Images of war are used by US media outlets to
boost ratings. From the on location photo journalist, to the deputy
picture editor who ultimately makes the decision whether a photograph is
publishable, the depiction of war images shown to the US public is heavily
constrained institutionally, by the news agency, and by the established rules
on what images can be depicted.
Limited Images
The constraints placed on news
media agencies as to the content of images being displayed to the US public
borders on censorship and has a fundamental function of shielding the viewers
from the inevitable atrocities of war. US
news media organizations have constraints on how they can represent images of
war. Some of these restrictions include the depiction of sexual violence
and body parts, both a consequence of war. The constraints and rules
placed on news media agencies, from media "gatekeeping”, to government, imposes
rules as to what images are permitted.Along
with the financial pressures of the high cost of having journalists in the
conflict zone, a journalistic environment is created which not only fosters the
photo journalists to self-edit and self-censor , but also restricts the types
of photographs taken. This results in an inaccurate
and idolized portrayal of war. The pressures on photojournalists to
produce images which captivate the US audience, depicting impact and drama,
while being sensitive to not showing gruesome images, constricts the photojournalists
from portraying an accurate representation the consequences of war. The
contradiction between the US public’s demand for images which impact the
audience and show controversy, while adhering to the rules placed on
them to prohibit the depiction of the true hell and suffering that war brings
to all who come in contact with it, constrains news media agencies.
Disconnected Public
Since
World War II the US has been involved in a plethora of military conflicts, many
which the US public has limited knowledge about. Although the U.S. is
quick to intervene and show force, the consequences of their presence is seldom
understood. The general disconnect between the U.S. public and the role that
the U.S. plays as a rule enforcer in the world causes a lack of understanding
of the impact the US military has had on many different countries. Images of
the conflict are deliberately “tamed” in order to ensure that the public is not
turned off by gruesome images of war. The disconnection between what is
shown and what is actually happening on the ground creates an idealized vision
of war and the impact of war. Most people in the United States have never
experienced war and have a glorified, “Hollywood-like” impression of war. This
phenomenon can be observed in many aspects of US society. From the
glorification of past wars to the marketing of war video games the idealization
of war is deeply rooted in the American psyche.
If the US public was exposed to
“real” images of war it would be increasingly difficult for the government to
justify military action to their citizens. By prohibiting images of rape,
torture and dismemberment the US public is unable to grasp the true identity
and consequences of war and those who suffer. Although
images of war can be disturbing for a viewer, it should be up to the observer
to come to their own conclusions. The self-censored environment, created by
news media institutions and the U.S. government, has constrained the
journalists and do not allow them to portray the images which they feel best
describes the situation in a conflict zone. The U.S. publics’ inability to
grasp the consequences of war results in an apathetic attitude towards military
intervention.
[1]
Westwell, G. “Accidental Napalm Attack and the Hegemonic Visions of America’s
War in Vietnam,” Critical Studies in
Media Communication, Routledge.
Thanks for sharing your views on the media's representation of war and violence overseas. I think you bring up a valid point regarding the selection of images carried out by news media when covering conflicts and wars overseas. While I definitely agree that we have much to lose from preventing American viewers from literally seeing the whole picture, it might also be important to consider the de-sensitization that might occur if images of violence are increasingly included in news media coverage. It may just be a matter of how much is too much and how much is too little. Like you said, the American public's "inability to grasp the consequences of war results in an apathetic attitude towards military intervention," but unless we are careful with the extent and frequency of exposure to such images, a similar sense of apathy may arise from a completely opposite approach.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteGreat post Alex! Thank you. You are right that the American public has been protected from viewing horrific images of the U.S. engagement in many wars. However, wasn't it the Vietnam War that led to an increased restriction on what the American public can and cannot view? I just recall Dr. Weaver discussing the Vietnam War in class and remembered how during both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, soldiers’ bodies shipped home could not be photographed and printed into newspapers, or even online front pages of news media industries.
The amount of censorship is not too surprising, but does raise concern at least for me in keeping the American public in the dark. Our lack of knowledge is only a benefit to us, but a negative perception in the eyes of foreigners who love American culture, but do not support nor approve of the U.S. involvement as a 'rule enforcer.' This creates a two-sided image of the U.S. as a country capable of engaging in horrific conflicts and violence against enemies during times in war, while also possessing a strong innocence with the majority of the American public living peacefully at home.
Why this has come to pass and still is on-going is a mystery to me. But, then not many among the American public want to be better informed on wars and atrocities committed. Detached from viewing ‘war’ in the front page of the newspaper and firsthand, Americans have become so accustomed to being disconnected that a revision to upheld restrictions remains unnecessary. But, in films, especially in Hollywood productions, war, violence, famine, etc. are portrayed in a realistic fashion. Mostly fictitious unless based on a true story or historical event, these film portrayals remain the "realist" image of war that the American public will see.