Final Blog: Wars, the Press and the Public

Credit The Daily Star

            The power of the press to influence public opinion is unmatched, and government officials understand that very well. Thinking about the fourth estate and what it means in terms of journalism, it's an idea of journalists working hand in hand with the government, reporting on what government officials want to be reported and how they want that specific story relayed. This, of course, is an inappropriate relationship. The press should stay out of any tight nit relationships they may have with government officials, as doing so leads to biased reporting. It's reasonable and expected for the press to have clear communication with the government as to have a clear understanding of issues at hand, but it gets tricky
when those relationships turn into favoring certain politicians and trying to alter the public's perception of events; rather than just stating the facts "as is" and leaving it up to the public to make up their own minds. A fundamental role of being a journalist is to present the public with "point-blank" knowledge and facts. Due to this, it is increasingly essential what and how the news media reports on the government because what the news sources say influences public opinion, and public opinion turns into how citizens vote and controls who is elected into office. 

            When referencing the term "Watchdog Journalism," it implies a protective oversight that journalists have over the government reporting on any misdemeanors or discrepancies. Journalists in this role essentially check the government and make sure nothing suspicious is going on behind the scenes that the public is unaware of, even when those things are critical, and paint the government in a negative light. The "Watchdog" roles of a journalist are even more critical when it comes to war times as it allows for supervision over government official's actions and how their choices impact the public and the greater world. In recent years, this watchdog role was primarily missing in action during the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. Many journalists spoke in favor of the president's choice. They didn't do much to examine the facts or see outside of what he and his administration were projecting, which unfortunately turned out to be primarily false claims and whims.  

            With social media and the ability to receive news within seconds of it occurring growing at alarming rates, journalists are scrutinized more with how they report. Looking at even 20 years ago, when this sensation first started to happen with the Bush Administration, Journalists were under much pressure to write positively and in favor of President Bushes' policies. For historical context, at the time, the United States had just undergone the 2001 September 11th terrorist attacks, which struck a chord with every American. Across the country, the public shared in this incredible level of American patriotism, as everyone came together and commiserated over this horrific tragedy. 

Iraqi Journalist Throws a shoe at Bush in 2008

               Due to this, the Bush Administration was under a high amount of pressure to hold someone accountable for the events of September 11th. So they kept projecting to every news outlet that the person responsible for the attacks was Saddam Hussein which later turn out to be wrong. Unfortunately, no one wanted to go against the administration. Doing so was seen as unpatriotic and therefore unamerican, so primarily, all mainstream media remained supportive of the Bush Administration's claims without looking further or criticizing his decision to go to war. Everyone was too afraid to be chastised or to say something that was unpopular, it is a ruthless, cutthroat environment to live in. During President Bush's second term he was holding a press conference and an Iraqi journalist even threw both his shoes at him saying "This is a farewell kiss from the Iraqi people, dog" "This is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq." Today, the Bush Administration remains controversial for his decision to go to war with Iraq.      

            After watching the Bill Moyers special on PBS about the press's behavior during the U.S government's invasion of Iraq, I was shocked. One clip that stood out to me most was when President Bush was holding a press conference discussing the attacks of 9/11, and he reads off a pre-selected list of journalists he was meant to call on in a very scripted manner. It was crazy to see the rapport these journalists seemed to have with him; it was very "buddy-buddy" and accurately showed how swayed in favor most of these journalists were of the Bush administration at the time. It makes me wonder what the publics' position would have been on entering a war with Iraq had the coverage from the press been more objective and neutral. This ties into "today" and how there is this business of news. Publications and broadcast networks only project popular opinions because they are too concerned with ratings and subscribers not out of care for the public but for the money. It's something the news industry should be wary of, and I hope this growing trend stops. We need outlets that report facts, not popular opinion, because it is what everyone wants to hear or read.