It is interesting to note, with reference to the "embedded" media aspect, that while there are 600 "embedded" journalists--now that "embedded" has become a military buzz word, they have spoiled the word for me--there is hardly and evidence of reporting from 600 people. Indeed, in the course of a day, we are hearing very, very little in the way of updates and breaking news, and the staged media briefings are still playing a paramount role. More than that, embedding has clearly been a way of controlling, not facilitating media coverage. Moreover, embedding favoured nations in the coalition of the billing is an obvious attempt to slant preferences, so that Canadian journalists were instead offered such "hot" places for embedding as Fort Bliss in Texas, or an anti-aircraft battery in Kuwait City. And to repeat what has already been noted by others, nobody seems to be embedded with actual Iraqi civilians, who remain mysterious and faceless--once again--as their already destroyed country is pummelled and bludgeoned even further. In fact, most of the reports I have already read, where journalists interact with Iraqi civilians in ways that disturb the official line that "they are all for us and will welcome us", come from non-embedded Reuters reporters who have been warned to return to Kuwait. Now non-embeddedness becomes a war threat too, as a Pentagon spokesperson said "Iraqi irregulars may pose as independent journalists" and presumably may come under US fire in the coming days. Most of the American reporters are clearly acting as cheer leaders in this war anyway, with very little in the way of critical analysis or concrete information, and too much of the "one of the boys" atmosphere surrounding their visually crummy and empirically shallow videophone reports. Few are hardly noting the rapid accumulation of contradictions in the official line: speed matters, look how fast we are, wow, this is real velocity, we can just ignore Basra, come on it's practically ours anyway....to: we need to take care of the hot spots in Basra, the points in between are crucial. Yet, everything is going according to plan, and yes they planned for all contingencies. Normally, everyone would be laughing out loud at this, were it not for what I fear is a more than Soviet style regimentation of American popular consciousness, or at least, its mediated representations. Cheers, Max. Dr. Maximilian C. Forte Editor CARIBBEAN AMERINDIAN CENTRELINK http://www.centrelink.org Editor KACIKE: The Journal of Caribbean Amerindian History and Anthropology http://www.kacike.org ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Suzie Allard" <slalla0@uky.edu> To: <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 12:09 AM Subject: Re: [Air-l] Re: peace
This is in answer to Steve's question if anyone had a similar experience with undergrads seeming disconnected from the war. I had a very different experience with my senior level mass comm & social issues course last night. I'm in basketball crazed Kentucky so I began the class by asking what they thought of CBS cutting into basketball coverage to report on the war. It was my plan to discuss war coverage in general based on a lecture that highlights how coverage has changed over the years, however I was surprised that students quickly moved in this direction on their own so I was able to work the points into conversation rather than using the lecture.
While a couple students did seem to prefer to remain silent, nearly three-quarters of the class participated. This is a rather diverse class in terms of life experience and political views, although not diverse in ethnic backgrounds. Several students do have family members overseas.
I did set a ground rule that we would not debate whether the military action was "right," but we would instead concentrate on the nature of the media coverage such as whether it was creating realities or reporting facts, how U.S. media reports differed from reports in other nations, and on items such as "media management" by the military. The pros/cons of embedded reporters and the steady feed of nearly synchronous reporting were the hottest topics.
It was interesting to learn how students assessed the value and personal impact of coverage on the internet versus on television. Several noted that television coverage was more like "entertainment" similar to reality shows (a topic we've discussed before) but when they went online it was to get the facts. No one had used the internet to look at coverage based in another nation; basically they all went to a familiar news agency such as CNN. However, they were all interested in exploring these differences during class.
I really had the feeling that these particular students were relieved to have the opportunity to talk about the war even though many limited themselves to only small "bites" of news each day. I wonder if part of the reason for engagement is because these students are about to step into the world of professional communication versus being introductory level students. Or perhaps it is because the class does have a wide range of students in terms of age and life experience. Whatever the reason, it was refreshing to see them demonstrate so much critical thinking and interest in a sobering topic.
Suzie
************************************************************ Suzie Allard, Presidential Fellow University of Kentucky (859)257-3771 College of Communications and Information Studies 520 King Library South, Lexington, KY 40506-0039 e-mail: slalla0@uky.edu homepage: http://sweb.uky.edu/~slalla0/ ***********************************************************
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l