REPORTING THE LAST CRUSADE
The media: Paul Johnson discusses its role in the Gulf during and after a war
UNDERSTANDABLE anxiety is felt by the British and American authorities about the likely behaviour of the media during a military showdown with Iraq. There is a cultish code of honour among people who work in it, especially in the television networks, which insists that patriotism is not merely outdated but actually evil, that it is the job of the media to hold the balance between all participants in a con- flict, and that they must defy any attempt by their own side (they don't admit the 'own', anyway) to impose rules designed to assist their military efforts. Such attitudes are part of that arrogant and destructive pseudo-religion, media triumphalism, which allots to producers, editors and reporters — some of whom have little education and alley-cat morals — the role of a deity, sitting in judgment on the world, especially the country they happen to live in. It is this misplaced professional pride, founded on nothing more than the sheer power of the media today, which produces the kind of paradox in which the British television networks, in a holier-than-the- public mood, insist it is morally right for them to give air time to IRA mass- murderers and make it easier for them to blow up innocent men, women and chil- dren.
In the case of the Gulf crisis — so far the British media has behaved with com- mendable and, to me, surprising decency. They have recognised that this is as close to a black-and-white conflict between justice and wickedness as it is possible to find in the world, and that the United States and Britain had no alternative but to set up the machinery of sanctions, backed by force if needs be, with United Nations authority. Unlike some foolish bishops, both Catholic and Protestant, who have dithered con- fusedly on whether a conflict with Iraq would be a 'just war', they know from reporting events for the last five-and-half months that there is no question of our beginning a war, just or unjust. The war began on 2 August when Iraq invaded Kuwait and has continued ever since, with Kuwaitis being killed, every day that pas- ses, in their own streets. It has been, so far, a very unjust war indeed, and the real
question all along has been how quickly should we act to reverse this huge injustice and save a small people from genocide. With every week that has passed the physical and human damage to the country has become greater and may now be irreversible. And let no one imagine that Iraq is a 'proper' country and Kuwait an artificial one. Iraq dates only frofn 1920, and its inhabitants have no connection with the great Babylonian empires of antiquity. Kuwait is an old city state which had a strong national identity as far back as the early 19th century. It is also administered in a far more civilised and efficient manner than Iraq and, since 1958, when the last legitimate government in Iraq was over- thrown and most of its members murdered, it has made far better use of its oil revenues. Journalists who visit the Gulf are better acquainted with these facts than ignorant bishops sitting idly in their palaces at home.
Hence no one can reasonably complain about the coverage by the British media, which has remained solid for justice, though dissenting views have been given a reasonable amount of space. British jour- nalists, by and large, have also accepted the complex and detailed media ground rules which have been issued by the Minis- try of Defence. They seem to me to be fair and sensible and, if followed, should en- sure good relations between the armed forces and the print media at least. With the television people I am not so sure, since they like to stress the gore and the horror and may make nuisances of them- selves. They are also more likely to be influenced, for the worse, by the American press and especially the American televi- sion networks, who lost the Vietnam War for America and have no sense of responsi- bility at all. As Spectator readers were informed last week in an article by Stephen Robinson, they have already been causing trouble for the American forces in the Gulf and are likely to make much more if the fighting starts.
My guess is that any fighting will be over quickly and that, during it, too many things will be happening too fast, all over the place, for the US networks to inflict much damage on the American war effort or demoralise people back at home. If, however, the Anglo-American war plans go wrong and a protracted conflict de- velops on the ground as well as in the air an unlikely possibility — then it will be a different story and the American networks will be seen at their worst. The British Government will then have to watch care- fully to ensure that our networks are not infected by the poison. If they are, their crews should be sent home in short order. We have no First Amendment, thank God. It is far more likely, however, that the critical part of the war will be over in 48 hours and that thereafter it will be a matter of mopping up and accepting the surrender of large numbers of Iraqi soldiers. It is then that the difficulties will begin. The armed forces having done their job, the media will move in and begin asking questions. What is to be done with Saddam Hussein, if he survives? Are trials for war crimes advis- able? How, exactly, is Kuwait to be com- pensated for the immense loss of life and property inflicted by the Iraqis? What sort of government should we set up in Bagh- dad? Should we bring back the Hashe- mites? What role should the UN play? Should the Allies set up a permanent security force in the Gulf? How do we keep Syria, Iran and other undesirables out of any eventual solution? These are only a few of the important and difficult questions which will immediately arise. I hope the British media have detailed plans to fly into the post-war scene in the Gulf people with some serious knowledge of the area, as opposed to war reporters. The role the media plays in any settlement is going to be an immense one.
Previous page
