1
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
(Who Watches the Watchmen) War Propaganda in Media and the Ethics of Conflict Reporting
5
War Propaganda in Media and the Ethics
of Conflict Reporting By Tej Pratap (PGP 13364)
January 13, 2015
In the wee hours of 1st January 2015, a boat filled with explosives exploded and sank near
Gujarat coast after being intercepted and cornered by Indian coastguards. Indian government
claimed that the boat belonged to Pakistan and was carrying terror operatives. Within hours,
most of the news channels were filled with this sensational news, showing footages from
2008 Mumbai attacks and speculating how another boat could‟ve made it to Indian Coast.
Three days later, Pakistan rejected the charges and asserted that “It is a part of Indian
propaganda to tarnish the image of Pakistan”. While India still maintains its stand, some news
reports have hinted towards the possibility of a smuggling stint gone awfully wrong.
Figure 1: Figure showing the recent unfolding of events after the boat filled with explosives was intercepted by Indian
Coastguards.
Was it actually a terror boat sent by Pakistan? Was it merely propaganda? Or was it a
smuggler boat or a third party trying to destabilize the relation between the nations? We may
never know the truth, but this raises the important issue of how vulnerable (and less
informed) the citizens are, if the government (or any other powerful group) floats up their
propaganda through various media.
6
In this paper we‟ll discuss a brief overview of war propaganda, how it‟s implemented and
why it works. We‟ll also address some of the dilemmas and issues faced by media while
reporting war/conflicts and see if they can be resolved.
A BRIEF OVERVIEW
The oxford dictionary defines propaganda as “Information, especially of a biased or
misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view” or “the dissemination
of such information as a part of political strategy”. This motive can be achieved by using
several techniques which include (but are not limited to) using selective stories and partial
facts; use narrow set of experts to make your point; demonizing the enemy; and projecting
threat on the nation/religion/individual as the main motivation for action.
Mankind‟s tryst with propaganda is not a new phenomenon. Alexander used it to scare enemy
forces while making his final retreat by leaving behind giant-sized armours and swords.
“White people need to make the world civilized” – is another example of propaganda from
the colonization period. One of the most well-known propaganda experts in war history was
Adolf Hitler. Hitler‟s use of war propaganda resulted in convincing his country of the
National Socialism ideals, which ultimately resulted in the Holocaust and the extermination
of Jews. In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler dedicated an entire section to the discussion of war
propaganda:
“The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the
rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it
has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the
truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with
academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and
unflinchingly” (Hitler, chap V1, emphasis added).
Figure 2: Some of the examples showing Hitler's Propaganda
7
However, today with so many media sources and uninhibited access to uncensored
information across the world, propaganda has become much more apparent. Be it the war in
Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan; conflict in the Ukraine; Regime in North Korea; Indo-Pak conflict –
it‟s much easier to get access to both point of views. However, filtering what is truth and
what‟s not is still a big challenge for the individuals.
HOW IT CAN BE PROPAGATED
Renowned investigative journalist Phillip Knightley, in his article in The Guardian, has
described four major stages that are usually followed to justify the war propaganda. Let us
see and understand these through the lens of Iraq and Afghan war:
1. The Crisis: Media reports that the negotiations are unable to resolve the conflict and
we are almost at the brink of a war. For Iraq war, this started happening around mid
2001. Similar incidents can be observed before Afghanistan war too.
2. Demonization of the enemy leader: “Saddam Hussein is the new Hitler; He is a
„deranged psychopath‟ hated by his own people” - similar messages are propagated to
demonize the enemy leader.
3. Demonization of enemy as individual: The focus then moves from the leader to the
individuals of the nation. Not only e.g. Osama Bin Laden is bad, most of the Afghan
people are also bad.
4. Atrocities: Lead up to the stories, which may or may not be true – to build up the
sentiment against the enemy nation.
In justifying war, knowingly or unknowingly, some additional tactics may be used:
Figure 3: Illustration based on — The Peace Journalist Option, Poiesis.org, August 1997
8
However, the most detailed of these analyses has perhaps been provided by Johann Galtung,
a professor of Peace Studies. Danny Schechter has crisply summarized his twelve ideas in his
article on the peace website. Some major ones on how media can go wrong and propaganda
can creep in as news, are described below:
1. De-contextualizing Violence: Focussing too much on the irrational and thereby
ignoring the unresolved cause of the conflict and polarization.
2. Dualism and Manichaeism: Reducing the number of parties to just two and
projecting it as a black versus white situation. E.g. America vs. Bin-Laden; America
vs. Saddam Hussein.
3. Armageddon: Omitting several possible alternatives and projecting war as the only
available solution.
4. Focussing on Individual cases of violence: while ignoring the hidden structural
causes. For example, In case of naxal violence, we never get to hear issues like
poverty, development, government neglect, military or police repression (I am not
trying to justify Naxal violence here, but merely putting a point that media should
portray a complete picture in cases of conflict, as it is the primary source of
information for many.)
5. Confusion: Too much focus on the battlefield ignoring the larger forces that are at
work to cause that conflict. For example, in the recent incidents in Ukraine, too much
focus was built on the Russian troops building at the border etc. etc. rather than
focussing on various parties involved, their stakes and the source of conflict.
6. Excluding and Omitting the Bereaved: and projecting one-sided picture.
„Embedded Journalism‟, where the journalist travel with the military has further
substantiated this issue.
7. Omitting Reconciliation: Conflicts will re-emerge if the fractured societies are not
healed properly. Afghanistan and Iraq are living examples! When news about
attempts to resolve conflicts is absent, fatalism is reinforced.
Thus, there can be many ways in which the ideas can be propagated, but almost all of them
serve the very same purpose: Making the citizens believe in heart that the enemy is a demon
and a war is justified to free the people from his/her atrocities.
WHY IT WORKS
There are several reasons why propaganda works.
People inherently want to believe the best about themselves and their country. Any piece of
information which reinforces this belief is easily accepted. This in part explains why it is
much easier to sell your propaganda in home country rather than in foreign countries.
9
Sometimes, people have very limited information about the outside world or the counterview
– thereby leading to believe what‟s being served to them as news. A typical example can be
North Korea. Even in India, for an average person who doesn‟t have internet, it‟s very
difficult to verify any news item that he sees from other sources.
Most of the times, the propaganda items are not blatant lies – they are based on claims and
fears which appear factual and logical. This leads to further belief in them. This belief is
reinforced if nations cherished values like freedom, integrity etc. are being challenged.
Last but not the least, media management and PR is done by very professional people, who
know what they are doing. This makes propaganda much harder to detect than it would have
been otherwise.
THE ETHICS OF CONFLICT REPORTING
Shortly after the Kargil war began and journalists had begun covering some
sectors of it firsthand, an Indian editor went to see the then Prime Minister
Atal Bihari Vajpayee. He told him that he was holding back reports filed by
his reporter which described how Indian soldiers were becoming canon
fodder at the hands of those fighting for Pakistan. He was telling the prime
minister, he said, in case he was not getting the full picture from his army
officers. And he had decided not to use those stories because he thought they
would affect the morale of the army and the country. But, he told Vajpayee,
it would be difficult to keep up the censoring; the obligation to tell the
country the truth would come in at some point.
This incident, picked up from an article by Sevati Ninan, raises some very important aspects
about the ethical dilemmas faced during conflict reporting:
1. Framing: How you frame the issue is important. For example, while reporting Naxal
issue – Do you frame it as anti-national elements vs. our government? Do you frame it
as a clash of ideologies? Do you frame it as a poverty and development issue?
Different framing will have different magnitude and different kind of impact among
people.
2. Role: Are you a journalist, and therefore, should report the facts as they are? Are you
a peacemaker, and should report facts to bring peace between the parties
(withholding any information that might disturb peace)? Are you a nationalist, and
withhold information that might affect the morale of the country? Do you present the
facts as they are, or weigh the consequences before doing so?
3. How much truth? This dilemma could be observed in the 2008 Mumbai attack
reporting! Does the reporter blabber everything that he sees before him? Or should he
weigh the consequences and see which information might actually help the terrorists?
10
4. Issue of Censorship: How much of it should be censored? Should the government
censor? Or should be a self-regulating censorship? Censoring or not censoring can
have serious consequences on the sentiments towards a war or conflict. You show the
bodies of policemen killed by naxal groups and bang! People want them to be weeded
out of the nation. Should we do it? Should we not do it?
5. Source and Semantics: Who‟s the source of our information? Is it the oppressed? Is
it the oppressor? What language do we use? Should we call them „Terrorist‟ unless
the investigations have been completed? Or should we use factual words like bomber,
hijacker? (As we always say, One man’s terrorist is other man’s freedom fighter –
Should we, as the media, take a particular side?)
SUMMING IT UP
The issue of floating propaganda has been with civilization for a long time. However, with
recent increase in reach of media (and several wars), the issue has become much more
relevant and apparent. Since for most of the people, media is the only source of legitimate
information, it becomes important for the media houses and journalists to take an unbiased
stand and project a picture conveying both sides of the story, rather than providing selectively
filtered or tailored story in order to turn the sentiments towards one particular side. While the
issues of framing the issue, assuming a role, censorship, source and semantics remain in war
journalism; the media should play a responsible role by bringing up the deeper causes in an
unbiased manner.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Pak 'terror' boat intercepted off Gujarat coast — What we know so far: 10 interesting points
- The Times of India. (2015, January 2). Retrieved January 13, 2015, from
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pak-terror-boat-intercepted-off-Gujarat-coast-
What-we-know-so-far-10-interesting-points/articleshow/45731626.cms
2. Haider, M. (2015, January 6). Pakistan rejects India's 'preposterous' terror boat allegations.
Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://www.dawn.com/news/1155288
3. Pakistan captures two Indian fishing boats, 12 fishermen detained. (2015, January 4).
Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/pakistan-abducts-
indian-boats-jakhau-jhelelal-jalaram-msa-india-pakistan-enmity/1/411371.html
4. India using Afghan soil to carry out attack against Pakistan: Sartaj Aziz - Firstpost. (2015,
January 12). Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://www.firstpost.com/world/india-using-
afghan-soil-carry-attack-pakistan-sartaj-aziz-2041899.html
11
5. Shah, A. (2005, March 31). War, Propaganda and the Media. Retrieved January 13, 2015,
from http://www.globalissues.org/article/157/war-propaganda-and-the-media
6. The Peace Journalism Option. (n.d.). Retrieved January 13, 2015, from
http://www.globalissues.org/article/534/the-peace-journalism-option
7. Knightley, P. (2001, October 4). The disinformation campaign. Retrieved January 13, 2015,
from http://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/oct/04/socialsciences.highereducation
8. Schechter, D. (2001, January 1). Covering Violence: How Should Media Handle Conflict?
Retrieved January 13, 2015, from http://www.peace.ca/coveringviolence.htm
9. Vidal, D. (n.d.). Propaganda in War Reporting on the U.S. War in Iraq. Retrieved January 13,
2015, from http://web.stanford.edu/class/e297a/War Reporting on the U.S. War in Iraq.htm
10. Ninan, S. (2009, February 1). The ethics of conflict coverage. Retrieved January 13, 2015,
from http://infochangeindia.org/agenda/reporting-conflict/the-ethics-of-conflict-
coverage.html
11. Nazi Posters Archive: 1933-1939. (n.d.). Retrieved January 13, 2015, from
http://bytwerk.com/gpa/posters2.htm