How are the Chronicle and CNN Handling the Information War?
by David Weir
This first big war of the 21st century is also the first big war of the
Information Age, where all over the globe people have instant access to all the
coverage they want, whenever they want it. Within that context, the Pentagon's
decision to "embed" reporters with its troops is transforming the
media-government relationship, and may end up transforming the war as well.
More than any
previous conflict, this one is as much an Information War as a shooting war.
The military planners have had many years to study past errors and refine new
techniques. They've come to see that the "story" of the war and how
that plays to different audiences is as critical to success as precision-guided
missiles.
Most of the
public is unaware of the emergence of concepts such as "NetWar,"
whereby military theoreticians have been studying how to use networks (social,
political, and communications networks as well as technology networks) to their
best advantage against similarly "networked" enemies.
an
information war
The information
war plays out over Internet and satellite technologies that allow millions of
people to network together in ways never before possible. Instantaneous,
decentralized communications between and among people who share goals and
perspectives pushes and pulls the "news" through multiple
distribution channels -- far beyond the reach of traditional, centralized media
networks.
So how well do
our local and national news media leaders understand these new realities, and
how well are they handling these new challenges? I will discuss two news
organizations -- the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN.
Chronicle coverage
The Chronicle's
daily war section was its attempt to keep up with the natural advantages
enjoyed by CNN and the other cable news networks. The section resembles The New
York Times’ war section, though it is less ambitious and less original. As
the war reaches the end of its first week, the Chronicle’s acute
inability to compete with live TV means it will have to find creative ways to
differentiate its coverage sufficiently to keep a hold on readers.
That said, the
coverage to date has been impressive -- dramatic headlines, photos, charts,
color, in-depth -- though I wonder how many people in the Bay Area actually
consume all of this material every day. One has to be a “news junkie"
(more on them later) to really appreciate the attention to detail that the Chronicle
daily section is displaying.
Also, in recent
days, the commitment to large-sized headlines is starting to limit the paper's
ability to communicate anything original. If I already know, or think I know,
about that "Gritty Firefight" that occurred yesterday, why should I
read the lead story in today's Chronicle?
strong local
coverage
On the other
hand, the Chronicle has done reasonably well when it covers the local
beat, especially the dramatic street protests against the war. I have been
surprised, given the paper’s need to grow its younger audience, that the editors
did not pay closer attention to the story of the young American activist,
Rachel Corrie, who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer. More in-depth coverage
of that matter, including the text of the heart-breaking emails she sent her
parents in the days before she was killed, would have been of interest to many
younger readers, as well as the large local activist community that sees
connections between this war and the Palestinian crisis.
CNN's non-stop
talking anchors are performing admirably, for the most part, though Aaron Brown
lost his composure at one point. And when the network uses its backup anchors,
it devolves into what might best be described as an unconscious parody of
“Saturday Night Live”.
But Wolf Blitzer
knows what he is doing, and is doing it extremely well. A major problem for CNN
is how to avoid becoming part of the Pentagon's propaganda war. To date,
embedded war correspondents are proving to be better proponents of the military
effort than the Pentagon itself. That could change depending on how long the
war lasts, and how much opposition to the war begins to take hold.
Major ethical issues face the CNN producers, like whether to show images of captured Americans once they were aired on Al Jazeera and posted on the Internet. So far, they seem to be navigating through these issues fairly well, mainly by disclosing what they are, and are not, showing us and why. This transparency is vital for retaining audience trust.
One problem for
consumers is it is not healthy, physically or psychologically, to stay glued to
CNN all the time. As we know from the Gulf War, the more people watched TV
coverage of that conflict, the less they actually knew about it.
This war's
coverage is so different, it is premature to say whether a similar effect will
be apparent this time around. But everybody needs to take breaks from all of
this stressful news and these shocking images, even if they are informative.
not the only
story
Which brings me
to the plight of the worst news junkies of all -- we journalists. We are all in
danger of losing our perspective and being out of touch with our audiences if
we devote ourselves completely to war coverage.
It is a big
story, but it is not the only story. In the end, a more varied approach would
lower some of the hype that inevitably creeps into saturation coverage and
remind the public that the war is happening in a larger context that keeps
changing.
An ludicrous
example of the myopia of many journalists was on display at the White House
press conference on the first day of the “Shock and Awe” bombing campaign.
A number of
reporters expressed disbelief that President Bush had not been watching the
bombing on TV. They couldn’t imagine anyone, let alone the president, who could
have refrained from watching the fireworks show. It did not seem to occur to
them that he had more pressing things to do.
In essence, what
we are witnessing is a grand lab experiment on how humans wage war in the
information age. It is too early to predict what the outcome will be, but it’s
easy to conclude that we’ve reached a turning point in the convergence of
military and media strategies from which there can be no return.
David Weir teaches
journalism at Stanford University