Zombie Media 75
citizen journalism.
7
As Dan Gillmor commented, however, technology
brought with it other dangers:
Technology has given us a world in which almost anyone can publish a credible-looking web page. Anyone with a computer or cell
phone can post in online forums. Anyone with a moderate amount
of skill with Photoshop or other image-manipulation software can
distort reality. Special effects make even videos untrustworthy.
We have a problem here.
8
The rise of citizen journalism coincided with a major breakdown in public relations as a result of political decisions made following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Although the left especially had tended to look critically
at the mainstream media since the Vietnam War at least, a particular
blow to its credibility with a wider public was caused by the aftermath
of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It is worth considering the differences
in terms of the role of the media following the events of 2003, including
much greater public distrust, in contrast to the Gulf conflict of 1991.
There had been considerable criticism of the media coverage of Operation Desert Storm, as the 1991 conflict was code-named. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was very different, however. William Hutchinson observes
that while there were many similarities between the first and second
Iraq campaigns – most notably a willingness of reporters generally to
portray weapons and technology as heroes of each war, as well as to only
deal with “official” rather than independent reporters – the “embedded”
journalists attached to the second war were frequently seen as even more
in the service of military propaganda than in 1991. As Hutchinson remarks, the behaviour of the media in both campaigns “did not display
balanced, dispassionate, or objective coverage of the violence taking
place”,
9
but that in 2003 “embeds” were given preferential treatment
entirely while independent journalists, “unilaterals”, were treated with
hostility. By embedding journalists with military teams, reporters were
more compliant, censoring their own output because, as they ate, slept,
and moved with soldiers, they increasingly bonded with their military
protectors to whom they increasingly felt a deep sense of loyalty. As
Hutchinson remarks, the attitudes of reporters in both conflicts were not
substantially different – if merely more marked and existing for a longer
period in 2003 than in 1991. However, a substantial difference he notes
is that if, citing Carruthers (2000), the 1991 conflict was the first television war, then the second, after Schwartz (2004), was the first Internet
war. If the mainstream media was almost entirely compliant during the
Second Gulf War, not wishing to write anything anti-government in the
wake of the September 2001 terrorist attacks, there was considerable
public dissent and this began to make itself felt in the proto-blogosphere
that had begun to emerge at the turn of the millennium. Social media
citizen journalism.
7
As Dan Gillmor commented, however, technology
brought with it other dangers:
Technology has given us a world in which almost anyone can publish a credible-looking web page. Anyone with a computer or cell
phone can post in online forums. Anyone with a moderate amount
of skill with Photoshop or other image-manipulation software can
distort reality. Special effects make even videos untrustworthy.
We have a problem here.
8
The rise of citizen journalism coincided with a major breakdown in public relations as a result of political decisions made following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Although the left especially had tended to look critically
at the mainstream media since the Vietnam War at least, a particular
blow to its credibility with a wider public was caused by the aftermath
of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It is worth considering the differences
in terms of the role of the media following the events of 2003, including
much greater public distrust, in contrast to the Gulf conflict of 1991.
There had been considerable criticism of the media coverage of Operation Desert Storm, as the 1991 conflict was code-named. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was very different, however. William Hutchinson observes
that while there were many similarities between the first and second
Iraq campaigns – most notably a willingness of reporters generally to
portray weapons and technology as heroes of each war, as well as to only
deal with “official” rather than independent reporters – the “embedded”
journalists attached to the second war were frequently seen as even more
in the service of military propaganda than in 1991. As Hutchinson remarks, the behaviour of the media in both campaigns “did not display
balanced, dispassionate, or objective coverage of the violence taking
place”,
9
but that in 2003 “embeds” were given preferential treatment
entirely while independent journalists, “unilaterals”, were treated with
hostility. By embedding journalists with military teams, reporters were
more compliant, censoring their own output because, as they ate, slept,
and moved with soldiers, they increasingly bonded with their military
protectors to whom they increasingly felt a deep sense of loyalty. As
Hutchinson remarks, the attitudes of reporters in both conflicts were not
substantially different – if merely more marked and existing for a longer
period in 2003 than in 1991. However, a substantial difference he notes
is that if, citing Carruthers (2000), the 1991 conflict was the first television war, then the second, after Schwartz (2004), was the first Internet
war. If the mainstream media was almost entirely compliant during the
Second Gulf War, not wishing to write anything anti-government in the
wake of the September 2001 terrorist attacks, there was considerable
public dissent and this began to make itself felt in the proto-blogosphere
that had begun to emerge at the turn of the millennium. Social media