The End of War

Do television news organisations have a responsibility to stop wars? In considering this question my starting point, valid or not, is that it is our individual responsibility to prevent war. (This bypasses important questions such as whether all wars are necessarily evil, or whether there is such a thing as a 'just' war. It ignores questions of sovereignty and self-determination.) I am also considering the question only from the perspective of international television news organisations. The role that national and local news media can play in fomenting or preventing conflict, being more complicated because it directly involves participants, deserves a more detailed treatment than is possible here.

If we accept that it is our responsibility as individuals to do our best to avoid war, should this responsibility not also apply to television news organisations, which are, after all, simply a collection of individuals?

Before looking at what role television news media should play in conflict prevention, is it correct to assume that television can prevent wars? It is clear that international television news coverage alone cannot stop wars in their tracks. Once wars start, they can be stopped only by force or mediation. The question, then, is whether television should influence what kind of force is applied to end wars.

The idea that television can in some way prevent conflicts has emerged as a result of the effect that television images have on the conduct of foreign policy. Images from the war in Bosnia - most notably those of the Muslim detainees in the Bosnian Serb detention centre at Trnopolje in August 1992 and the pictures from the Sarajevo market bombing in February 1994 - have led to changes in the application of foreign policies that have had a direct bearing on the war. These examples suggest that television images, by prompting intervention from superior powers, certainly influence the course of wars, and may even lead to their conclusion.

This view is countered by the argument that television news footage does not have such a dramatic effect on the conduct of foreign policy. The foreign policies of countries, alliances and organisations that constitute the international community are determined by national or self-interest. While the stimulus of media pressure may prompt short-term action, this does not affect the long-term policy. The media may wish to believe that their reporting is making a difference, but in reality the underlying foreign policy does not alter.

The answer as to whether the media can influence foreign policy probably lies somewhere in the middle. Wildly differing short-term policies may not affect long-term policies anyway. Let us imagine that the policy of Western European governments in Bosnia was to contain the war within the region. Direct military intervention, complete inaction or the slow invasion that has taken place would probably have made little difference to the success of failure of containment. (Short-term policies do affect the lives of those in Bosnia, though - they can mean the difference between winning and losing, between destruction and salvation.)

The effectiveness of the media in driving government policy may be over-estimated, but it should not be ignored. The media may not influence long-term policy, but it can affect the application of that policy. Governments are adept at responding with short-term measures to assuage an outraged electorate whipped up by a dramatically presented news story of the 'something must be done' variety. What may not actually concern such a policymaker, for example, is how a war is to be stopped, or in whose favour. Here, the argument that television cannot influence policy does not necessarily mean that the media is incapable of stopping - or on the other hand prolonging - wars.

In Bosnia media attention played a major role in preventing the complete defeat of the Sarajevo government forces. Yet the same attention did nothing to prevent the destruction of Grozny. It still remains for governments to produce the political will to change the course of conflicts, and the influence of the media may not be enough to do that, even if it is able to prompt some act of political expediency. Media effort is not guaranteed to influence conflicts. Even if there are no guarantees, should the media still make every effort to stop wars?

Everyone takes sides in conflicts. But whatever his views on the power of television to influence events, the old-fashioned 'who, what, when, where, why and how' news reporter would set aside his personal feelings in an attempt to report accurately what is going on. This is professionalism at work. It is a recognition of the role of a reporter - to report.

Today, this professionalism is being undermined. The struggle for power and influence among network reporters is as fierce as it is in any government. There is a battle, too, for ratings and advertising revenue. Cutting costs to feed price wars tends to hit the foreign news budgets first. This leads to a reduction in the number of correspondents abroad, so that the media often does not become involved in reporting in depth from many regions until a crisis has spiralled out of control.

These factors may lead to healthy free-market competition, but they also lead to declining standards in news reporting, because effort is applied to maintaining an image rather than to the job of reporting. The sensation is preferred to the fact; the instant reaction is preferred to the considered reflection.

Reporters flock to conflict zones once the crisis breaks. Many arrive lacking an understanding of history both past and recent, and are required to gain the necessary knowledge rapidly in order to file their reports. Some do this more diligently than others; but it is surely impossible for one reporter to keep abreast of events in conflicts.

The individual reporter cannot hope to gather enough material to enable him to maintain an impartial viewpoint. The reporter is bombarded by propaganda, and is often unable to cross frontlines to check facts. There comes a time when he begins to identify with one party to the conflict simply because the weight of information he is receiving is so one-sided.

The difficulties are made worse by the thirst of newsdesks for stories that must be delivered before those of competing organisations. Dry facts and policy explanations do not make interesting television. Stories about individual suffering do. Those who suffer more receive more media attention. This has a distorting effect. Instant responses to images of suffering may cloud an appreciation of the underlying causes of a conflict, which in turn can delay the search for lasting solutions. Instant news, and the demands for action that so often accompany it, may be denying us time for reflection.

Reporters are dispatched with briefs to uncover atrocities committed by one side; somehow in this process the misdeeds of the other side are diluted. Right and wrong, and the attribution of blame, is decided on utilitarian grounds. Whoever tugs at the media's heartstrings first wins the propaganda war. But this lack of balance may lead to one side in a conflict losing faith in international efforts to mediate fairly. The change in reporting styles - the demands imposed by the requirement to produce instant news and analysis (how often does a live TV interview with a reporter in the field add significantly to an understanding of the situation?) and the emergence of the reporter as personality - has promoted the reporter to a position as advocate. News reports must, it seems, have a point of view. The reporter must take sides, overtly or implicitly. Is this a change for the better?

An additional problem for television is that it needs pictures to tell the news story. In the absence of those pictures, it has to substitute material from archives or other sources. This may be justified on the grounds that the images selected illustrate fairly the real situation.

The dangers of this approach are clear. The first is the notion that a substitute image can pass for a fair representation of facts. The implication is that in the pursuit of a greater truth it is acceptable to substitute something else - an image - that illustrates the truth. If this is accepted, then it means that facts may be set aside if they do not confirm the greater truth. But truth is a matter of perception until the facts are marshalled to support it. Ignoring or bypassing facts distorts the truth.

A second danger is that the unscrupulous can use this weakness to promote falsehoods and misinformation. Because they are believed by the committed journalist to illustrate a greater truth, these are reported unquestioningly. In Bosnia figures produced by the government in Sarajevo were accepted and broadcast with nowhere near the scepticism that greeted similar information coming from the Bosnian Serb leadership in Pale.

Television news professionals should not allow themselves to become instruments of policy. Independence and balance must be preserved, the more so when an ever-increasing number of people, movements, governments and international organisations are aware of the power of the media in forming public opinion and are working towards making sure that their view is the one presented.

Once a journalist has set himself the goal of stopping or influencing wars, it is a short step to accepting that any means to achieve that end are justified. At that stage it becomes possible to use the good lie, if it leads to a greater truth. Lies then become more important than the truth. There can be no greater betrayal of journalistic standards. Journalists and news organisations should stand up for the truth, not compromise it.

The role of television news is to report the facts. Within the media there are opportunities for opinions to be expressed. What have to be maintained are the distinctions between news reporting, news analysis and comment. These distinctions must also be made clear to the audience. Television news must regulate itself; those who work in it must decide between political commitment, or commitment to the standards of fair reporting.

There is a way in which the media in general, and television in particular, can play a part in preventing or influencing conflicts. That lies in producing fair and accurate reports that inform the audience. Otherwise the media can have no role in trying to prevent or stop conflicts, but only in fighting them on behalf of one side against another. And that is the job of the soldier, not the reporter.

Tim Weaver is a journalist and television producer based in London. This article was originally published in Crosslines magazine (March/April 1997).

CONTENTS    HOME