Iraq war exposes television bias

The very day after the British government and media accused the Arabic-language satellite channel Al-Jazeera of "tasteless coverage", some sections of the British press carried graphic sports terminology for coalition victories. The Daily Express newspaper reported Britain’s "greatest tank victory after World War II" with great fanfare, with one headline saying "14-0", as if reporting a football score. The score was apparently a reference to military spokesmen saying: "There were 14 of ours and 14 of theirs. The final score was 14 nil. It was an away fixture and the away team won." The same headline featured in the Daily Star tabloid.

While the media on both sides has been distasteful at one time or another, probably in the name of patriotism, there have been obvious bias reports on virtually all channels be they American, Arab or British. For example while there was much by the American and British about the Chemical Weapons factory said to be found in Iraq last week by coalition forces, the Arab media refuted the allegations out rightly. The western media subsequently downplayed the story when no evidence was found of chemicals or weapons of mass destruction.

The British military officials also accepted that the much publicized television claims that they had captured an Iraqi General near Basra were untrue. This was after the General appeared on the Arab Satellite Network, Al Jazeera television to prove he had not been in harm’s way. The UK Press Officer, Will MacKinlay admitted that the capture news was untrue but nobody was there to say why the claim had been made in the first place.

Television news reporting has now become a mishmash of overt ideological manipulation by governments and crass commercial pandering to the masses in pursuit of the audience share needed to sell advertising.

American television tends to go heavy on the symbols of patriotism while emotional collages of war photos are used liberally as transitions between live reports and advertising breaks. American TV also puts a heavy emphasis on showcasing America’s weapons technology but has so far shown little of the worst civilian casualties in Iraq. It has highlighted US troops’ humanitarian assistance to Iraqis and difficult to overlook is the use of value-laden and simplistic expressions like “the good guys” to refer to American troops.

The strange aspect of US television coverage has been the widespread double assumption that Iraqis would offer no resistance and would welcome the American Army with open arms. Some Iraqis will surely do so, but most people in this region now see the Americans as an invading force that will become an occupying force. The American media probably reflects widespread ignorance about what it means to have your country invaded, occupied, administered and retooled in someone else’s image. Americans are correct to assume that their impressive military might will prevail on the battlefield in the end; yet they also appear oblivious to the visceral workings of nationalism and national identity. While many Iraqis generally may dislike their vicious and violent Iraqi regime, the average Iraqi and Arab has a much older, stronger, and more recurring fear of armies that come into their lands from the West carrying political promises and food while bombing their cities to ruins and killing many of their fellow civilian brothers and sisters.

 Arab television channels display virtually identical biases including much focus on the worst Iraqi civilian casualties, accepting Iraqi and other Arab government statements at face value, and highlighting the setbacks to the attacking Anglo-American forces by means including showing films of captured or dead troops.

Arab television stations showed pictures of dead and captured American troops, many of which were eventually shown on American television. But Arab channels the same day also showed horrifying pictures that were not aired by Western TV stations. One picture showed a small Iraqi child who had died during an American attack, with the back of the child’s skull and head missing. Another showed a bomb-mutilated corpse with only the head identifiable. The pictures were as gut-wrenching and disgusting to Arabs as the pictures of the dead Americans were to Americans.

One had to see both images simultaneously that day to fully grasp the tragic dimension of this conflict. The conflict is seeing terrible human loss and suffering on both sides, sadly from a deliberately chosen war that could and should have been avoided. The world has only started to witness the first signs of human, economic, and political costs that will be paid by many people and countries before this adventure plays itself out.