The Eye of the Media

As I briefly mentioned in my last post, the role of the media in warfare has changed dramatically with the advances of technology. Media outlets such as CNN and FOX are able to report on the spot, without delay. In 2003 we were able to watch live pictures of Baghdad being bombed. From the First Gulf War to the conflict in Kosovo, all military movements in the 1990's were closely monitored by the mainstream media and, as the decade progressed, cable news. Perhaps most importantly, the media is able to bring us up-close and personal with the suffering that war entails. Specifically that felt by civilians, soldiers and their families.

The value of this coverage, however, is another story. Does it do us, as a Nation at war, any good to hear about all of these things so personally and so soon? In her book Statecraft, Margaret Thatcher notes that "by dramatising even more the grieving of the families of servicemen who are lost, [the media undermine] national resolve to fight and risk casualties." And I couldn't agree more.

In the past, part of what made Nations or peoples willing to fight and support wars was the fact that they were rarely confronted with the true tragedies of the war. Sure, you might have to drive your car less, or conserve more food, but the actual suffering never hit home unless you were one of the few who knew someone that died. On top of that, the Government usually did a pretty good job of propagandizing its citizens, or at least keeping them up to date with the good news. And this was for good reason. Most people just don't have the stomach to witness a war up-close and personal, the way the modern media likes to give it to them.

Most people have a sort of 'pity complex' built in to them that prevents them from pursuing the ultimate objective when they find death in the way. They want to find a way to come up with a 'safer plan,' or one 'that will cost fewer lives.' The only problem is that in war, time is blood. Or, as George Patton once put it, "A good plan implemented now, is better than a perfect plan implemented next week." Most politicians, and any good General, understand this; the majority of the public usually doesn't.

For example, D-Day in World War II came at an immense cost of life, but no one would be foolish enough to deny its importance. Conservatives often joke about how the modern media would portray the D-Day invasion - with a sensationalized importance on the cost of life, and only a passing mention of the grand achievements of that day. However, underlying the sarcasm of that remark is a hard truth. And that is simply that the modern media gives the public too much of the bad, and not enough of the good. The modern media hurts war efforts. The exposure that people get to a War nowadays, is simply too much for them to handle.

Now, this is not to say that human life is trivial and unimportant. Please don't try use that naive argument, I understand the 'cost of war.' The thing is, that in trying to find the most efficient outcome, with, interestingly enough, the lowest cost of human life in the long run, moves have to be made that don't usually set well in the court of public opinion. Unfortunately, any modern war, thanks to the media, will have most of these moves put out in the open. As such, fighting a war in modern times, and maintaining support for that war, will be much, much more difficult.