The Journalist and the "Other" in Times of War

Note: This essay appears as part of the Craft and Folk Art Museum's new exhibition, "Exploring the Other: Contemporary Iran through the lens of Iason Athanasiadis," running from January 25 to March 29, 2009.

What is the ethical responsibility of the journalist in telling the story of the Other? And what larger forces come to bear in shaping that story in the press?

These questions take on special importance in times of conflict. Throughout history the Other has served as fodder for campaigns of war and conquest. From the "savage" Geronimo to the "terrorist" Nelson Mandela; from the Cold War Russian bear to the grim-faced dictator Saddam, the portrayal of the Other - accurate or not - has long been political and strategic. At the heart of each enterprise lies the dehumanization of the Other to serve specific policy goals: clearing the land of its native inhabitants; maintaining a system of race-based control; readying a nation for war.

Today's wartime journalists must contend with a powerful mix of government and commercial interests that help set the agenda for the press. In the buildup to the Iraq war, the Pentagon and State Department set the über narrative: the "irrefutable" story of weapons of mass destruction. Giant media corporations, driven by profit over public interest, backed that agenda, drowning out (or sometimes buying out) smaller critical voices with thundering music and repeated scenarios of international calamity. Only a few mainstream American journalists openly questioned the "truth" of Iraq's WMD, and some willingly aided the war agenda with flimsy and misleading reporting.

Resisting such powerful forces can be daunting, especially when the Other has been thoroughly vilified. Making matters worse are the economics of journalism: more consolidation, fewer independent voices in the mainstream, disappearing foreign bureaus. Yet it is essential to the free flow of information in a democracy that citizens hear from independent-minded journalists who dig hard for the real story; who compare the reality on the ground to the official line from Washington; who look beyond the official narrative, and explore an entirely new one. Such efforts can help re-humanize the Other by portraying the lives and struggles of ordinary people: the fruit vendor in the street; the children in school uniforms, coming home for lunch; sweethearts stealing a moment by the seashore at dusk. It matters what you ask, who you talk to, where you point your microphone or camera.

By necessity, contemporary campaigns making the case for war essentially ignore such humanity, focusing instead on a single maniacal despot or the threat of WMD. Media outlets in step with this master narrative thus prepare the ground for the missiles that will fall on the people we never actually saw, much less ever got to know.

And yet, against powerful tides of war, there have always been strong swimmers: Journalists who, despite the obstacles, come to the ground and tell an honest story of what they saw and heard. From George Orwell on the battlefields of the Spanish Civil War; to David Halberstam and his dispatches from Vietnam; to Raymond Bonner and Alma Guillermoprieto in El Mozote, El Salvador; to Anthony Shadid in contemporary Iraq and Lebanon: ethical, honest witness remains the most fundamental antidote to distortion.

Comments

[reezoner]

If, as you say -- and I think you're right -- the portrayal of "the other" is often political and strategic, isn't it the responsibility of the credible journalist to cut through that political and strategic portrayal and get to the the truth? Odd that in this discussion you go back to "terrorist" Mandela but don't mention Palestinians. They are the best example today by far.

[FogBelter]

I recalled a passage by war correspondent Richard Henry Little, cited in "Sitting in Darkness" by Bain. Little was reporting on the death of Filipino General Gregorio Del Pilar at Tirad Pass during the Philippine American War in 1900.

"We had seen him cheering his men in the fight. One of our companies crouched up close under the side of the cliff where he had built his first intrenchment, heard his voice continually during the fight, scolding them, praising them, cursing, appealing one moment to their love of their native land and the next minute threatening to kill them if they did not stand firm. Driven from the first intrenchment he fell slowly back to the second in full sight of sharp shooters and under a heavy fire. Not until every man around him in the second intrenchment was down did he turn his white horse and ride slowly up the winding trail. Then we who were below saw an American squirm his way out to the top of a flat rock, and take deliberate aim at the figure on the white horse. We held our breath, not knowing whether to pray that the sharpshooter would shoot straight or miss. Then came the spiteful crack of the Krag rifle and the man on horseback rolled to the ground, and when the troops charging up the mountain side reached him, the boy general of the Filipinos was dead."

[FogBelter]

Little continued:

"So this was the end of Gregorio Del Pilar .... a private sitting by the fire was exhibiting a handkerchief. "It's old Pilar's. It's got 'Dolores Hoses' on the corner. I guess it was his girl. Well, it's all over with Gregorio."

"Anyhow," said Private Sullivan, "I got his pants. He won't need them anymore."

The man who had the general's shoes strode proudly past ... A private sitting on a rock was examining a golden locket containing a curl of woman's hair. "Got the locket off his neck," said the soldier ...

As the main column started on its march for the summit of the mountain a turn in the trail brought us again in sight of the insurgent general far down below us. There had been no time to bury him. Not even a blanket or a poncho had been thrown over him.

A crow sat on the dead man's feet. Another perched on his head. The fog settled down upon us. We could see the body no longer.

And when Private Sullivan went by in his trousers, and Snider with his shoes, and the other man who had the cuff buttons, and the sergeant who had the spur, and the lieutenant who had the other spur, and the man who had the handkerchief, and another that had his shoulder straps, it suddenly occurred to me that his glory was about all we had left him."

Definitely war journalism from another time.

[Claude LaFreniere]

Excellent analysis on which I agree. But some elements are missing in this "powerful mix"...

The impact of pressure groups and the biased opinion of the crowd and ready to receive informations going against their bias has to be discussed as well as the other factors.

I would like to put the emphasis on the relations between foreign conflicts and domestic political struggles. If the opinion of the crowd in a situation like the beginning of the useless and stupid war against the wrong target in Irak was driven by a large "patriotic" public opinion and reflected in the medias this effect may also goes on different path: remember the crowd of "peace doves" against the Viet Nam war? Did the medias cover the North Viet Nam "collateral damages" as well as the US ones?

Recently, in the Israel war against the Hamas in Gaza we were witness of such "crowd driven opinion" largely reflected in the medias.

How many medias or journalist recall the simple facts about what is the Hamas and what kind of political objectives they fight for? Yes, the journalists have to deal with their own bias and the influence of the gouvernment and powerful group of interests but without forgetting such crowd of "Hanoï Jane" wannabe or influential "patriot of the foreigner only" like Mr. Noam Chomsky.

[GrainOSand]

Thanks Mr. Tolan, your analysis was beautiful.

It is difficult to realize that your government may lie to you and that the people who posture themselves as serious truth seekers and tellers are akin to streetwalkers looking for the next buck (high priced garden implements). As with everything observable there is a counter to "bad journalism". For every Sean Hannity I believe there is a Bill Moyers or a Jim Lehrer. For every Rush Limbaugh there is a Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. For every compromised journalist or pundit there is one who loves their craft and thereby express excellence in being. These are journalist who really love their country and the world and therefore seek to tell the truth, for the good of country or world. CNN has excellent journalists, as does MSNBC, and even FOX on cable (though I never watch FOX out of protest for their dark side). CBS, ABC, and NBC all have conscientious journalist on staff. The Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, and the many other printed news sources have serious journalist in their employ.

The “other” is never the “other” to me. When bombs are reported to have hit a target my mind always goes to the potential suffering of innocents on the ground, the innocent dead dismissively labeled collateral damage as a way to sanitize what is actually murder. The people who died on 9/11 were not "others" and therefore there can be no “others” elsewhere.

[gageeandbaba]

I really wish one people didn't control most of our media including film, newpapers and the top news organizations.

[singforpeace]

Excellent points!