They mustn’t have had corn syrup in Hollywood back in the 50s. In the era of John Wayne westerns, the idea that a person bleeds when they’re shot was not accepted. In those days the Duke would plug the bad guy who’d go down clutching his miraculously blood-free chest. Either he’d be dead as soon as he hit the dirt or he’d survive just long enough to mutter a few last words before dying. He certainly wouldn’t cling to life for several minutes, coughing up blood and screaming for his mother.
Ah! Those were more innocent times when violent death was clean and noble. Truly they were the good old days. It’s all change now of course with Hollywood directors only to happy to paint the screen red.
In American news rooms, it’s still 1958. NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox report daily that people kill and die but they rarely show that people bleed and scream. So it was no surprise this week when the major US networks chose not to show the gruesome scenes from Fallujah. The images of Americans being mutilated, dragged through the streets and strung up are horrible. So horrible that the US media, like some benevolent parent, has decided that the American people shouldn’t see them.
And it’s not just Iraqi violence which is deemed too shocking for broadcast. The grainy night-vision images of Cruise missiles arcing towards their targets have been a staple of the past ten years. What is rarely shown though is the effect when the blurry green target on the screen explodes. Men, women and children bleed, scream and die. Not quite as “surgical” as the computer image suggests.
The human cost of war is also hidden after death. US networks are banned from showing soldiers’ coffins returning from Iraq. The regular stream of young Americans coming home from the Middle East in boxes continues unseen. The reality of death and dying are hidden from the American public.
Images define wars. If you can determine which images of a war become iconic, you can determine how that war will be remembered. Take the Second World War. For Americans the iconic image of that conflict is the photo of US Marines raising the Stars and Stripes on Iwo Jima. Message: Courage. Conclusion: Good war.
Think of Vietnam. The most memorable image of that conflict was not of military victory but of civilian suffering; the little girl screaming in agony as her body is burnt by napalm. Message: Brutality. Conclusion: Bad war.
Now think of the current conflict. At the moment the iconic image is still, just, that of Iraqis dancing on Saddam’s toppled statue in Baghdad. Message: Liberation. Conclusion: Iraqis welcome the US.
The horrible images from Fallujah this week may come to usurp those of Baghdad last April. Message: Occupation. Conclusion: Americans not welcome. Therefore the Bush administration has a vested interest in keeping the statue toppling as the iconic moment.
The American government encourages and enforces this “rose-tinting” but does the media play along because it too is pro-war? Parts of the US media, like Fox, are certainly in favour of the conflict in Iraq. Elsewhere though, the picture is more complicated. The US mainstream media contains both hawks and doves. In any case, there must be some pro-war journalists who also believe that the American public should see the reality. Saying that the US media doesn’t show disturbing images from Iraq because it wants to shore up Bush is too simplistic.
It could be that the American media operates from a patrician mindset. Perhaps they assume, in a patronising way, that they know what Americans can and can not stomach. Viewers shouldn’t be treated in this way. If you can’t watch, then look away. By looking away you make a statement: “this is too horrible for me to watch”. You thank God that you didn’t have to witness such barbarity first-hand. Then the thought comes: “should anyone have to witness that first-hand, let alone suffer like that?” Whether the viewer chooses to watch or to look away, they are given food for thought.
This problem of rose-tinting is not unique to the US media. It is a problem elsewhere as well. Perhaps if media outlets covered conflicts more honestly then people would be less likely to support wars in the future. I say “perhaps” because it’s perfectly possible to view this week’s atrocity in Fallujah and remain pro-war. But at least this means being pro-war from an honest perspective.
I’ve noticed that hawks often defend their war in Iraq by saying things like “war is hell” or “civilians always die in war”. No argument there. So why then are some hawks scared to let people witness the truth of these statements? Are they afraid that once the public sees this conflict, warts and all, they will turn against it?