book reviews |
|
This text is an exceptional primer for anyone (scholars, students, activists, and knowledge-seekers) interested in developing an understanding of invasion, the rationale(s) for invasion, and for media complicity in such affairs. Hammond's observations, rooted in the historical literature, provides a cogent analysis of the key events of each of his case studies. His study into mass news media reporting is in line with virtually all of the literature and previous research regarding the reporting of these events. One of the most compelling aspects of this particular book include the boxes of terminology used in the newspaper articles being reviewed. Hammond makes note of the very vivid, very negative descriptions of the people, groups, governments, and organizations that are the subjects of bombing and/or invasion by Western powers. Hammond is providing the terminology to show that, despite the fact professional journalistic reporting is supposed to be neutral in tone, such language produces a particular frame or slant to the story. Hammond's methodology is appropriate for this type of research. For his case studies he examined four British daily newspapers: Guardian, Independent, Times, and Mail. The coverage he reviewed consisted of a total of eight weeks - one four-week period at the beginning of each conflict, and one four-week period at the end of each conflict, with the sampling decisions being made for each case study. Hammond further cites the most up-to-date literature from well-established experts in the field. Hammond's first case study is Somalia. He points out that the news of the events taking place in Somalia, for the most part repeated the official line. In other words, much of the material came from official news sources point of view, including such language as "lawless," "anarchic," etc. Hammond points out that the official line on Somalia ignored the history of foreign exploitation of that country. It is ironic that this review is taking place now, given the recent stories of piracy off the shores of Somalia. Perhaps we could draw a direct connection between the history of colonialism - policies that ultimately led to the collapse of the government, Western interventions into that country, European fishing trawlers looting Somalia's oceanic wealth along with unflagged European and Asian ships dumping nuclear waste off its coast (1), and now finally ... a highly problematic way for small groups of Somali's to earn a living through piracy. The second section is Hammond's analysis of the bombing of Bosnia. As with the reporting on Somalia, Hammond's data indicates that journalists typically steno-typed the official "line" of Western sources. Additionally, Hammond found that several of the news articles that did have critical slant, typically highlighted the "hardships" of the invading forces. Rwanda, Hammond's third case study, is one of the most sorrowful cases of fratricide in modern history. Hammond's findings are unsurprising - Western governments were unwilling to use the term genocide in reference to the slaughter taking place, so naturally, neither did the Western media until July 1994 (pgs. 99-102). Throughout the reporting of the genocide, the U.S. and British press preferred to provide "analysis" that emphasized fictive notions of "tribal conflict," an idea that allowed journalists and governments to simply "write off" the genocide as something akin to centuries old hatreds, rather than conflict brought about by years of colonial rule in which Belgium's actions ultimately pitted the Hutu's and the Tutsi's against one another. When it became evident that the issues facing this country were not as black and white as journalists tend to like (and as government's enjoy as well), and the issues were indeed immense and complex, the media presentation tended toward a more "schizophrenic" set of views - particularly, the issue of refugees became so problematic that practically overnight media coverage went from sympathetic to their plight to reporting that ultimately encouraged further violence and killing. In other words, oversimplistic explanations and lack of historical context may have, in Hammond's view, led to a further legitimization of violence and fratricide. It also means that the issue remains a confusing and often misunderstood time in our world history. Kosovo is Hammond's fourth researched conflict. In what appears to be the U.S.'s need to reduce its weapons stockpiles and reassert its military hegemony, the U.S., according to Hammond's findings, deliberately engaged in "diplomatic" subterfuge to ensure a good, old-fashioned bombing run over Kosovo. The U.S. and NATO claimed legitimate authority to attack on the grounds of "ethnic cleansing," and to prevent a "refugee crisis" (123). Post-"crisis" research, however, shows much of the claims justifying the bombings were inaccurate and overblown. Most journalists, however, dutifully reported the claims as fact. Unlike the previously-discussed incursions, there were some journalists casting a critical gaze at this invasion, even while agreeing with the aims of the bombings. Hammond's findings show that 14.9 percent of media reports voiced any criticism of the bombings (pg. 144), yet (as he points out) such critiques are substantially greater than any found in the Somalia, Bosnia, and Rwanda coverage. Finally, Hammond's findings are unsurprising - journalists and editors followed NATO's line almost unquestioningly and, as with most modern war reporting, the sources who privilege war (NATO officials and U.S./U.K. government and military) were the most cited and quoted in the news stories. Following the terrorist attack on the U.S. on September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration sought to retaliate against the "evil-doers" who planned and supported these crimes - al Qaeda and the government of Afghanistan. At this time the American public was inundated with a new message from the Bush Administration - the U.S. was going to engage in a "war on terror." Central to this war was the bombing (and subsequent invasion) of Afghanistan. The mass news media coverage, according to Hammond's research, showed a very limited discussion of the bombing of Afghanistan. That said, where some of this coverage tended to differ from most stenographic wartime coverage, is the critical discussions of historical Western policies in that area - in other words, what little news analysis there was centered on what Hammond and other researchers into this area term "blowback." These critical discussions were limited, however, and the rest of the news coverage differed little, in general, to the normal wartime reporting. As with most post-Cold War reporting, journalists tended to rely on self-interested government and military sources who justified what continues to be a humanitarian nightmare. The second country to be invaded in Bush's "war on terror," and Hammond's final analysis in the book is Iraq. Iraq was pushed into the American people's psyche by way of the Bush Administration's contention that Saddam Hussein was connected to the terrorist attack on the U.S. (commonly referred to as "9/11"); that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction;" and that Hussein was a tyrant from whom the Iraqi people needed liberating so that democracy could flourish in that part of the world (I believe the line was we would be greeted with people throwing roses). Subsequent evidence has shown Hussein had no connections to al Qaeda (although we are now seeing mounting evidence that the torturing of "high level detainees" may have been done in an effort to obtain statements creating such a connection). Additionally, Iraq had no WMD's (the documents from Niger purporting to show Iraq's attempt to obtain uranium enriched "yellow cake" were proved forgeries), and the Iraqi citizens are yet to be a liberated people - much less one forging a burgeoning democracy. Unlike the American newspapers that this reviewer has studied in the context of the American invasion of Iraq, Hammond's review of British news shows at least a modicum of criticism of the invasion. These critiques were mostly narrowly focused on the legality of the invasions, but these criticisms were made by powerful opinion-makers nonetheless. Also, unlike most mainstream U.S. news journalists, British journalists were sufficiently wary of the claims connecting al Qaeda to Iraq, even if they were not so jaded toward the claims about the WMD's. Hammond's findings suggest the media does present some coherent frames of post-Cold War conflicts. These frames, however, remain the purview of the more powerful opinion-makers (i.e. official sources such as government and military). While Hammond did not explicitly discuss the issues of official sources, and the relationships between these sources and journalists (2), read in tandem with this literature, one could get a much more holistic understanding of how media frames develop. For example, reliance on official sources, in accordance with objective journalism, leads to a transmission of a very narrow range of information to the news consuming public. Furthermore, the relationship between journalists and their sources must be taken into consideration. There is a power imbalance between these two groups, particularly how official sources, because of journalistic conventions, are able to dictate the terms of the relationship, including what the reporter will and will not attribute to the source in a story. There is a convention in objective journalism that “the facts speak for themselves.” Hallin (1980) says that,"The facts which journalists present are for the most part facts about government policy and its execution; and since the execution of government policy is a purposive activity which has behind it both a strategy and an interpretation of reality, the facts reported by the objective journalist do, in a way, carry with them their own interpretation. Even putting aside the media’s reliance on official sources, which of course is closely related to the focus on government policy, and the tendency for the journalist to identify with official goals and perspectives, the very fact that government policy is the primary subject of the news profoundly affects both the news agenda and the interpretation of reality that is communicated along with the facts about day to day events” (227-228). While Hammond argues it would be a mistake to lay everything at the feet of journalistic adherence to official sources and their explanations, he should nonetheless give substantial credence to this issue, as well as to the overall background and development of journalists (i.e. their education, their middle-class lifestyle, etc.), the professional ethics and the standards that journalists adhere to (including the idea of not "making news" of which journalists are acutely aware that they would be accused of should they step too far out of the sphere of legitimate controversy), as well as institutional norms, values, etc. Again, if one were to read this text in tandem with theoretical explanations of modern mass news media and journalism (especially some of the critical theories that Hammond himself rejects), one would most certainly gain a more complete understanding of all the reasons for the move away from Cold War-style reporting to this newer style. In particular, an understanding of the political economy of the news media would help many a knowledge-seeker develop an understanding of how the connections between old media and new media forms work. For example, many news reports are created for multi-platform dispersion - something a journalist writes for a paper must be written so that it can easily be loaded onto a corresponding website. Information that could not be "fit" into the original story will be discussed on the reporter's "blog," and that reporter may appear on a sister network to discuss the information found in his/her original article, etc. Finally, an additional problem that I have with Hammond is his own framing of theorists with whom he appears to have ideological differences (pages 13-14). In particular his use of the term "radical critics," which appears to be a pejorative toward a particular group of mainstream mass media critics, yet has no such critical framing of any other theoretical perspectives (including the "clash of civilization" thesis). A second issue I take with Hammond is his presupposition of professional journalism, without acknowledging its history or purpose, yet those journalists who (under special circumstances) reject the notion of professional journalistic neutrality he frames them for the reader as "advocacy journalists" who put pressure on governments to intervene. In fact, Hammond has no term or name for journalists who advocated the line of "ancient ethnic divisions," for Yugoslavia, Rwanda, etc., but he certainly does have a name for those who might suggest humanitarian concerns and for theorists whose philosophies he disagrees with ideologically. This was a little troubling for this reader, particularly given the fact that Hammond had taken the time to record all of the emotive-laden terminology journalists had unethically used to describe the actors and groups in their news stories. Ann Strahm, Ph.D. Notes ___ 2. see Cohen 1963; Tuchman 1972; Schudson 1978; Gans 1979/2004; Bagdikian 2000; Hallin 1980 & 1984; Sigal 1973; McChesney 2000, 2004, 2006; Alterman 2003 |
Phil Hammond 
