Journalism Boot Camp

Journalists enter the battlefield knowing full well the consequences and the safety risks involved, all for a better and more accurate picture of the War in Iraq. However, before they embark on this remarkable journey, they make all the preparations necessary for someone who could potentially be caught in the crossfire, targeted by a terrorist organization, or interrogated through hostile force. In preparing for their experience among soldiers and citizens alike, they must attend specialized war training courses - it is in essence, a kind of journalism boot camp, a precautionary measure to ensure that journalists enter the war zone safely and leave in the same state they entered. According to the article, "Intense Training Prepares Journalists for War," major media organizations send their staffs to war zone training programs that involve First Aid Training, simulations of a number of life-threatening situations including the potential of being taken hostage, enduring captivity, and crossing border checkpoints, and psychological preparation for the war zone and making practical decisions during times of crisis. ABC News correspondent Miguel Marquez, who spent a month in Iraq, comments on the necessity of re-creating dangerous scenarios because, "While there, one is always aware of the danger, and it's very easy to get on edge about whether you're going to get caught up in something that you can't control." Two of the best-known private firms that specialize in war training are Centurion Risk Assessment Services and AKE Integrated Risk Solutions, both of which offer the context for situations that could potentially be harmful or dangerous, and the skills to handle any kind of situation. The mission statement of Centurion Risk Assessment Services reads, "Danger knows no frontier, and press cards do not stop bullets. Even with the best of training, journalists can become casualties." While this is the unfortunate reality, there are clearly measures being taken to prevent further deaths of innocent Americans. Taking such precautions is merely a formality and a necessity, because once you're out there, that feeling of uncertainty won't go away and your own conscience and mind is all you have to stay sane. No situation is the same and danger knows no boundary, so therefore, it is only logical to prepare soldiers for the worst.

Globalization: A Gift or a Curse?

The wheels of globalization –international organizations uniting under a common goal to protect humanity, global trade, and investment – have been spinning through history, from the wheelbarrow and horse and buggy to the automobile and tractor, symbols of our nation that has developed an interdependence between economics, culture, and politics. However, as critics are quick to point out, the wheels of globalization often get stuck in the mud, slipping and sliding across an icy road, and Americans often find themselves forgetting the reason we ventured into the great abyss of globalization in the first place: human rights and serving the interests of all social classes. The international community often gets so caught up in the crushing power of economic, technological, and ecological forces that consumers are mesmerized by the fast paced lifestyle and abandon tradition and values, clinging onto the image of a fast paced sports car and an order of fries at McDonald’s. Globalization is therefore often viewed as a type of Western dominance over the rest of the world, a continuation of Western imperialism and a factor in larger corporations running the show.

In the article, “The Hidden Promise: Liberty Renewed,” John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldrige point out that the roots of globalization can be traced back to Marx’s belief in The Communist Manifesto 150 years ago in which he believed globalization was an international movement. They comment that globalization can be written as a story of “spreading a political culture that is based on individual liberty to areas that have been longing to embrace it for years,” a story of making the liberal dreams of success and personal identity worth the fight and the perseverance. And yet, Amartya Sen in her article “How to Judge Globalism,” addresses the larger issues underlying the surface of this supposed utopian concept. She argues that the critical question is “not just whether the poor, too, gain something from globalization, but whether they get a fair share and a fair opportunity.” Sen concentrates on the unequal distribution of globalization’s benefits. Reading both of these articles, I have come to the conclusion that globalization is neither a gift nor a curse. It is caught in some weird limbo between the two, where the positive fruits of globalization can be seen in Europe, America, Japan, and East Asia, in all the economic interrelations that are constantly being developed across the globe, but also in the overwhelming poverty that still is such a pervasive influence in underdeveloped nations. As Sen concludes, “Globalization deserves a reasoned defense, but it also needs reform.” The article “Jihad vs. McWorld” by Benjamin Barber explains the overwhelming choice between the two halves of our worlds, radically opposing forces that both blindly pursue their own goals and are indifferent to civil liberty. This is where the “reform” Sen speaks of should take play, in the communities that have been forged out of consumption and profit and politics and a clash of cultures, instead of human welfare and overall happiness. Humans need to rediscover the backbone of globalization: a safe blending of the two worlds and a recognition of the connections of the global culture to the local culture.

The Modern American War Journalist

This is a short documentary detailing the evolution of war journalism and the impact war journalists have on the public's perception of war. While I'm hoping my topic will mainly concentrate on the current War in Iraq, as JP Keenan, the director of this individual documentary points out, war journalism has been around since as early as the Spanish-American War in 1898. He points out that the modern war journalist faces the critical choice of having to report the truth without the distortion of war politics, without the difficulty of having to censor the horrors of war to spare the public.

The Golden Straitjacket: Here To Stay

Thomas L. Friedman paints a shockingly realistic portrait of the state of our world in a very creative and intriguing way, using the concepts of the Golden Straitjacket and the Electronic Herd to explain how free-market capitalism and large multinational corporations have risen to the spotlight and are leading the future. Friedman portrays a reality that is either do or die - either accept the straitjacket with all its golden rules and tight parameters, or attempt to thrive without the confines of this economic powerhouse and suffer as a result. While I am able to see how Friedman's article could be one-sided and unwilling to delve into other possibilities for a successful economy, I believe he does account for how limiting and constricting the Golden Straitjacket can truly be. This is precisely why he chose to use a straitjacket as his model of clothing. A straitjacket binds a person, restrains them from movement, and narrows their options to the simple stretching of their legs. He could just as easily have chosen a sweater or a jacket but these would not have represented the binding mechanism that accompanies a country's choice - because it is still a choice now, even though it is inevitably the only future - to enter the contract of free-market capitalism. I'm sure we would all love to have multiple sizes of the straitjacket, with multiple patterns and multiple colors, an assortment of choices, but what it comes down to is that the future is situated behind that computer screen, among the Electronic Herd of this world, in the capital stored in that bank, in being able to accomodate to the reality of the straitjacket. And is there anything wrong with having a clear future in store, with having one option and "one size fits all?" Doesn't this simplify things a bit? And for those who argue that Friedman's argument assumes that free-market capitalism and donning the Golden Straitjacket is not the only way to thrive, we must keep in mind that no other successful alternatives have really been produced and as far as I'm concerned, no force can compete with the power of the straitjacket. Friedman doesn't simply assume these things on the basis of his own opinion, he uses a variety of examples and sources. As he states, commenting on the Golden Straitjacket, "It is not always pretty or gentle or comfortable. But it's here and it's the only model on the rack this historical season," and that's the way it is, for now at least.

Journalism on the Defensive

The idea of journalism has always revolved around investigative, unbiased, loyal reporting to a cause that the individual truly feels a connection to. The practice of journalism has been a significant presence in America to give the most accurate and worthwhile coverage, rallying to the spirit of Americans after major disasters or events. After 9/11, an especially traumatic event for Americans on that fateful September morning, watching a landmark blow up on public television, journalists once again united under a national voice begging for answers. However, as Jeffrey Dvorkin, the Executive Director of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, or the CCJ, points out, journalism is not just about getting answers, but serving as a channel to all viewers to the clear and honest truth. It is about asking tough questions but also about deepening that "sense of obligation and responsibility first, to the listeners, readers and viewers that it serves." Journalism is an eye-opening experience, especially for those who are currently covering in Iraq, witnessing the horror and the atrocities soldiers must endure each day, but it should by no means be driven by opinion, or serve as a source for journalists to voice information that is not backed up by factual evidence or proof. With a topic as sensistive as the war in Iraq, their commitment to citizens should be the driving factor in their reports, not their own curiosity or their wish to make the right kind of headlines. And, perhaps most importantly, embedded journalists in Iraq should avoid feeding the flames of fear, gullibility, and anger that so often permeates the air these days. Journalism should be an honest business, with a penchant for curiosity and those stories that only journalists physically being in Iraq can provide. It should not be a business where journalists cash in on the best stories depicting the biased American view of the atrocities committed against American soldiers but both the Iraqi and the American side. During a time when our basic institutions are threatened and the United States is still recovering from a terrorist attack that crumpled our hope but nonetheless, strengthened us as a nation, it is critical to have journalists embedded in Iraq that can provide accurate, independent information. Is there a possibility that the public distrusts American journalism? Yes. There will always be a small suspicion that news stations aren't serving the public as much as their own interests but there is still a chance to regain this trust and restore complete and utter faith in the public. As Jeffrey Dvorkin states, "We need to remind ourselves and our audiences that journalism is not stenography. We need to tell our audiences that our goal is to serve them as citizens first and as consumers of information second. We need to find a way to make sure that we are part of a successful business model, but not at the cost of our credibility. We need to tell our audiences how we know what we know, who are our sources and how we came to report on a given story."

"A Slice of the War"

When the Iraq war began in 2003, the Pentagon decision to embed journalists alongside the military to obtain in-depth war coverage received mixed opinions. Some cautioned that such a partnership between the military and the media would distort war coverage and overlook certain parts of the war inaccessible to journalists because of the apparent danger in that particular area. Others voiced that the media's increased involvement in the war would provide unprecedented access to details about the war that physically being there would only provide. In an article by Jim Lehrer, who runs a special news show for students on PBS, he quotes U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield saying, "What we are seeing is not the war in Iraq; what we're seeing are slices of the war in Iraq." He couldn't be more correct. What editors of large papers fail to recognize is that embedded journalists are restricted as much for their safety as for the classified military information they might uncover. Journalism is a tricky occupation because there must be a balance between what is an opinion and what is actually fact and if this balance is tipped too much in one direction, these embedded journalists will suffer the repercussions. While it is no question that the embedding process has "allowed reporters and photographers to get closer to understanding the complexities of war," what they are allowed to share is still censored and freedom of movement is limited among the battlefields of Iraq.

Mahbubani Talks the Talk But Can He Walk the Walk?

The West is currently under a grave misapprehension about their role as leaders of international law. They are suffering from a distorted way of thinking, in which they assume that their military and economic prowess can still bring any country to its knees and automatically convert the most hostile nation to a Western mode of operating. In Kishore Mahbubani’s article, “The Case Against the West,” he examines how very flawed the United States is, this nation of freedom and opportunity wrongly believing that their interventions were for the better and that because of our democratic and economically developed regime, we are automatically exempt from being a fundamental source of the dangers that threat our security and international order. Mahbubani depicts a rather glum opinion of the West, and perhaps with reason. Was it not the West who hypothesized that the “invading U.S. troops would be welcomed with roses thrown at their feet by happy Iraqis,” a reception thrown in their honor, only to be met with armed resistance and hostility? Is it not the West who has consistently draped the United States in a cloak of invincibility and superiority, perhaps with clear, concise proof, but more often than not, an egotistical approach to world leadership? And yet, Mahbubani makes the grand claim that the United States has transformed from “the world’s primary problem solver to...its single biggest liability.” While he has nine pages of material to work with, it is very easy for him to only paint a portrait of all the failures of the United States, but at the same time, he often provides unclear justifications for such accusations. Mahbubani talks the talk but when it comes to getting down to the nit and gritty, such as explaining why he thinks the United States fails to live up to the provisions of international law on human rights, he is unable to walk the walk. My opinion? Sure, the United States is flawed, but no more than other country or person and what it comes down to is that there is always room for improvement.