Journalism and Wartime expectations
Edward R Murrow ignited Americans view on war with his radio coverage of the London bombings. This enlightened millions of people of the reality of war. War coverage gives a face, a voice, and a story to an activity that is usually so distant to many. Murrow educated the masses by taking a risk to tell a story.
The recent leak of a video of two journalist being shot down in Afghanistan sparked a lot of controversy and a new focus responsible warfare. At first watching it you see a lot; you see individuals running around with weapons, you hear appropriate and hostile communication between the pilots, but you also see two men who could or could not be carrying weapons. These men are carrying camera’s but this is a detail you do not get until after the shots are fired. This is tough to watch, and frustrating for many reasons; soldiers are doing their jobs, and these journalists took a risks by being where they are.
Following this video, there was a an interview done on NPR with the journalists who was embedded with these soldiers during their mission. He gives details that would enlighten any viewer. He talks about how bloody of a month is was, the moral of the soldiers, the tension, the realities of war. While it takes no solid stance on the war, or the actions, his side gives a fair and insightful perspective to this situation.
The risks journalists take to tell their story allow people to connect to issues and experiences they would normally live without. But what happens when the informations is mishandled, misunderstood, or misrepresented? There is a need to know about what is going on, but this video has been leaked with choppy editing and a slanted message. Listening to the American journalists interview, it is easy to see that wartime coverage is far more complicated that it seems. You have the cultural divides, political divides, and many other details to consider when telling this story.
Since the glory of war died with World War II, I think wartime coverage is something that needs to be considered differently. You have politically charged people who buy into over hyped videos like this and then miss more accurate compelling coverage that follows like the NPR interview. Who is responsible for changing this, the journalist or the people who read it, watch it, act off of it? Do we even have a need for it when videos like this counter act all accurate coverage and people are taking on the role as a “journalist”?
