Media And War On Terror

These candid conversations capture the difficulties of reporting during crisis and war, particularly the tension between government and the press. The participants include distinguished journalists—American and foreign, print and broadcast—and prominent public officials, past and present. They illuminate the struggle to balance free speech and the right to know with the need to protect sensitive information in the national interest. As the Information Age collides with the War on Terrorism, that challenge becomes even more critical and daunting. "We are very careful in what we talk about publicly. We do not want to paint a picture for the bad guys. So we don't talk very much at all about what we're going to do going forward."—Victoria Clarke, Department of Defense "This was a war that was very different. It was conducted primarily by about 200 to 250 special forces soldiers on the ground. There were no reporters with those soldiers until after the fall of Kandahar, until the war was essentially over. There were no eyes and ears, and that's the way the Pentagon wants it."—John McWethy, ABC News "I covered Capitol Hill for a very long time and was always astounded by the nonpolitical motivation of a lot of people that are up there who really do want to make the world better, want to make the U.S. better. So don't come away believing that because there are political implications that there are always political motivations."—Candy Crowley, CNN "There is a feeling among the community, Muslim Americans, and also overseas that we might become the new enemy. But so far nobody knows whether it is just because of the war or if it's going to last."—Hafez Al-Mirazi, Al-Jazeera Cosponsored with the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at the Kennedy School, Harvard University.

These candid conversations capture the difficulties of reporting during crisis and war, particularly the tension between government and the press. The participants include distinguished journalists—American and foreign, print and broadcast—and prominent public officials, past and present. They illuminate the struggle to balance free speech and the right to know with the need to protect sensitive information in the national interest. As the Information Age collides with the War on Terrorism, that challenge becomes even more critical and daunting. "We are very careful in what we talk about publicly. We do not want to paint a picture for the bad guys. So we don't talk very much at all about what we're going to do going forward."—Victoria Clarke, Department of Defense "This was a war that was very different. It was conducted primarily by about 200 to 250 special forces soldiers on the ground. There were no reporters with those soldiers until after the fall of Kandahar, until the war was essentially over. There were no eyes and ears, and that's the way the Pentagon wants it."—John McWethy, ABC News "I covered Capitol Hill for a very long time and was always astounded by the nonpolitical motivation of a lot of people that are up there who really do want to make the world better, want to make the U.S. better. So don't come away believing that because there are political implications that there are always political motivations."—Candy Crowley, CNN "There is a feeling among the community, Muslim Americans, and also overseas that we might become the new enemy. But so far nobody knows whether it is just because of the war or if it's going to last."—Hafez Al-Mirazi, Al-Jazeera Cosponsored with the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at the Kennedy School, Harvard University.

Exploring the recent increase in anti-American terrorism, this updated study argues that terrorist groups are now exploiting the link between the media and public opinion polls (particularly regarding the popularity of American presidents) in order to publ

Scientific Essay from the year 2013 in the subject Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict, Security, grade: 77.0, University of Sheffield, course: Theory and Practice of International Relations, language: English, abstract: In 2012, at least 67 journalists had been killed in action in different conflict areas across the globe, making it one of the deadliest years for media persons in action (CPJ, 2012). Never before in the recorded history, have so many journalists lost their lives in conflict zone. There was a time when media in war was treated at par with Red Cross Samaritans. But, now journalists are seen as polarised agents of either side (Aday et al., 2005: 6; CPJ, 2012). Perhaps the notion has befallen as a result of increasingly state controlled and propagated media content. Several scholars have researched and argued that in contemporary era, media objectivity is almost invisible and the tactics that make it biased are hidden from masses. Although, there is no deniability in the argument that media has the power to filter certain content in specific style to get desirable response from the public, but unfortunately, it has lost majority control over making that decision. Now it is being used by the governments as a tool to generate consensus over its operations, however outrageous they might be. Researches indicate that in case of ongoing ‘war on terror’ media has been effectively used to create mass support for war, dehumanise enemies, create a fake sense of victory and even as a strategic method to instil positive image in hostile countries. This paper is classified as follows. The first part deals with the concepts of framing, elite and pluralist theories and propaganda model suggested by Herman and Chomsky. Second part attempts to elaborate on the various roles that media plays in the war on terror under, with a brief discussion about the counter forces acting in the information technology that may revolutionise the war reporting in future and challenge the state’s control over the information flow like never before. Finally, the third section looks at how media can be used to instigate peace in conflict regions.

Much is known about the media's role in conflict, but far less is known about the media's role in peace. Graham Spencer's study addresses this deficiency by providing a comparative analysis of reporting conflicts from around the world and examining media receptiveness to the development of peace. This book establishes an argument for the need to rethink journalistic responsibility in relation to peace and interrogates the consequences of news coverage that emphasizes conflict over peace.

This is an excellent source which puts students in the heart of the contemporary discussion and encourages them to form opinions. It is a great resource for seminars as well as gateways to research. - Paul Matthews, University College Birmingham "An excellent text that covers not only how the media cover acts of terrorism but also how terror groups can manipulate the media." - David Lowe, Liverpool John Moores University Have the media contributed to exacerbating the political, cultural and religious divides within Western societies and the world at large? How can media be deployed to enrich, not inhibit, dialogue? To what extent has the media, in all its forms, questioned, celebrated or simply accepted the unleashing of a ′war on terror′? Media and Terrorism: Global Perspectives brings together leading scholars to explore how the world′s media have influenced, and in turn, been influenced by terrorism and the war on terror in the aftermath of 9/11. Accessible and user-friendly with lively and current case studies, it is an essential handbook on the dynamics of war and the media in a global context.

In the post-9/11 era, media technologies have become increasingly intertwined with vertical power as airwaves, airports, air space, and orbit have been commandeered to support national security and defense. In this book, Lisa Parks develops the concept of vertical mediation to explore how audiovisual cultures enact and infer power relations far beyond the screen. Focusing on TV news, airport checkpoints, satellite imagery, and drone media, Parks demonstrates how "coverage" makes vertical space intelligible to global publics in new ways and powerfully reveals what is at stake in controlling it.

This work examines how the mainstream American media reacts to pro-war and anti-war themes throughout the 'War on Terror' in regards to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Using a political economy approach, the author addresses the ways in which corporations that own media reinforce official doctrines and propaganda by contrasting the content of American media to that of other global media.