the military.Antes de la Guerra en Iraq a comienzo de 2003, había gran cantidad de debate sobre el rol desempeñado por los periodistas durante el conflicto. Los periodistas necesitaban acceso y también estar seguros en medio de una zona peligrosa de guerra. El concepto del periodista 'empotrado' había sido ampliamente discutido. Esto significaba que los periodistas se incorporaban efectivamente a las unidades militares, las seguían, tenían acceso cercano a la acción y recibían protección. Pero si el 'empotrado' concedía alguna autoridad editorial a los oficiales de los medios militares, ¿valía la pena pagar este precio? Este documento revisa los resultados de las encuestas de la opinión pública, que se condujeron durante la misma guerra sobre la cobertura de los medios. Las grandes compañías de difusión tales como la BBC, ITV, el Canal 4, y Sky News eran dominantes en términos del patrocinio y junto conThe Guardian y The Times fueron también consideradas las fuentes más confiables. La BBC y Sky también recibieron la mayoría de los votos por una cobertura fiel, equilibrada, informativa e interesante. Mientras que el público creía que había que tomar precauciones con las imágines que podrían afectar a los niños, también reconoció que los medios tenían un deber de mostrar la verdad de la guerra, en vez de una versión censurada. Con relación al tema de los reporteros empotrados, había sentimientos opuestos. Había un punto de vista mayoritario de que el reportaje empotrado traía la acción más de cerca a los hogares. Además, mucha gente pensaba que quizás sería difícil para los periodistas permanecer imparciales, si est...

Role of T.V Media Contents in Reshaping Perception of Educated Youth a Case Study of Gujarat Regarding T.V News and Current Affair

“…This theory Therefore explains why the American government was able to gather the support of the public for its march towards a disastrous Iraq war of 2003 after the 9/11 incident. Therefore, journalists must be prepared to confront powerful voices whose political or economic motives lead them to create their own idiosyncratic standards of impartiality [12].…”

Role of T.V Media Contents in Reshaping Perception of Educated Youth A Case Study of Gujrat Regarding T.V News and Current Affair

“…This theory Therefore explains why the American government was able to gather the support of the public for its march towards a disastrous Iraq war of 2003 after the 9/11 incident. Therefore, journalists must be prepared to confront powerful voices whose political or economic motives lead them to create their own idiosyncratic standards of impartiality (Gunter, 2009). …”