How the misrepresentation of war and conflict can lead to a false view of events

Published Date: 23 Mar 2015

Introduction

In June 2009, it was announced that there would be an Inquiry looking into the Iraq War, and the United Kingdom's involvement within it (“About the Inquiry”, 2009). The Chilcot Inquiry aimed to cover the period between the summer of 2001 and the end July 2009, looking at not only the run-up to the conflict, but also the period during, and the outcomes after measures had been taken. Its aims were set to find out the legality and legitimacy of the conflict (Hirsch, 2009), and how it was presented to the public, prior to engagement.

There has been much debate over whether what the public are presented with is as truthful as it states to be. Whether it be giving a cleaner depiction, with exaggerated sophistication, or “inflated claims” (Meacher, 2010, para. 2), such as the ‘weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq, it can be debated that a fair representation is somewhat hard to find.

The purpose of this dissertation is to look at how conflict can become misrepresented via the media. It aims to look at the various ways that the media communicate the conflict to the public, and how it poses itself as a watchdog, supposedly working as the public's eyes and ears, as well as giving them an outlet via which their ‘voice' can be heard.

Whilst one initially thinks of war as a brutal and life affecting situation, more recent war seems to leave most western citizens relatively untouched, and therefore, perhaps less informed. What little they may know tends to be gathered via television or print media, and tends to somewhat be taken quite literally as the ‘way it is'. Chapter one brings together these ideas, and explores how the news present conflicts to its audiences.

The dissertation then goes on to address the problematic representations that have occurred, and looks at how news can be manufactured for audiences, depicting situations in differing ways to how they are really occurring. It also looks at the idea of propaganda, and the negative and positive ways in which it can be used. This second chapter also addresses the Abu Ghraib situation, and how such a horrific situation can by-pass the media, and perhaps be covered-up. The media however, proved to play a positive role, informing the public of the situation, bringing them into the loop.

Other elements which must be addressed is alternative representations. From documentary to video games, people now often use media which originates from conflict as a form of entertainment. Whether it be to inform themselves further, in the cause of documentaries, or to entertain and ‘participate', the media enables audiences to approach the idea of conflict from other angles. This is therefore why it is vital that such genres be addressed when looking at the representation of war and conflict.

Chapter One: The Media; Our Eyes and Ears and Voice?

When considering how most people get their news and current affairs information, most tend to trust and favour certain institutions. They trust these sources to deliver them accurate and truthful reports. Few people would question their favourite institutions ability to do so, or would question the validity of the ‘stories', consuming them as factual information, and would rarely think beyond it.

As discussed by McChesney and Nichols, ideally, the media is supposed to “serve as a stern watchdog over those in power and those who want to be in power” (McChesney & Nichols, 2002, p.24). This supports the idea that the media can be used to aid a country's citizenship, helping those who do not have power to have a voice. Without the media, the public would find it hard to be heard, so they need to have the media on their side, likewise, the government must have the support of the media to influence the public (Katz, 2009, p.200).

But whether the media really honours its role as ‘watchdog' is questionable. When considering the media, particularly in relation to reporting conflict, it seems somewhat unlikely that a completely fair and accurate representation, to all audiences, could occur. The BBC, according to Aitken (2007, p.8), is thought of as one of the most trustworthy places that one can gather news and information. This could be due to a sense of ownership in which the UK public feel (via the license fee), or due to it being the most historically established. Either way, nationally, and internationally, it has become a trusted organisation. Zelizer and Allan even argue that, particularly post September 11, the BBC has become an organisation that the American public trust to deliver what they see as more extensive information. In comparison to US media representations, the BBC “provided a much more in depth approach, [...] along with [a] ‘blunter attitude'” (Zelizer & Allan, 2002, p.12).

According to Aitken, (2007, p.2), the BBC does have a duty under its Royal Charter, in order to maintain the license fee, that it must not be biased or favour views. This may indicate why it is seen as a more trustworthy source of information. However, as questioned by Aitken, it may be seen as the BBC holds people and organisations to account, but “who holds the BBC to account?” (Aitken, 2007, p.2). Particularly, when as Aitken suggests (2007, p.20), the political opinion within the organisation would be formed by those working within it.

As Navasky discusses, “journalism, the flow of news, information, and ideas, is the circulation system of our democracy, the way we find out what's what. It is based largely on journalism that we make up our national mind” (Navasky, 2002, p.xiii). The media's influence over the public is tremendous, especially as it may be the main influence over many of one's beliefs. It therefore shows that there is a sense that the media should be aware of its power, and should therefore be regulated in such a way that it does allow diversity of representations to occur. As Doyle asserts, it is vital that there is a number of “different and independent voices, and of differing political opinions and representations” (Doyle, 2002, p.11). However, as Aitken continues, journalists report using their own views, and may do so completely unintentionally. However, when many journalists within an organisation are of similar beliefs, it could be hard for them to realise they may be biased. This is an “institutional deformation, invisible to the people working there, unless you were one of a small minority who happen to take a different political view” (Aitken, 2007, p.20).

When considering journalism of attachment, it is easy to see where one may be unable to stand neutrally. As it is a “journalism that cares as well as knows” (Bell, 1998, p.15), the journalist is increasingly likely to be more emotionally entwined with the story, and therefore may find it harder to stand in a non-biased position. As Ellis addresses (1998, p.167), moral responsibility often takes over when journalism becomes closer to the victims.

Emotion is a powerful tool used by the media, it can help to draw in an audience, and get them following along. According to Boltanski (1999, p.5), there must be sufficient contact between the ‘victim' and those who are ‘fortunate' for one to be able to connect with the victim or ‘unfortunate'.  Despite this though, as Boltanski (1999, p.27) states, the two groups actually mean nothing to one another. Therefore, it is believed that the emotional effect of such reporting is relatively short lived for the audience consuming.

Bystander journalism however, seems to be the more idealistic approach that media organisations may favour, if wishing to be non-biased. This form of journalism is more concerned with factual elements of war. This is a less biased approach, as it tends to report an overall representation via factual elements. It allows audiences to walk away without feeling an attachment or moral obligation. Whilst audiences may tend to favour this form of reporting as more accurate, it can cause problems. According to Sanders, there is “a time to be passionate and a time to be dispassionate” (Sanders, 2005, p.43). As he continues, this approach to journalism allows a “more truthful depiction of the horrors of war” (Sanders, 2005, p.43). It may give a more accurate reading into the devastation (on paper), but how one interprets that information though is where the problems occur. If one is not given the chance to physically see the devastation, it is hard to really understand. Therefore, by dispassionately reporting, one may lack the emotional tie, and get a cleaner depiction of what is ‘intended' to be communicated. Whilst one may feel they understand the situation, they are only being told facts, and whether they can really translate these into reality, is problematic. If one does not get the full picture, including the emotional and social impact that such a war may have over others, it is an unfair representation. Economical and statistical figures only tell so much, and do not communicate a reality.

As Nichols and McChesney discuss, we “don't see the reality of war” (Nichols & McChesney, 2005, p.v). Although this is in reference to the US press and public, it could be applied to any countries depiction, according to the countries own national belief, even if not to the same extent. “War is the most serious use of state power: organised, sanctioned violence” (Nichols & McChesney, 2005, p.37). It is therefore a serious issue if one is not being given the chance to see the reality of a conflict, and the arguments behind it. It is all very to have a vague understanding behind a conflict, via information received from the media, but many audiences may take this information too literally. They may not look beyond the information offered, and may take the media's chosen narrative as a truthful and fair depiction, without questioning why the media has taken that particular angle.

As discussed by Aitken, it is about “constructing ‘narratives' which give the audience a coherent framework within which to judge current developments” (Aitken, 2007, p.17). But as Aitken continues, most people consume and trust one narrative, despite there being many other competing versions of the same situation, which may be a more accurate representation. Narratives give audiences a platform to work on, and a basis to which they can base their beliefs. If however, there are many competing versions a situation, as Aitken suggests (2007, p.17), this demonstrates the various views that a broadcaster may possess. It would be hard for a broadcaster to deny their biases, particularly when there are other similar reports of other viewpoints. No one can truly asses a situation fairly without viewing every angle of the situation, not only from the home governments wished depiction, but also from the ‘enemies' depiction.

This draws onto another point. Due to the technology of today, audiences are now able to access news instantly as situations are occurring. They are led to believe this gives them a bigger picture. It is also a good position for the public to be in, as they are therefore able to access the same information as others, and are less likely to be misled. This however can be problematic for controlling bodies, particularly in relation to conflict. “Leaders must be prepared to handle the rapid pace of global communication and to avoid serious policy mistakes deriving from global television's demands for a fast and effective response” (Gilboa, 2005, p.24). They have little time for preparation, and therefore have to be somewhat careful in what they say, and aim to be somewhat vague, to give them the ability to be able to change their angle later if necessary.

Videophones have also proven problematic for those reporting via the media. Whilst they can “empower journalists [...], documenting the effects of battle while capturing a dramatic but information-rich account of war” (Livingstone, Bennett & Robinson, 2005, p.34), they can display more than a chosen government may have wished audiences to witness. However, it must be recognised that even with such resources, reporters are often not actually at the ‘frontline', and are still some distance from the actual action, and therefore may only have the details which they may have been given by officials. It may also vary with the type of people which they are surrounded by, i.e. civilians or the military.

Another issue to discuss when considering reporting a conflict is where the information reported has been obtained from. Reporters are often “given access to a steady and predictable supply of information that is typically provided by official government sources” (Livingstone, Bennett, & Robinson, 2005, p.34). This therefore, shows that the information may not be directly from the source, even if we are led to believe so. It therefore may not be the full bulk of the situation, particularly when the government is the middle man, as it may wish to represent its own view. If the government is passing the information on, they are able to edit the information into a situation that compliments their desired standpoint. Why would one wish to humiliate or inflate problems for itself when it is unnecessary to do so? This therefore raises the question of whether we should be in fact more concerned by what we are not being shown, rather than what we are. This process of eliminating and censoring news via gatekeeping is a way of ensuring only ‘newsworthy' subjects reach the public, whilst other things they deem unnecessary, do not.

The reporting of the 1990-1991 Gulf War can demonstrate where a lack of information was relayed to the public. During the conflict, the public were given a cleaner depiction, and were under the impression that bombs dropped were precise and accurate. However, “after the war it was revealed that in fact only 7 per cent of bombs were ‘precision' or laser-guided weapons” (Philo & McLauglin, 1995, p.149). Throughout the conflict, there was an obsession around the sophisticated weapons that were being used, which could now be seen as somewhat misleading. As cited by Philo and McLauglin (from The Daily Mirror), “The world watch in awe yesterday as Stormin' Norman played his ‘home video' - revealing how allied plans are using Star Wars technology to destroy vital Iraqi targets. Just like Luke Skywalker manoeuvring his fighter into the heart of Darth Vader's space complex, the US pilots zeroed into the very centre of Saddam Hussein's Baghdad” (Philo & McLauglin, 1995, p. 149). Such an article would give a very unfair representation of the real effect, but this may not be clear to audiences until after the situation has taken place.

Surely therefore, this misleading of the public could be seen as a form of propaganda? As Rosenfeld suggests (2007, p.70), it may be necessary to represent events in certain, perhaps biased ways, as this should encourage support and patriotism within the public. Today one may assume that due to our knowledge and understanding of propaganda, it is less likely to happen to us. But as a victim of propaganda, would you really realise you were being subjected to it? According to Edward Bernays, propaganda is seen as a vital tool for societies. “Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are together as a smooth functioning society” (Bernays, 2005, p.37). Essentially, propaganda is “the establishing of reciprocal understanding between an individual and a group” (Bernays, 2005, p.161). So if as Bernays suggest, propaganda is needed to obtain a joint understanding within a group, this may indicate why it may be used by governments to persuade the public to join their beliefs, in order to get a desired outcome. This can show why, it is essential that certain representations be presented to the public, however inaccurate or biased they may be, to create an alliance of beliefs. This would also support the idea behind over-emphasising the sophistication of war and cleanliness, in order to maintain support.

As you can see from this chapter, the media are there as our eyes and ears, feeding us information, but also serves, as a watchdog over government and other elite bodies. Also demonstrated is how the media have a great responsibility when reporting, due to their persuasiveness, and the fact that the public can be easily manipulated, and often follow and gather their national belief via what the media feeds them. It shows how ones understanding of a situation may differ depending on how it is reported. If reported using emotions, it may create a different perception to if it was reported factually, even if the factual representation, on paper, gives more information.

This gives a good basis upon which to discuss why such reporting takes place, and how it may benefit those in power. It also raises the questions around what is not being shown to audiences, and what happens when the media or government are shown to have been untruthful.

Chapter Two: Censorship, Deceit and Propaganda

As discussed in Chapter One, it can be somewhat confusing to consider the various ways that the media can present particular views. As suggested previously, it is thought that they do so consciously, but other views suggest that it is often unintentional. Whilst aiming to appear open, they often present a marginal view of the information they themselves are aware of. It therefore must be questioned why such actions are implemented, rather than presenting as much as possible, and why particular views are manufactured for audiences.

Ellis (1998, p.170) considers the lack of information reported about a conflict to be incredibly important. The national security of a country could be jeopardised if one were to report everything occurring, on both the front line, and the tactical decisions behind it. As Ellis continues, it is thought that the media coverage of the Vietnam War was partially to blame for the conflict's failure. It is thought that “television coverage critically sapped the support of the American public” (Ellis, 1998, p.170). As this was the first war that was able to be broadcast ‘live', the problems were unforeseen, and therefore led to a problematic position for the government. Whilst the government was saying one thing, images shown were undermining their words, subsequently making the government appear somewhat untrustworthy.

This, therefore, would show that it is necessary that the media and its coverage of a conflict should be censored and paid close attention to, so that support is maintained by the public. But, if censorship is in such a way that it helps the audiences to form a chosen opinion, effectively, this could be seen as propaganda. As Bernays states, propaganda is “the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses” (Bernays, 2005, p.37). But, also adds that it is important for democratic society, and without which, it would be hard for one to live harmoniously, especially if everyone was of differing opinions. Therefore, presenting a situation in a particular way should help society to form a joint understanding. For example, when thinking in relation to Iraq, the main reason for intervention was due to supposed ‘weapons of mass destruction'. If the public understand the threat, they are more likely to consent. As demonstrated during the ‘Iraq Enquiry', when it was discovered that there were no weapons, the public support was threatened. It therefore is essential that the politicians defend what they have formerly said, just as Alistair Campbell has demonstrated, defending their statements as not misrepresentative (“Alastair Campbell defends”, 2010). As Bernays reiterates “We are governed, our minds moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of” (Bernays, 2005, p. 37). Therefore, whether it is government who we have chosen, the military, or other leaders that we have not, this would support the idea that our feelings about conflict are generally dictated to us.

So, as it would appear, sometimes the restriction of coverage may take place when it is not entirely necessary. As Ellis addresses, during both the Falklands War in1982 and the Gulf War of 1991 “citizens were prevented from learning information which in a democratic society, they had a right to know” (Ellis, 1998, p.170). This seems particularly unfair, as citizens were unable to witness the real war that was being fought in their name, paid for by themselves.

Since technology developed though, it would appear that censorship has become more necessary. As discussed in the previous chapter, videophones and correspondents worldwide enable audiences to access the action, at a much closer distance than previously (Livingstone, Bennett & Robinson, 2005, p.34). This gives an impression to audiences that there is nowhere to hide, and they may believe what they are seeing is a fully representational true account, rather than the edited snippet that it really is. This kind of opinion, of knowing more, does not take into account that there are plenty of other journalists who are not as close to the action, or those who are closer to it, who may wish to protect the interests of those surrounding them.

As previously stated, there is always fear that public support may be jeopardised, which is why on occasions there may be a haze over what is reality, as well as what is fabricated truth within the media. When one is able to ‘witness' war from multiple angles, from multiple genres, and even witness it live, it creates public curiosity. Especially since problematic representations of previous conflicts have been reported, the public fight harder to know the truth, so they no longer have the wool pulled over their eyes. They want to ensure the war fought in their name is a war which they support. Particularly, when considering the fact that many nations are bound together as ‘one' for the purpose of the media, forgetting the fact that there are many cultures, viewpoints and faiths with differing opinions. The public need the media to take on their role of ‘watchdog', and need it to marshal what is taking place beyond their vision on their behalf. The media, therefore, it seems has begun to honour this role more greatly.

In 2004, the media brought us evidence of what is referred to as Abu Ghraib. It was revealed that some Iraqi detainees had been subjected to torture and other physical abuse. According to Miles, an Al-Jazeera cameraman, who was mistakenly arrested for a crime he did not commit, found out that “torture was still standard in America's principle military detention centre in Iraq” (Miles, 2005, p.326). According to Miles, as the time of the accusations against the American military, “few in the West believed their stories at the time, probably because they were Arabs, perhaps because they worked for Al-Jazeera” (Miles, 2005, p.326). The US government and military repeatedly denied the accusations, “Donald Rumsfeld has described Al-Jazeera as ‘consistently lying', [and] accused the network of causing ‘great damage and harm in Iraq by continuously broadcasting wrong and inaccurate information, impairing what the coalition forces [were] trying to achieve'” (Miles, 2005, p.327). As Miles describes (2005, p.328), it was US officials that were angry, believing that such allegations would fuel Iraqi hatred against the West further. At the time, the officials may have not known of the occurrences, but it cannot be ruled out that they had no knowledge of it. This demonstrates an example whereby the American media were feeding the public with false information, whether it was intentional or not. If it was intentional though, it would have been in favour of government, who would obviously not want to be painted in a bad light. It was not until the New Yorker magazine published evidential pictures of the abuse that it was uncovered and believed, and finally admitted to be the truth (Miles, 2005, p.328).

However, this is not where the only problem lies. Since then, it has been debated whether or not all of the images should be released for the public to view. One the one hand, it is believed that the images should be realised due to the fact that it was the American citizen's own troops causing the offences, under the American name, whilst others believe it could potentially cause further harm. According to a report, “Obama said he believes release of the abuse photos would incite hatred against American troops” (Alberts, 2009, para. 4). This again brings up the subject of national security. Understandably the release of such images during a time of conflict could incite further hatred, but due to freedom of information, what right do officials really have to withhold them? Surely if one is to fully understand war, they must have the full picture, however horrific and problematic it may be. If the images are not fully released, is there a reason behind this other than protecting our conscience? What is being hidden? Could it be contributing to part of a ‘cover-up', with fear of something more sinister than what we already know being revealed? If therefore, officials had known about the situation (prior to it being confirmed), yet it had not made its way to mainstream media, this is misinforming the public, giving them a one sided ‘clean' account of their position in the conflict. By never witnessing the faults of one's own government, one cannot really claim to know. Even by withholding the images, it does not allow the American and Western democratic public a clear view as to what is really occurring under their name. Particularly as it is ‘our' men, who are normally painted as positively heroic, committing such horrific offences.

This sort of behaviour by the media and government causes other problems too. Conspiracy theories to try and help explain other supposed reasoning's behind war and decisions made by government begin to emerge. It helps give a new blame figure, and is perhaps fuelled by paranoia and suspicion (Knight, 2003, p. 20). As Knight asserts, conspiracy theory may put “forward the idea that sometimes people at the very centre of power might create (or perhaps just cynically promote) a popular outburst of demonology in order to further their own political schemes. This view is sometimes known as the elitist theory of moral panics, because it suggests that the elite deliberately fuel moral panics in order to legitimate repressive measures that would otherwise be unacceptable” (Knight, 2003, p.20).

When the public begin to doubt their own government, feeling they are being fed propaganda, it is obvious they should want an explanation, so may turn to conspiracy theories as an alternative and comfort. For example, the documentary The Conspiracy Files (Rudkin, 2010, January 10) demonstrates how one may begin to become suspicious. It claims that a video of Benazir Bhutto talking after her first attempted murder was edited to exclude a statement she made about Osama Bin Laden. The version it claims the BBC presented cut out this section, for no apparent reason, so it is questionable as to why it was censored.

A further example where the Western governments' fear of what could be revealed via the media was demonstrated in October 2009 (Gray, 2009, October 25). Lance Corporal Joe Glenton was a soldier once serving in Afghanistan, who now faces a court martial and has been arrested. He claimed that he had “witnessed sights during his time in Afghanistan that forced him to question the morality of his role” (‘Soldier arrested', 2009, para. 8). Alike him, many other documentaries and interviews with ex-soldiers seem to unveil similar situations, where soldiers have a different picture of the war than the media have led the public to believe. The sanitization that takes place in the media is a view which soldiers alike Corporal Glenton would like to set straight.

Glenton began to get the media's attention when he spoke at an anti-war demonstration that called for the British troops to be brought home. He claimed that many of the soldiers and demonstrators believed that it was not longer justifiable to have troops in the Middle East, and was trying to raise public awareness of this. This particular story came at a time when the public in both the UK and America were starting to doubt whether the war was really getting anywhere. Jeremy Corbyn MP is quoted as stating that the “war in Afghanistan had no clear war aims” (“Britons believe ‘Afghan war is failing'”, 2009, para. 15). He also states that it is now “the time to change policy and bring the troops home to prevent Nato involving itself in a Vietnam style quagmire” (“Britons believe ‘Afghan war is failing'”, 2009, para. 17).

With such stories and statements emerging in the media, it does cause the public to question why the media and government would not present the ‘full' picture. Especially when thinking about how the US media is less open about situations than the UK and other countries media (Zelizer & Allan, 2002, p.2). Previously, it was easier for a government to deny that they knew about a situation, but technology has now taken this advantage away, making it impossible not to know. However, as Zelizer and Allan argue, the media may be used in such a way that it helps the public. “Journalism plays a key role in moving whole populations form trauma to recovery” (Zelizer & Allan, 2002, p.2). It can therefore help to unite a nation, regardless of differing backgrounds, and help them to work together, particularly through traumatic times like conflict. With this view, it would seem that the US in particular may have needed such treatment. As the targeted nation in the 9/11 attacks, they may have required more help than other nations to come to terms with the situation, as well as needing ‘encouragement' in the right direction, and perhaps protection from the truth.. However, there is no doubt that this is a form of propaganda, as it does not demonstrate a clear communication of all the information one would need to make a fair judgement in order to make a justified opinion. This may demonstrate why the American citizens have trusted foreign institutions such as the BBC for increased information, as previously addressed

The media also tend to emphasise violence and negative features of the enemy in order to justify the conflict in hand. Today, “terrorists have been given a voice” (Liebes & Kampf, 2004, p.78). Since technology has greatened, other views, beyond just violence, have been represented. Interviews and arguments have been appearing in the media, with direct responses from the ‘enemy'. Despite perhaps this being a positive thing, it can be used by government and the media to paint their own picture. They do not have to show everything, and can edit it as they desire, as previously discussed with the Bhutto footage.

Another clear example is in the Joint Forces military publication. It has a dismissive attitude when discussing anything anti-American. It even addresses the problems of ‘foreign' propaganda. It gives a sense of heroism, stating that via the American efforts in the war on terror, that they will “enable populations misinformed by censorship and other impediments to hear the truth” (Dailey& Webb, 2006, p.46). It does not take into account the use of their own propaganda and censorship to mould their own nation's depiction of war. It implies that the country does not tolerate propaganda, therefore may give the impression that the audience reading is not subjected to it. As many are lead to believe propaganda is a bad thing, they do not realise they are victim of it. But, as explained by Zelizer and Allan (2002, p.12), even American propaganda (which in their own eyes is positive propaganda) is essential to keep peace. “The task of reproducing Pentagon propaganda became a patriotic duty, at least in the eyes of those fearful that critical reporting would undermine the public interest” (Zelizer & Allan, 2002, p.12).

Therefore, as suggested, it would seem that to keep peaceful citizenry in any nation, propagandist communication is necessary. To be seen to be doing so though, is avoided. Also suggested is the fact that the way that conflict is represented is done so thinking about short term gain. The rumoured ‘weapons of mass destruction' helped to persuade the public to go to war, but little was considered about the long term affects that this would have when no weapons were found. Therefore, the public it seems tend to be supplied with information that makes them align themselves with government policy, rather than fight against it.

Chapter Three: The Entertainment Factor- Documentary and Simulation of War

Documentary

The previous chapters have now established the basis of news in communicating and representing conflict and the problems that such a medium has. They have also looked at how positive censorship and propaganda may actually be somewhat negative in gaining public support, when the public are aware of its manipulation, and therefore may cause a lack of support. This draws leads onto a new topic of the representation of war and conflict when placed within a documentary.

The documentary genre, as Bernard (2007, p.4) describes, is a fact based genre. This holds the power for it to be somewhat persuasive and thought of as somewhat closer to the truth, as documentary is widely thought of as having a voice of authority (Nichols, 1983, p.17). As Bernard continues, a documentary often wants to present a story or evidence so that the audience is able to “experience the story for themselves, anticipating twists and turns and following the story line in a way that's active rather than passive” (Bernard, 2007, p.28). Depicting a conflict in such a way enables audiences an insight which the news is unable to offer. News in comparison has a limited amount of time per story segment, and therefore must prioritise key elements of the situations which it is reporting. Documentary allows audiences to gather more information about a situation, including the background elements, as well as getting to know the individuals involved.

As Harris and Lester describe, photographic journalism brought audiences a more accurate depiction, the images were “a photographic witness for those who could not be present” (Harris & Lester, 2002, p.87). This could go to say, that more modern journalism, with the use of moving image, particularly in relation to documentary, offers audiences an even greater insight. It could be seen to be of far greater value to audiences, as they can get a fairer depiction than what previous audiences would ever have been able to experience. As Harris and Lester continue, documentary “is based on accurate rendering of a scene, without manipulation of its content.” (Harris & Lester, 2002, p.94). It should also “visually document an event and give as much verifiable information as possible” (Harris & Lester, 2002, p.94). When considering documenting a conflict, it should also be noted that much of the content has been captured on the spot; it has not normally been planned, and therefore cannot be reshot. “It occurs once and only fleetingly” (Harris & Lester, 2002, p.95). This would therefore indicate that the scenes which documentaries display would be just a small segment of what has been filmed, as there may be many hours when nothing much happens, but there is potential that something may occur.

As Bernard discusses, one cannot predict where a story will go, and what the story will be. It is generally during production and postproduction that the story is found (Bernard, 2007, p.35). This therefore would mean that the producer does have the power to edit the documentary how they choose, and may be able to create a specific view. It also means that via editing, other aspects may be left out, so the entire picture may not be projected through the documentary. Things which may appear less interesting may end up being edited out, but may hold extra key information that may change ones opinion entirely, depending on ones beliefs.

Two documentaries which are particularly good in demonstrating the representation of conflict in the modern day are Andy McNab's Tour of Duty (Taylor & Edgar, 2008) and Ross Kemp in Afghanistan (Bennett, 2007). The Andy McNab documentary series is documented with the use of an ex-SAS soldier. He gives his opinion of situations and gives the audience a more realistic insight into the lives of soldiers in Afghanistan. This series does this via re-enactments and by visiting soldiers who tell of their own experiences. It also takes it time in explaining the methodology of manoeuvres and tactics which the armed forces undertake whilst on operations.

The Ross Kemp series (Bennett, 2007) differs to this form of documentary. Whilst it still gives an insight into the lives of the soldiers, it also takes the audience along for the ride, taking them directly to the front line, to experience what it is like from firsthand experience, rather than the re-enactments that Andy McNab offers. It has a gritty reality in the way that it has been filmed, and the footage appears to be relatively untouched. Ross Kemp not only follows the soldiers, but he also eats, sleeps, and lives in with the troops during their deployment in Afghanistan. Given that he is not actually a soldier, it may be easier for audiences to familiarise themselves with him. As Scott discusses, Ross Kemp in Afghanistan offers audiences “a different view of countries and often produce[s] greater empathy and deeper cultural understanding” (Scott, 2009, p.7). Such documentaries as this, Scott believes, use presenters to act as audience representatives (Scott, 2009, p.7). According to Scott's research, it is also “better when you see a presenter actually go and live within the surroundings, [...] rather than a documentary where they are just showing facts. It's difficult to get emotion until you see someone live with a family” (Scott, 2009, p.7), or in Ross Kemp's case, the troops. It may therefore be said to be somewhat more truthful, and a more accurate depiction, however, serving soldiers supposedly argue that it is still somewhat distanced from the actual reality (“TV Pictures ‘Are Nothing Like Reality'”, 2010, p.28), despite being closer than other news and documentaries before it.

It is important though, to consider the use of ‘celebrities' in both the documentaries. Andy McNabb, prior to this documentary, was already an established figure in both television and literature. After working for the SAS, including famously surviving being captured and tortured in Iraq, he is considered one the British Army's “most highly decorated serving soldier” (“Andy McNab: Biography”, n.d., para.3). Going on to write books and television programmes (both factual and fictional), many who may watch the documentary may already be familiar with his ‘character'.

Ross Kemp also, to many, would be somewhat familiar. Acting in programmes such as Eastenders (Kirkwood, 1985-present), as “tough guy Grand Mitchell” (Farah, 2010, p. 57), to acting as a soldier in Ultimate Force (Strachan, 2002-2006). People who are already familiar with him, may be more inclined to visit other work which he has involvement in. As Scott states, “one of the challenges for broadcasters is to find formats which do have mass appeal, and can both entertain and inform” (Scott, 2009, p.7). Therefore, such a series as Ross Kemp in Afghanistan, could draw upon familiarity of Kemp to bring in a greater audience, who ordinarily may not watch such a programme. In particular, audiences who are familiar with Kemp's soldier character in Ultimate Force, and the series itself, may want to watch beyond the fictional war into the real life war that is taking place.

Therefore, as can be demonstrated, the benefits of using an already familiar face or persona may help documentary producers to gather a greater audiences. However, beyond this, it is vital that the documentary itself plays along with a narrative, and uses key tools to retain its audience. As Bernard states (2007, p.42), it is vital that a documentary has a ‘hook' which encapsulates the audience, and encourages them to find out more. When considering the Ross Kemp documentary series, the hook maybe the operation that the soldiers are embarking upon during a particular episode. The episode may describe the ideal goal, followed then by the actual operation occurring. Audience would then ideally want to follow the operation, to see if it has been successful. The way that a documentary series edits the programme is similar to that of a fictional narrative, but using a real life situation as the hook.

As Bernard suggests (2007, p.69), there are three key parts or acts which form the basis to an ideal documentary structure. Act one would ideally introduce you to the ‘characters' and the situation upon which they face. When looking at the second episode from the Ross Kemp series (Kemp & Conroy, 2007) to demonstrate this, it begins by setting the scene in Camp Bastion. Camp Bastion, the main base camp in Afghanistan, is twenty kilometres from the nearest Afghan town, and is about eight square kilometres in area. The series gives a brief description of the conditions that it is based in, and how everything which is used by the soldiers will pass through this location. This first act also introduces the audience to the soldiers who are in the battalion that they are following. It then goes on to explain the purpose of the operation, which is to win over local civilians, that they are about to undertake. It does this by filming the meeting in which the soldiers are themselves informed (with Kemp), but then the audience are taken aside and described it fully by Kemp, in a language which is more understandable for the average audience member.

Act two, Bernard describes (2007, p.69), is normally the longest part of the documentary, in which the conflicting situation occurs. “In the second act, the story's pace increases as complications emerge, unexpected twists and reversals take place, and the stakes continue to rise” (Bernard, 2007, pp.69-70). In reference to the second episode (Kemp & Conroy, 2007), this is when Operation Lastay Kulang is actually underway. Kemp and his crew tag along with the battalion, and end up coming face to face with the problems that the men face. This includes unexpected casualties and a fatality, as well as a direct attack from the enemy. They are targeted by snipers and other gunfire, and the whole group, including the film crew are grounded after being in the firing line. 

The final act, as Bernard suggests, would intensify the situation. “That tension then pushes you into the resolution, those last moments where you resolve the story, tie up loose ends” (Bernard, 2007, p.70). In relation to the discussed episode (Kemp  & Conroy, 2007), this is demonstrated when the battalion call in air strikes on an area where they have spotted movement. They are then met with the possibility they may have made a mistake and targeted civilians, however, the problem is resolved when they discover they had a positive hit on a Taliban hideaway. The episode is then resolved when the locals come to the soldiers. The soldiers manage to win them over, and help them with their injured habitants. This is where the resolution lies, as it is what the battalion set out to achieve, so completes the documentary episode.

Obviously though, it is clear that it was not until the filming was completed that such a narrative can be pieced together. As previously discussed (Bernard, 2007, p.35), documentary relied upon a great deal of footage and spontaneous situations for a narrative to be able to be achieved via editing. There would be a great deal more footage, but, this is the narrative that has been chosen for this particular episode. There may have been other narratives which could have been produced, but this one was the one that the producers decided to focus upon. This form and structure of a documentary helps to maintain the audience's attention. As previously discussed in chapter one, a narrative enables the audience a “coherent framework within which to judge current developments” (Aitken, 2007, p.17). By having one focal narrative, it makes it easier for the audience to follow, rather than just giving them all the information in an unorganised manner. It also enables the story to be built up, further than that of a news story of the same situation. A news story may just comment on such an operation stating its success or failure, but a documentary invites the audience to become familiar with the ‘characters' that they meet. It is more intimate in this respect, as audience are faced with real people, rather than just a brief mention of a group in on the news.

The audience may also find comfort in the fact that they are being directly addressed. As Beattie discusses (2008, p.12), documentaries tend to give direct address to the viewer, whether it be through voice-overs, titles, or even via the presenter and camera. When thinking in regards to the entire Ross Kemp series (Bennett, 2007), it is clear that when Ross Kemp addresses the audience, it enables them the chance to have greater involvement as they become more informed. Kemp often explains what exactly is happening, in a language that non-military personnel would be able to follow, throughout the documentary. He also helps to fill in the gaps, especially when it is possible that the audience has only seen certain elements. Voice over is also applied, spoken by Kemp, which helps progress the audience along through the narrative, step-by-step.

Beattie (2008, p.12), also describes that a disembodied ‘voice of God' is often used to inform the viewer, when direct address perhaps is not appropriate. When looking at the Andy McNab series (Taylor & Edgar, 2008), this uses the method of the authoritative voiceover. “The voice of God commentary seems to exist above and beyond the arguments being presented - an all-knowing and all-seeing viewpoint” (Beattie, 2004, p.21). As this series focuses more on the methods and re-enactments of war, it does not necessarily need to directly address the audience via a visual presenter. Rather than the Ross Kemp series, which focuses on giving the audience a feel for what the front line is really like, the Any McNab series aims to give the viewer a ‘behind the scenes' explanation as to how and why such tactics are used in particular operations that take place. It uses the real life voice of an ex-SAS soldier, known as ‘Andy McNab'. His real identity is unable to be revealed, due to the nature of the situations that he has been involved, therefore the audience become familiar with the ‘character' to which he assumes, only via his voiceovers.

The McNab series looks back at past experiences, educating the audience, and helping them to come to terms with why the military act and react in the way that they do. Whilst, the Kemp series tends to only offer the audience more of a firsthand experience in comparison. Kemp goes through the experience with us, whilst McNab assumes more of an authoritative role, especially as he has assumed a military role. According to Parker, (2006, p.26), the use of a particular point of view within a narrative is a commonly used technique in documentary. It often aims to be from a superior position, which is particularly true of an “argument-based narrative” (2006, p.26).The McNab series (Taylor & Edgar, 2008), therefore is a good example to demonstrate this. Whilst Kemp is informative in his series (and is at our level), McNab is authoritive, educating us, perhaps from a superior position. He may however, be seen to have a somewhat biased outlook. As McNab is ‘one of them', formerly being in the armed forces, he may have a fairly narrow view of the situation, in comparison say to Kemp, who is looking at it from a less familiar stance.

So, as is demonstrated, documentary media forms enable audiences to engage with conflicts from another angle. Rather than merely hearing of the surface information of a situation, they are able to engage deeper and get a further insight into the world of war and conflict. It may be perhaps said that those people who are not satisfied with the information that news media offers them are able to gather further information via documentary. Many may feel that this is enough to satisfy them, without questioning the motive behind them. They may also forget, by being so enthused, that this is just a small section of what is actually happening. As it would appear from looking at such documentaries, audiences may feel more informed, but may not realise that the actual politics of the conflict is rarely addressed. In fact, both the discussed documentaries focus on the conflicts in hand, but do not generally tackle the reasoning's behind it. That appears to be left somewhat to the news media to communicate. Compared to the news, documentary also allows humanization of the soldiers and the locals which they come across. Another element to realise is the fact that editing has clearly taken place, especially, as discussed, to create an exciting narrative which the audience will grasp onto. It could therefore be said, that the media offer audiences such a genre to pacify their curiosity, to try and stop them questioning further.

Simulation

It would be hard to discuss the representation of conflict and warfare within the media without addressing the issue of the entertainment value of conflict based video games. As clearly addressed, conflict has been translated into various genres of television not only to inform and educate audiences, but also to entertain them. With conflict based video games becoming ever more popular, it is important to discuss the advantages and disadvantages that such a medium may have when looking at how they represent, or perhaps misrepresent conflict.

According to Power, conflict based video games offer “privileged glimpses from the front lines” (Power, 2007, p.272), which one would not usually be able to experience. In fact, as Power states, much of the scenery in such games “are lifted directly from video footage of landscapes in which the US military has recently been engaged” (Power, 2007, p.272). This goes to show that even in simulated video games, people are able to experience a sense of realism that one may have only previously experienced via watching news, documentary and film media.

As Power continues, “many video war game releases have exhibited a growing desire to mirror ‘real' world conflict scenarios, particularly the recent US military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq” (Power, 2007, p.272). When looking at current media forms, the most obvious example that may demonstrate this would be the Call of Duty (West, 2003-present) video game series, and in particular the most recent addition to the series, Modern Warfare 2 (West, 2009). Modern Warfare 2, which was launched in November 2009, and “became the biggest entertainment launch in history by making $310m on its first day” (Johnson, 2010, para.7). Such video games are now beginning to challenge other media forms releases for popularity. Whether it is audiences who are wanting increased interactivity with the media they consume, or whether they are deeper desires being satisfied when choosing such a game can be argued from various positions.

As Lyons asserts, Modern Warfare 2 is an “ultra-realistic” (Lyons, 2009, p.29) warfare experience. Playing a soldier character, the audience is invited to a taste of what it is like to be on the front lines of combat. “At [the players] disposal is an unparalleled arsenal of nearly 40 guns, explosives and grenades which load and recoil like their real-life counterparts” (Lyons, 2009, p.29). This form of media allows the audience to not only see a point of view, but allows them to participate somewhat in a virtual battle, leaving the outcome, or ‘results' to be left entirely to how they have decided to play. This may seem somewhat horrific to be fighting a somewhat ‘realistic' battle, but as Power believes, they are “‘gritty realistic' games that seek to represent and celebrate the arts of war” (Power, 2007, p.272). It could be seen to show the audience what one must go through, and help increase the respect for serving soldiers.

Such games as Call of Duty allow users to “virtually explore and ‘experience' the Army from basic training through to deployment and live situations that might be found in the so-called Global War on Terrorism” (Power, 2007, p.279). As Power believes, this shows the “militarization of US popular culture” (Power, 200, p.273).

As Lyons explains, the game itself consists of “computer-controlled allies generated by an advanced gaming ‘engine' [which] help mirror the teamwork of real-world infantry warfare” (Lyons, 2009, p.29). Players are able to play the ‘campaign' story which has been pre-set by the game producers, giving them tasks and missions which they must complete. It follows a story, allowing audiences to become somewhat familiar with the other characters. An alternative way of playing is via the multiplayer online option. Each team, between six-nine people, battles it out with other players from across the globe, to win victory for their side, in mini battles lasting roughly ten minutes. This offers an element of unpredictability, and a perhaps more realistic experience than the pre-generated campaign would offer. As Lyons addresses (in a newspaper article), prior to Modern Warfare 2's release, “‘people are salivating in expectation because they know it will be such a gritty, realistic warfare experience'[...]. Among the fans of shoot games, nothing really compares to Modern Warfare. It's an utterly convincing representation of what fighting in a real war is like” (Lyons, 2009, p.29). However, with articles such as Lyons, it could be said that audiences may get the wrong idea, and in fact believe that the games they are playing are more realistic than they actually are. It is difficult for one to really know if they have never experienced war, therefore with such articles appearing in newspapers and on television re-enforcing the reality, it is increasingly likely that audiences will believe in it.

However, such a game must draw the line somewhere, and as Power suggests, games of this sort present a “clean, sanitized and enjoyable version of war for popular consumption, obscuring the ‘realities', contexts and consequences of war” (Power, 2007, p.273). The representation could perhaps be thought of as a “‘pure war', a dream of a clean, surgical war between disembodied technologies” (Power, 2007, p.275). The games generally follow similar patterns to that of war films, consistently portraying “battle in terms of a heroic and exhilarating game” (Power, 2007, p.275). This therefore ignores the underlying reasoning's behind war, focusing literally on the battle in hand. Video games, and other representations, therefore could be seen as an ideological. They are an idealised representation of “contradictory reality” (Baudrillard, 1994, p.12).

The reality of such video games allow, as Baudrillard would state, is an exemption from death itself (Baudrillard, 2000, p.67), whilst trying to give a realistic simulation of the real world. In real life though, one must be careful. In a video game, you are encouraged to kill anything that moves, whereas in a real situation, a soldier must take other considerations into account, as they are dealing with real lives and real situations (Power, 2007, p.279). Whilst uniforms and equipment tend to be somewhat realistic, “death and injury are treated differently” (Power, 2007, p.279). In such games, “bodies vanish after being killed” (Power, 2007, p.279), and characters are given the opportunity to re-spawn multiple times.

As there is no real threat therefore, it is thought that witnessing such violence may actually suppress the aversions one may have to killing. It can desensitise a player from the horrors that a real life soldier may face, as they are able to kill and see such violence on a regular basis through the virtual world of combat. As Power continues (2007, p.279), it is thought that such controversies as Abu Ghraib (which has been previously addressed), demonstrate said desensitisation.

These kinds of representations though, could be seen as a deliberate approach. As Baudrillard states, “simulation threatens the difference between the ‘true' and the ‘false', the ‘real' and the ‘imaginary'” (Baudrillard, 1994, p.3). It aims to seem somewhat realistic, yet still has very unrealistic features. Where one ends and another begins though would be hard to distinguish without great knowledge of conflict. As Power states, “digital war games put a friendly, hospitable face on the military, manufacturing consent and complicity among consumers for military programmes, missions and weapons” (Power, 2007, p.278).

Therefore, as Power suggests, it would seem that such games are beneficial to the armed forces. Games such as the Call of Duty series, have been seen to aid recruitment. It could be perhaps said, that such games could be seen as a form of “virtual advertisement” (Power, 2007, p.273). “Such games, [serve] as an increasingly effective military recruitment tool and as the ‘next generation of wartime propaganda'” (Power, 2007, p.273). The material allows a “display of what the US military is capable of ‘without the consequences of context'” (Power, 2007, p.273). This could go to say that someone may consume the game, and is given the power to fight in a virtual war, but in this circumstance is immortal, being able to re-spawn multiple times after being ‘killed'. A game which was released prior to the Call of Duty series, America's Army (Wardynski, 2002), was in fact designed by the US Army to help boost recruitment. According to Power (2007, p.279), the game itself proved one of the most successful recruitment tools since the ‘Uncle Sam' campaign in World War II. It is believed that one's skills on a virtual battlefield can “translate directly into real-world Army suitability and success” (Power, 2007, p.279).

Secondly, another use for such games, Power suggests (2007, p.276), is for training purposes. Games, very similar to the ones on the commercial market, often just modified versions, “allow military planners to rehearse and test their strategies by staging a performance involving people, systems and technology” (Power, 2007, p.276). “Games could be configured for specific missions immediately prior to engagement, as well as being used in general training for various combat scenarios” (Power, 2007, p.278).

However, this is not a one sided situation, such games have been said to have been modified to fight against the desired military. According to Power, militants from al-Qaeda and other groups have modified games so that US troops become the enemy, painting their own characters heroes. It has been used as propaganda by Islamic militants to help recruit and promote radical heroes (Power, 2007, p.283). “US troops play the role of the bad guys in running gunfights against heavily armed Islamic radical heroes, and that children as young as seven can play at being troop-killing guerrillas” (Power, 2007, p.283). Therefore, alike the Western forces, Islamic groups have used the power of the video game to “train and condition young people to attack US-led coalition forces in Iraq” (Power, 2007, p.283).

Aside from the fact that such games can be used against Western forces, there are further problems as demonstrated. The problematic way that games can represent conflict, whilst being described as realistic, can lead players to get a misinterpretation of reality. It should not solely be blamed on video games though, for the reference between themselves and real life. Often, it is a reverse situation. As mentioned in ‘Chapter One', it is somewhat common to hear news stories referring to battles as being ‘like' a video game. “Many of the news reports compiled by embedded reporters during Gulf War II contain stories of US troops referring to their experience of combat as ‘like a video game'” (Power, 2007, p.271).

As games offer a “romanticization of war that is both seductive and powerful” (Power, 2007, p.284), it is understandable that they have the popularity they do. However, due to their realism, it is easy for the boundaries between what is real and what is fictional to be blurred. As discussed ‘Chapter 3a', documentary and other genres such as video games and films allow audiences another insight into war that other media forms do not allow. Not only do they help to feed the curiosity that some may have, they also may be thought of as a “virtual cure for a global insecurity” (Power, 2007, p.279). As Power continues, “games offer the possibility of getting back control, of overcoming fear” (Power, 2007, p.284). One may therefore feel somewhat liberated by being able to participate or gain further information on conflict, whether it be via video games, or by watching documentaries, they are going beyond what they are immediately offered by the news, and are able to understand, perhaps, from their own point of view.

Conclusion

As demonstrated in the dissertation, audiences play a somewhat passive role when consuming such media. Unless they physically place themselves in the conflict, by joining the arm