Lest we forget, TV is just part of the reality
By Matt Price
March 29, 2003
SITTING on a couch in a New York television studio, E. D. � real name not
known � is flanked by Steve and Brian. The screen splits and the splendidly
coiffed trio find themselves sharing air time with a B-52 bomber.
Cue E. D.:
"These are live pictures from England, where our planes are preparing to
take off from the UK.
"Folks, you know what that means. Set your clocks, 6� hours from now.
Around 12.30 to one in the afternoon.
"BAH-BOOM. See the flares flying, live over Baghdad. Stay on Fox. Don't go
away now."
Welcome to Fox and Friends, the US's popular early morning cable news show,
which is outrating CNN in the land of the liberators.
I spent a couple of hours this week channel surfing the TV news coverage of
the Iraqi war. This was part research and part nostalgia; for two frantic
years � 1989 and 1990 � I worked as a producer for Sky TV's freshly
launched 24-hour news channel in London.
All news channels are providing blanket coverage of Iraq and there are
meaty chunks of war reporting on Australian free-to-air networks. Yet, like
an alcoholic drawn to a cheap flagon of port, the remote uncannily finds
its way to Fox.
This is war as a mix of sport and soft porn. Spectacular graphics see a
soaring stealth bomber morph into an American eagle. There is only one side
in this desert contest, the US of A. Or, occasionally, its coalition, which
features "great little countries" such as Australia.
On Fox, the drive for Baghdad is "the big game, coming up soon". Heavy
artillery is "dropping the big stuff" and the rival Al-Jazeera Arab news
channel is "a complete waste of time".
"Saddam, Saddam � Get Out While You Can," has become a routine exhortation.
"After the break, are we being too humanitarian?," asks extremely earnest
E. D. The capture and parading of American prisoners of war on day six has
Brian quizzing a retired general about the prospect of reduced support for
the war back home.
General: No, I don't think so.
Brian: Well, how do you explain Vietnam?
General: Vietnam lasted for 12 years.
On most levels, this is shallow, facile and appalling. War is horrible,
people are dying, families and cities are being shattered.
Yet, flicking between the various channels, it struck me that at least Fox
is being unambiguously biased. You switch on to barrack for the US. Saddam
Hussein is the bad guy, followed closely by France, the UN and anyone else
game enough to criticise the war. (Steve: "Latest wire has Madonna calling
for peace. She hasn't been hot for years � and she lives in Britain. I
think Madonna should stay there.")
Elsewhere, the war coverage is less shrill and at least feigning an attempt
to remain balanced. But most of the coverage � even on the
better-credentialled channels � is so much guff.
Many of the night pictures broadcast live from Baghdad are so unclear that
you'd ring the TV repair man if they weren't surrounded by an ocean of
graphics, crawls and latest headlines. On the 24-hour stations, an
unconfirmed nugget of information flashed on international wires can
trigger hours of wild speculation from legions of breathless TV hosts and
superannuated experts. Ban qualifying terms such as could, perhaps,
possibly, may and if, and the news channels would spend two-thirds of the
war coverage screening test patterns. Prohibit senseless repetition and
they'd be forced off the air.
Last weekend I watched John Howard give a televised press conference where
he declared the war was going "better than expected". Moments later the
caption � "Howard: War going better than expected" � appeared at the bottom
of the screen. When Howard finished, the newsreader summed up that the PM
thought the war was "going better than expected". They crossed to a
correspondent in Canberra who agreed that, yes indeed, Howard thought
things were "going better than expected".
It's inane and mind-numbing, yet perversely hypnotic. Amid the dross there
has been brave and informative reporting, although many correspondents
embedded with US and British forces appear to be going native.
Watching TV after working in the industry is a bit like presenting a
butcher with a feast of offal and sausage; it's all a little sickening. The
other day an American reporter conducted a dramatic interview in a gasmask
in which he bemoaned how his wife and children were forced to see him in
such despair. Unfortunately for the talking haircut, he was caught
afterwards casually removing the mask and talking calmly to colleagues.
Are we better served by this onslaught of live war coverage? There's not
much edifying about staring at a TV screen waiting for people to die, but
at least the cable channels serve up a regular diet of Tony Blair.
Best listen to the admirable British PM's advice for cable couch potatoes:
"The only thing I think we need to bear in mind the whole time, that what
we see is real but it is not the only part of reality."
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6202837%255E12854,00.html
