By LAUREN BICKNEL
This paper will explore the status of investigative war reporting and analyse whether it is dying. This will be shown through a comparison between investigative war reporting and its role in the Viet Nam and Iraq wars in order to provide insight as to how investigative war reporting has changed, whether for the better or the worse. By looking at these factors this paper will argue that investigative war reporting is certainly not dying. While faced with many challenges, investigative war reporting is also supported very strongly by society, the development of the internet, and several other technological advances.
For the purpose of this essay the Iraq war refers to the more recent war in Iraq defined by the initial invasion by US military troops in 2003 and the continuing western military occupation of the country. The Viet Nam war refers to the conflict based in Viet Nam from 1955- 1975. The terms “investigative journalism” and “investigative reporting” are also important to define. They can be considered in many different ways but they primarily hinge on original research, considerable gathering and analysis of facts, figures and data or extensive interviewing processes. It can also be considered as uncovering hidden truths, especially when hidden by figures of authority. It could be said that investigative journalism can be measured through the time commitments and degree of difficulty in compiling a piece of journalism, matched with a particular uniqueness of information. Investigative journalism and reporting can be all of these things at once or simply contain one important element of the above.
It is often argued that investigative journalism is the first to suffer from the many problems facing the industry today. Media organisations are asked to produce more work, in several mediums, in less time, with less money and fewer reporters. This leaves the time-consuming and costly nature of investigative journalism very vulnerable. The strain on the industry has begun to show with recent announcements made by media moguls such as Rupert Murdoch regarding plans to charge for online content. A clear mismanagement and underestimation of what recent changes to journalism would mean for journalism in the long run has led to an out of control industry and this is something Murdoch, himself, acknowledges. However, as Peter Wilcox notes, as long as media outlets are run by people with a background in journalism rather than experts in business management, there will always be a place for investigative journalism. In fact, it can be quite an effective business model as the often-associated exclusive scoop or analysis that goes along with investigative journalism holds an edge over other competing media outlets. Thinking about investigative war reporting, he points to the extent at which newspaper sales went up during the September 11 attacks in New York, many of which using 20 plus pages to cover the breaking story. It should be mentioned, much of this reportage came with the sacrifice of advertising revenue. Granted, much of this involved hard news reporting but the deeply personal accounts of survivors and witnesses is just one example of some of the investigative reporting at the time.
The capacity to produce investigative war reporting in newspapers, television, radio and online is debateable but there are other problems and obstacles facing investigative war reporting to look at as well. Significant changes surrounding investigative war reporting from the Viet Nam war to the Iraq war have proven to be close to insurmountable. Firstly, the professionalism of media relations shows a noticeable difference between the Viet Nam war and the war in Iraq. Some of the more famous investigative media work during the Viet Nam war includes the detailing of the discrepancy between Pentagon figures regarding enemy body counts as opposed to actual figures as well as the coverage and exposure of My Lai massacre. Such work was powerful enough in shaping public opinion that after the war, the US government changed policy in order to restrict access and seriously inhibit or at least control media coverage in times of war. In order to avoid glorifying the era though, it should be noted that such powerful journalism did not begin with the war. Like the war in Iraq, this level of exposure did not occur for many years.
Not only was the media handled very successfully by the Bush administration through innumerable tactics , but the Centre for Public Integrity claims that, as well as this, the Bush administration…
“…made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”
These lies were primarily over allegations, evidence and suspicions of weapons of mass destruction. The media did not succeed in looking past the media handling of the Bush Government regarding reasons for actually invading Iraq for a very long time and, rather, played a major role in supporting the invasion. The Howard government in Australia also didn’t question the lies and the political message was re-iterated locally. The overwhelming support for the war provided by the media is seen as a serious failure of investigative journalism. A failure it may have been, but this level of media management is incomparable to that of the Viet Nam war- and this is just scratching the surface of how the media was and is dealt with. This sentence is not quite clear.
As well as dealing with the constant media handling regarding the Iraq war, the blanket of secrecy, bolstered by new anti-terrorism laws in Australia, has become incredibly difficult to break through. Media freedoms regarding investigative war reporting in Iraq are now seriously limited. Journalists who have reported during both wars have also noted a marked difference in military co-operation in producing journalism. One element of this can be found in the identification of sources. During the Viet Nam war it was perfectly legitimate to barely ? name military sources. This has obvious negative implications in the ability to fabricate sources, however, by being able to use a level of anonymity, soldiers were able to speak more frankly and openly about what they felt, what they saw, what they did and what they thought about the war they were fighting in. There’s now less opportunity to get this crucially informative and investigative information with increased military supervision of interviews and the obligatory naming of military sources (as enforced by the military and encouraged by publications) as there are now increased repercussions experienced by soldiers who speak. The degree of bias within Iraq war reporting as created by the process of embedding journalists within troops is also highly questionable.
Another noted difference is the increased physical risk experienced by war reporters. Journalists have noted that they are simply not as safe as they were in Viet Nam as the violence is more chaotic, unpredictable and less directed at actual soldiers. While it is true that these issues facing journalists were not as problematic and even non-existent during the Viet Nam war, developments in technology have made investigative war reporting much easier in other ways than it was four decades ago.
Not all changes to the industry since the Viet Nam war have been necessarily bad. Developments in technology bring with them solutions and tools for journalism like the world has never before experienced. The logistical difference in reporting during both wars alone is staggering. With the Internet, lap-top computers, satellite and telephone communications, what used to take hours or even days and months can now take just seconds. Not only is the transfer of information across immense distances faster, but it’s also of a higher quality. International transfer of feature length pieces, images, footage, audio and live international reporting are only possible with the modern tools journalists have at their fingertips today. The research process is also much faster than what it once was. What may have taken months of research or may have been entirely inaccessible is now retrieved at great speed through the use of the Internet. Groups and important contacts can also now be discovered on a whole new level with the ability for almost anyone to run their own website.
Access to and the ability to share information is another important part of the overall investigative effort towards reporting on Iraq. This can be found in publications such as The Iraq Body Count and the thousands of websites demonstrating investigative reportage of the highest calibre such as the New York Times, The New Yorker and the BBC. The website archives of Four Corners, one of Australia’s most reputable sources of investigative journalism, seems to show a lack of investigative coverage on the Iraq war after 2003. This isn’t as much of an issue as it once might have been, though, as audiences are able to reach for international media providers who are covering the war more actively. On that note, alternative voices in investigative reporting are also important to acknowledge. The boundary of costs involved with producing news barely exist anymore with the ability for anyone to produce a low cost website as publication vessel. In Viet Nam reporters were relying on an outlet ‘back home’ to publish their work. Investigative war reporters attempting to show a different side of the war, contrary to what the North American Government would have audiences believe, found their stories consistently watered down, edited or killed by the government or worse- their editors. Even legal costs are less of a barrier than they once were for journalists who challenge the government and other powerful forces. This is evidenced in the overwhelming support of the legal community provided to one website, Wikileaks.org.
Modern technology also contributes to the investigative effort in other ways. While the blanket of secrecy can be particularly challenging, it is no match for the wonders of the digital age. One of the most shocking pieces of investigative journalism was made possible and irrefutable through the existence of personal digital cameras in the facilities of Abu Ghraib and it was a shock felt around the world. This example also shows how investigative war reporting has changed in a very powerful way. Through a combination of the forces of globalisation, one piece of investigative war reporting arguably changed the way the world saw the war and the operations of the US military. One powerful leak exploded on the Internet and proved that investigative war reporting no longer needs to be thought of in terms of local boundaries. , Another recent example of powerful investigative journalism on this level is found in the Wikileaks release of retrieved and leaked footage taken by military apache helicopters and depicting the killing of innocent people including journalists and children. Technological development is one thing the two wars share in common with Viet Nam being the first war to be truly shown on a television screen- marking a generation of investigative journalists and photojournalists who were the first people to ever expose the horrors and atrocities of war in such a vivid and graphic way.
To say that investigative war reporting is dying would imply that it will, one day, be dead; this seems unrealistic considering the level of current enthusiasm for investigating and reporting on the truth matched with the capacity and potential for modern technology to help it happen. Granted, there are obvious signs of stress and pressures on the industry making the practice of investigative war reporting a difficult one. On the other hand, the enthusiasm of reporters, editors, audiences and even the legal community indicates that the world is not ready to let investigative war reporting die. There are, of course, obstacles to good investigative journalism (the key word being investigative) but there always have been, as was shown through both case studies in the Viet Nam War and the Iraq war. Media handling, tougher laws, less military co-operation, the embedding of journalists, the increased physical harm are all worthy adversaries but not strong enough. It’s true, the media did initially fail in its many investigative responsibilities to society but this can be said of both wars. Important to consider is the fact that the media is no longer failing and this is evident in a range of examples such as the exposure of Abu Ghraib, the continuing work of the Iraq Body Count, the leak of military footage depicting the killing of innocent people and more. Not only this, but the mere logistics of investigative reporting are vastly significant. High quality data can now be transferred from anywhere and research that used to take months may now take hours. Audiences also have access to work from all over the world including alternative voices that no longer need millions of dollars to be a publisher, capable of reaching millions of people.
This is certainly not a time to fear the death of investigative war reporting; this is an exciting new era full of change and possibilities.
Reference List
The Age, News to reveal online charging plans, May 05, 2010. No author named.
Barker, G (2004) Truth and Politics- a pessimist’s view, Dissent, Spring (2004), pp 12-17.
BBC news (no author noted) Legal aid for Whistle Blowing Site, Thursday, February 2008,
Cohen, N and Steltler, B, Iraq Video Brings Notice to a Web Site, April 6, 2010, The New York Times,
De Burgh, H (2000) Investigative Journalism: Context and Practice, Routledge, pp 191-193.
Ganey, T (2008) Saigon to Baghdad: Comparing Correspondent Experiences in Vietnam and Iraq, pp 1-119.
Gourevitch, P and Morris, E Exposure- the woman behind the camera at Abu Ghraib, The New Yorker, March 24th, 2008,
Halberstam, D, Getting the Story in Vietnam, Commentary, Vol. 39, No. 1, January 1965, pp 30-34.
Lewis, C and Reading-Smith, M (January 23, 2008), Iraq: The War Card- Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War, False Pretenses, Center for Public Integrtiy.
Kamalipour, Y and Snow, N (2004), War Media and Propaganda- a global perspective, Rowman and Littlefield, Oxford. Pp 238-239.
Knight, A, Online Investigative Journalism, Australian Journalism review, 22(2) 2000, pp 48-58
Knightley, P (2004), The First Casualty: The war correspondent as Hero and Myth-maker from the Crimea to Iraq, The John Hopkins University Press, Maryland. pp 527- 548.
Kumar, D, Media, War and Propaganda: Strategies of Information Management During the 2003 Iraq War, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, Vol 3, No. 1, March 2006, pp 48-69.
Mandelbaum, M, Vietnam: The Television War, Print culture and Video Culture, Fall (1982), pp 157-169.
Mcleod, D (2009), Derelict of Duty: The American News Media, Terrorism, and the War in Iraq, Marquette Law Review, Vol. 93, Issue 1, Fall (2009).
Pearson, M and Busst, N (2006) Anti-terror laws and the media after 9/11: Three models in Australia, NZ and the Pacific, Pacific Journalism Review, 12 (2), 2006, pp 9-27.
Rockmore, T (2005) The Scandal of Abu Ghraib, Peace Review Issue 17, pp 307-314.
Wilcox, P, Newspapers and the Terrorism war: News Priorities, public duty and the bottom line, Australian Journalism Review, v.23, no.2, Dec 2001, pp 7-20.
