TELEVISION, WAR AND VIOLENCE: TERRIFYING EVENTS REALLY DID HAPPEN.

By: Past Novel Larasaty

Media will never, ever cover anything that does not sell, and “they share a broad sense of what is sellable” (Seaton, 2005: p. 31). The expansion of television audience, privatisation and conglomeracy of broadcasting station and the explosion of cable and satellite television have made the media industry highly dynamic and extremely profitable for powerful conglomerates (Frost, 2000: p 54). Thus, people have more and more attention and awareness of what displayed in their television screens. Every minutes and hours, every day of people’s life are dominated and influenced by what they see in television such as advertisement and persuasive messages, as well as the news. 

War, propaganda, politic and governmental issue are proliferated by the media (Thompson, 1994: pp. 63-65). These particular issues, in relations to media and news coverage, are one of the most selling news to be displayed and updated to the audiences. During various war campaigns, the media system proved to be superior propaganda organ for militarism and war (McChesney, 2008: p.105). People are being acknowledged of what happens in the war-field through the media. The audiences are being united by how the media presents certain story and reports (Hoskins, 2004: p. 13). In this case, audiences share the same view about the ‘reality’ in the field of war; it is what so called ‘unified audiences’. The media investigate, analyse and informatively display what they want people to see about a particular conflict or war. Added by an idea of Chibnall (1977), that I agree that the “television does not merely monitor the events of real world; they construct representations and accounts of reality”. People see television as the source of reliable and up-to-date information, news in particular, if not as an entertainment. News viewing is attributed high importance by the audience (Hoijer, 1999: p. 183). They feel they are informed and somewhat emotionally involved in certain news coverage based on proximity, novelty and background. There are several perspectives and arguments I would like to suggest in this essay regarding how people and media are converging in war report and coverage, as well as its display of deaths and other violence. 

Media and their agenda.

There are basically many reasons implied in the media policy and setting about covering particular news narration and display it as public information. As media are owned and regulated by particular individuals that define the reality, they have the right and the plan to determine whether a news could be displayed or not (Chibnall, 1977: p. 5). The first reason why media displays deaths and violence is mainly because they want to stress and illustrate what really happens in the conflict zone.  This reality is of course their ‘reality’ which means what they want the people to see. Pictures tell more than words and narration. They are offensive in the way that any pictures of violence and destruction is offensive, but they say more about the war and what it meant than even the best of writers could have managed (Wykes, 2001: p. 171). Seaton (2005: p. 131) added that “communicating pain and shaping its meaning are still very powerful political tools”. In war context, audiences are looking forward to seeing reports and coverage about the update of any events. The values and news-weighting quickly become associated with audiences expectations and are justified in terms of giving them what they want as pleasure. Therefore, news values are converted into certain shapes that accommodate what is regarded as reality (Chibnall, 1977: p. 14). Entertainment aspect then, follows as the reason after information of what audiences want and need to see is being displayed, corresponds with how they manage to be informed and pleased by the dramatic and thrilling coverage of war or conflict. “News as the part of entertainment business and the presentation of events follow logically from journalist’s conceptions of what attract audiences” (Murdock, 1973: pp. 165 – 166). 

To media agenda, conflict is newsworthy, and their discourse diverted attention from the actual issues into better pictures of events that are newsworthy (Wykes, 2001: pp. 69 – 71). The reason behind showing good pictures is that the media want to attract the viewers with what they have. By then, this leads into the second reason which is commercialism of a news. When media are making news, they are partly making entertainment and seek out best presentations of news and how that grabs people attention and how it also generates profit. The more audiences pay attention to what they display, the more advertisings space they sell in high rate.

The third reason of media’s selection in broadcasting death and carnage in war is that they aim to influence the people from particular location that might concern about the issue. In Seaton’s (2005: pp. 133 – 139) War and Sentimental Education chapter, it is argued that media role in the shaping of feeling about conflict has been accentuated since people has seen war news as a matter of choice rather than a matter of necessity. This somehow arouses me to think that the 9/11 tragedy had been covered exclusively in Indonesia and it was seen as something significant because of the common sense between the suspect of the terrorism was an Islamic organisation and Indonesia, a country with the biggest number of Muslims. “The cultural approach of viewing [violence on] television put stress on how it stimulates the audiences to relate between what they see and what happens around them (Glucksmann: 1971: pp. 54 – 55). The case of 9/11 then becomes more relevant to Indonesian audiences ever since Bali bombing in 2003 and the suspect of this tragedy was reported related to Al-Qaeda terrorist network (Fox, 2007: pp. 216 – 225). Proximity is, again, the reason why particular newsworthy war reports could attract audiences in broad range, especially when victims and war are ongoing in certain area. Not just geographically, but can also in matter of ideology and cultural or historical closeness between particular countries. 

Another reason why media decide to display corpses in war is the other way to prove their reliability. Reliability of a news is seen from the source and accuracy of the information (Frost, 2000: p. 30). I believe that people’s trust on media is based on what they can see. Audiences were so crowded in the social media such as Twitter and Facebook demanding Nurdin M Top’s, wanted terrorist in Indonesia, body after being reported dead by the media in 2009. When the media just reported that the news has been confirmed by the authority, people could just to hear it and did not really believe it by still complaining why are there no prove of his dead body being covered (http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/wanted-terrorist-noordin-m-top-believed-dead/322916). I match this evident with what Frost (2000, p: 20) described as “the whole story is driven by sensation and built on rumour”, and I am trying to argue that audiences need to see the proof of what has happened, especially on issue that they are aware of.

Audience and preferences.

Audiences take a turn for worse when they meet pictures of violence in the news, especially of innocent victims of war or other violent events (Hoijer, 1999: 187). Infotainment and dramatic images shown by the media are attractive to the audience. This also adds the knowledge of conflicts and crises happening in certain area. As stated by Wykes (1999) that “major component of our need for news is to enable us to deal with threats, which are largely the portion of the news”. 

Elite people and personalities affect audiences’ preferences in seeing and selecting the news they want to see. This includes what event is going on and how it relates to their interest based on aspects that will affect them. If one issue is ongoing in a country, people involved are keen to gain updates and any reports covering particular conflict. Audiences are placed as the spectators who take place to participate in projecting themselves into the situation or identifying what and who they see to then decide whether they are going to take actions or response regarding what their values to the news are. “There are numbers of events can only be perpetrated by certain people in certain positions, some of these events are so important to society that they are legislated for” (Frost, 2000: pp. 1-5). 

“People watch violence in news because they want and need to know, but at the same time feel sick and horrified by it” (Hoijer, 1999: pp. 187 – 188). This type of audiences are those who feel the dilemmatic circumstance where they want to be informed, yet to be protected from what might disturb them. However, the picture of conflict aftermath shows the audiences a hawk’s eyes view of life and death (Larsen, 1968: pp. 50 -54). In my opinion, it is necessary to give clear illustration that death and violence are part of war and conflict. It is more important to see how the government or other humanitarian organisation intervene and attempt to make peace in the war zone. Moreover, I think it will be less attractive to see Presidents and Prime Ministers negotiating and mediating conflict in fancy buildings, rather than showing the carnage and massacre of innocent people die in Rwanda or Yugoslavia. In fact, the war victims report inspires those authorities to take actions or at least set up a policy to reduce more and more dying and suffering. 

“…. death in the news is about shock: a sudden event, whether recent or past; a life or a history stopped in its tracks” (Seaton, 2005: p. 186). Displaying death rebuilds social meaning around the loss and the viewers. Amongst wider audiences, worrying about the stories is more considerable rather than worrying about who is dead. Henceforth, a narrative should attached to the war reporting, regardless how biased and framed it would be, it still gives the obvious justification. 

Displaying deaths in media could simply trigger what so called humanitarianism. One of suggestion brought by Seaton (2005) was that the media can have a civilizing effect, that images of conflict heighten awareness and increases a desire for peace. By showing tragedy in its utter condition such as deaths and victims, people would be more aware and their sympathy and emotions would then lead to humanitarianism concerns. Take an example of humanitarian action by Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie who has been working with the UNCHR to help the victims as the Goodwill Ambassador. She involves herself in Sierra Leone after the civil war and admits that she was inspired by children’s story in refugee camp and she was touched by how devastated the situation was there (http://www.un.org/works/goingon/refugees/angelina_story.html). If there was no coverage about these victims, I believe no actress or other public figures are interested to take part to help the recovery post-war and conflict victims.

Censorships, Reliability and Decency.

An argument by Hoskins (2004: p. 96), that “media attempt to communicate the realities of human suffering as a consequence of warfare and catastrophe”, is illustrating how television should report news actuality of conflict, the scenes of combat and sites of war. This brings two perspectives; causalist and moralists, which are always the ongoing debate. The moralists tend to avoid the showing of violence and any forms of harrowing images displayed in the media for mental and moral reason. They think that kids or any audiences could be thrilled and even, in fact, the real message to narrate the war is not being well conveyed. The moralists also support the censorships of any news containing harsh and disturbing pictures since they assume media are doing it for commercial objective (Frost, 2000: p. 44). Nevertheless, I take the causalists’ belief, that the news coverage displaying death and violence is a justifiable action to inform people and emphasis on what the event is all about. This thought adapted by the causalists and are still be the argument of why media put dead body or war victims in the news. Furthermore, it was argued by Jacquette (2007: pp. 136 – 137) that media have an obligation to maximise relevant truth; which in my perspective, the results of the war, including deaths, are also considered as the truth. 

Looking at morality perspective, I believe that it is something to do with whole society control and awareness, not just one part of it. Instead of judging the images as upsetting and offensive, brutality and horror of a war could be much explained and described. Take a look at Sampit Tragedy in Indonesia at 2001, where Sukandar (2007) reported that victims of certain conflict are randomly killed or hurt indiscriminately. Based on his research, I simply agree that by showing death and violence is the best way to describe how a war takes place. The same cases happened in Kosovo, Rwanda and Bali where images of carnage, victims and violence-proves were telling more than what words can describe (Fox, Putnis and Porta, 2007). In other words, moral reason could also be used to justify the display of violence and victims in the media.

Pictures and news of Gaddafi’s death displayed in guardian.co.uk proved to be differently shown based on many media policy and agenda, as well as how relevant the news is to the particular nations. In my opinion, this has to do with media regulation in certain countries and censorship in showing such coverage of someone’s death. In middle-east countries, Gaddafi’s picture was shown more explicitly rather than in European media, which indicates there are more relevancies and closeness between the figure Gaddafi and the nations attached to him historically and politically. This then also refer to what Frost (2000: p. 17) has stated about four news values of particular importance to western media; elite nations, elite persons, personalisation and negativity. People in Libya, has been loathing Gaddafi and his tyranny, therefore his death is something big and awaited.

“Of course, these images also serve to remind us that a dead body is a complex, socially constructed entity that means something different depending on the time and place it occupies. In the hands of Libyan liberators, Gaddafi’s corpse symbolises the fall of a tyrant, and with that comes the humiliation and degradation of a man who was once a mythological leader to the Libyan people.” (Fitzharris, 2011, www. guardian.co.uk)

In this case, media are expected and have planned to cover such news to disseminate the truth by showing the literally dead body, no matter how disturbing that could be. This has to do with whole reasons including commercialism, attractiveness of the news and education objective to inform the audiences. I believe it will be much boring and so-not-newsworthy to just report the press conference of any authorities declaring Gaddafi’s death, or comments from Gaddafi’s haters compared to have a look at how he was being killed and dragged by the protesters. I also argue that it is dramatically interesting to watch or read the death report of the person that has been hated by so many people in a country.

Conclusion

What audiences see in their television screen might sometimes not what they want, but it somehow what they really need. The information contained in a news narrative is, although being framed by the media corporations and newsroom, something necessarily pivotal and takes account as the ‘truth’. The Council of Europe refers that the public should be supplied with quality programmes with high production values and are expected to meet high ethical and not sacrificing the pursuit of quality to market forces (Hellman, 1999: p. 116). This fosters the media agenda and setting to as much as possible packing the news as something highly informative and newsworthy. The Council of Europe also urge the media to bear in mind that the audience needs cultural integration about what happens in the particular nations (Hellman, 1999: p. 118). Another ‘unified’ type of audiences to receive one same message from the news coverage about certain narration, which regarding to war or conflict that implies the country’s policy towards their involvement.

Aside from the newsworthiness, where “bitter, violent, unjust death can be a highly prized and valuable news story” (Seaton, 2005: p.182), pictures are a significant additional value for someone to determine authenticity of an event, and whether or not the sources are reliable. What also important is actually the further impact of seeing disturbing images and video about deaths and violence in media; morality and empathy. Awareness of a crisis or war in other part of the world might not be as significant as when it happens in particular proximity range, President Bush Sr. for instance, keep reminiscing the Vietnam War through the picture of the tragedy on his desk. However, regardless the distance, it is necessary for people to realise what is the truth and how the reality could be framed by the media. 

As parts of war and conflict, death and violence are also part of the content in the media. I would like to underline that aside from making newsworthy news, media are considering what the audience wants to see regarding events or war happening in certain area which they are interested in. Some journalists consider moral judgement by making it justifiable to see dead bodies and war victims in the media coverage in order to comprehend and witness what really happens and what media have displayed based on how people want and need to be informed (Frost, 2000: p. 42).

Further impact of the disturbing pictures may vary and depends on how audiences react, as well as how media want to direct the public attention regarding the tragedy. It is also for further debate and arguments sharing about what the media really want to say by covering death in war and how this works towards the policy taken by the involving countries or authorities (UN for instance). This is also an argument of how humanitarianism and intervention could be started from; by seeing death and summoning-for-help victims in conflict area. “News needs blood and the disorder and nuisance its appearance in the wrong places implies in order to display its cleansing morality” (Seaton, 2005: p. 29)

***

Bibliography.

BERRY, J.A., C. P. BERRY. 1999. Genocide in Rwanda: a Collective Memory. Washington, DC: Howard University Press. 

CHANDLER. D. 2002. From Kosovo to Kabul: Human Rights and International Intervention. London: Pluto Press.

CHIBNALL, S. 1977. Law-and-Order News. London: Tavistok.

FOX, R. 2007. Vision of Terror: On the Use of Images in the Mass-mediated Representations of the Bali Bombing. In: H. Nossek, A. Sreberny and P. Sonwalkar (eds). Media and Political Violence. New Jersey: Hampton Press.

FROST, C. 2000. Media, Ethics and Self-regulation. Essex: Pearson Longman.

GLUCKSMANN, A. 1971. Violence on the Screen. London: British Film Institute.

GOFF, P. 1999. The Kosovo News and Propaganda War. Vienna: International Press Institute.

HARROP, L. 2008. Human Writes: The Media’s Role in War Propaganda. In: R. KEEBLE (ed). Communication Ethics Now. Leicester: Troubador.

HELLMAN, H. 1999. Legitimations of Television Programme Policies: Patterns of Argumentation and Discursive Convergence in a Multi-channet Age. In: P. ALASUUTARI (ed). Rethinking Media Audience. London: Sage.

HOIJER, B. 1999. To be an Audience. In: P. ALASUUTARI (ed). Rethinking Media Audience. London: Sage.

HOSKINS, A. 2004. Televising War: From Vietnam to Iraq.  London: Continuum. 

HOWITT. D and G. CUMBERBATH. 1975. Mass Media, Violence and Society. London: Paul Elek.

JACQUETTE, D. 2007. Journalistic Ethics: Moral Responsibility in the Media. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

KLINGHOFFER, A.J. 1998. The International Dimension of Genocide in Rwanda. New York: Palgrave.

LARSEN, O. 1968. Violence and the Mass Media. New York: Harper and Row.

MURDOCK, G. 1973. Political Deviance: the Press Presentation of a Militant Mass Demonstration. In: S. COHEN and J. YOUNG (eds). The Manufacture of News: Deviance, Social Problems and the Mass Media. London: Constable.

SHEPPARD, A. , SHEEHY, N.P. , and YOUNG, B. 1989. Violence on Television: An Intervention. Leeds: Independent Broadcasting Authority.

SEATON, R. 2005. Carnage and the Media: The Making and Breaking of News about Violence. London: Penguin Books.

SUKANDAR, R. 2007. Negotiating Post-Conflict Communication: A Case of Ethnic in Indonesia. Ohio: Ohio University.

PORTE, T. L. 2007. The Bosnian War In Spain: The Media’s Representation of a Distant Violent Conflict. In: H. Nossek, A. Sreberny and P. Sonwalkar (eds). Media and Political Violence. New Jersey: Hampton Press.

PUTNIS. P. 2007. National Perspective in Foreign News Coverage. In: H. Nossek, A. Sreberny and P. Sonwalkar (eds). Media and Political Violence. New Jersey: Hampton Press.

THOMPSON, M. 1994. Forging War: The Media in Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Hercegovina. London. Article 19.

WOOD, A., R. APTHORPE, and J. BORTON. 2001. Evaluating Humanitarian Action: Reflections from Practitioners. London: Zed Books. 

WYKES, M. 2001. News, Crime and Culture. London: Pluto Press.

ZARKOV, D. 2007. The Body of War: the Media in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina. London: Duke University Press.

Internet:

ARAF, A and DIANDRA MEGAPUTRI. 2011. Conflit, Violence and Military Role [online]. [Accessed 1 November 2011]. Available from: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/03/12/conflict-violence-and-military-role.html

BEAUMONT, P. 2011. Muammar Gaddafi: the ‘king of kings’ dies in his hometown [Online]. [Accessed 24 October 2011]. Available from:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/20/muammar-gaddafi-dies-city-birth?INTCMP=SRCH

FITZHARRIS,L . 2011. A Fate Worse than Death: Displaying criminals’ corpses [online]. [Accessed 15 November 2011]. Available from:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/nov/07/fate-worse-death-displaying-corpses

REUTERS. 2009. Wanted Terrorist Noordin M TOP Believed Dead [online]. [Accessed 24 October 2011]. Available from: http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/wanted-terrorist-noordin-m-top-believed-dead/322916

UNHCR. 2011. Angelina Jolie’s Story [online]. [Accessed 15 November 2011].  Available from:  http://www.un.org/works/goingon/refugees/angelina_story.html