Radio and television's contributions to popular culture are numerous, but no element has more immediate and far-reaching impact than news and public affairs. It is difficult to question the significance of such matters as mass destruction, life and death situations, impending doom or the fall of entire countries and civilizations. Cable News Network calls itself the world's most important network and recent events in the Persian Gulf War did nothing to reduce that claim.
Real time or live coverage of war is not new; radio coverage of war began in 1936 in the Spanish Civil War. But television is another matter. CNN was the first American-based news organizations to broadcast live from a city under attack from the United States. In the time span from 1936 from 1991 broadcast news has created its niche as Americans' primary source for news information. This article will examine the historical context of live war reporting, discuss some of the objections to such coverage and list tangible and intangible contributions by electronic journalism to popular culture.
On September 3, 1936, Hans von Kaltenborn was the reporter of the world's first broadcast of a battle. He was actually sitting on French territory which jutted into Spain near the small city of Irun. His broadcast included the following descriptions:
Directly in front of me as I look through the dark of the midsummer night is a bright line of fire rising from the most important single factory in the city. . . . Late this afternoon, we watched a Rebel airplane circling overhead and dropping bombs. One struck directly into the center of the match factory which began to burn and which has since been blazing brightly so that the evening sky is lit up for a great distance all around. (Fang, 29-30)World War II provided many opportunities for real time coverage of war events. The reporter who rose to fame with his live reports was Edward R. Murrow, who worked in tandem with Kaltenborn during the Munich appeasement crisis of 1938. In March of that year Murrow and William Shirer arranged for live reports from five European cities. In New York Kaltenborn was serving as what would now be called an anchorman. At that time he was billed as the chief CBS radio commentator. Utilizing what was labelled the two-way radio (a switch has to be flipped one way to transmit, another way to receive), he would frequently cue reports by saying, "Calling Edward Murrow, come in, Ed Murrow." (Fang, 309)
From September 12 to September 30 of 1938, Kaltenborn made 85 broadcasts about the Czechoslovakian crisis, along with 14 news roundups. Murrow made 35 reports and arranged for 116 others from 18 points in Europe. This set the pattern for what is now the typical newscast with a principal anchorman, usually in New York, and correspondents giving reports from throughout the world, frequently on a 24-hour basis during crises. The cost of the radio coverage for the 1938 series of events was $200,000--a very large sum for that time. Though these were not live broadcasts of war, they were obvious precursors for the battle coverage which was soon to follow.
On August 24, 1940, the Battle of Britain began. Murrow did a live report from the entrance of an air-raid shelter. The sirens were screaming, people were walking into the shelter, and anti-aircraft guns were exploding in the background. Such reports were to become frequent elements of radio newscasts during World War II. Murrow's eloquent descriptions, coupled with the sounds of battle, were to set the standards for real time coverage of war. An aerial dogfight over the white cliffs of Dover was recorded by the BBC and broadcast in the United States despite a continuing restriction placed upon recordings in network newscasts. There was a fear of staged events. This is ironic, given the 1990s controversy concerning live coverage, which was Murrow's primary means of reporting in radio's earliest days of live war coverage.
On September 22, 1940, Murrow reported from the top of BBC Broadcasting House as the Luftwaffe conducted yet another bombing attack on London: "Off to my left, far away in the distance, I can see just that faint, angry snap of antiaircraft bursts against the steel-blue sky." (Sperber, 174) The next night he described another air raid:
Out of one window there waves something that looks like a white bedsheet, a . . . curtain swinging in this night breeze. It looks as if it were being shaken by a ghost. . .There's a three quarter moon riding high. There was one burst of shellfire almost straight in the Little Dipper." (Sperber, 174)Other networks soon followed suit by placing their correspondents on rooftops for live reports, but it was Murrow who reaped the glory for being the first. On October 15, 1941, seven people were killed at Broadcasting House in a bombing raid. The BBC eventually built a complete underground studio operation after all 20 of its above-ground studios were damaged. In 1942 a U.S. government survey revealed that radio had become the main source for news for most Americans. In the same year broadcasting was established as an essential occupation by the Selective Service System. On October 20, 1944, General Douglas MacArthur broadcast from a Signal Corps ship to inform the Filipinos that he was returning. General Dwight Eisenhower broadcast a world-wide announcement of the surrender of Italy. The radio networks pooled their coverage for reports during the D-Day invasion and the Japanese surrender aboard the battleship Missouri. The August 20, 1945 issue of Broadcasting magazine reported that the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, James Lawrence, had commented that "broadcasters have done a whale of a job in keeping us informed on war news." (Beatty, 17)
The Korean conflict was not a site of extensive live broadcasts for several reasons, chiefly a lack of communications facilities plus a stricter military censorship. There were notable instances of important radio coverage, such as the retreat of the U.S. and South Korean forces to the Pusan perimeter, or ABC's Lou Cioffi, who was wounded in action and awarded the Purple Heart. Murrow did radio broadcasts from Korea, but no real-time coverage of battle. Once again he set a standard, this time for television, as he produced documentary film projects for the CBS series "See It Now."
Reporters labelled the Korean conflict as censorship with no war, and then called Viet Nam the war with no censorship. Film was the primary medium of coverage in these battles, which was known to the public as the living room war. The carnage was brought into America's homes on the evening television newscasts, which became the public's primary source of information in the mid 1960s. Although these full color depictions of war and its accompanying gore were quite graphic, they were delayed by at least 24 hours for technical and transportation reasons.
It was not until the recent Persian Gulf hostilities that the horrors of war were brought in real time to over 100 countries and millions of viewers, and this war has brought more unprecedented events into American homes. The first two reports of intense aerial activity came from ABC radio's Jon Bascom in Saudi Arabia and ABC-TV's Gary Shepard in Baghdad. The reporters were, in effect, declaring the war had begun. The Christian Science Monitor editorialized about the technological advancement of February 1, 1991:
Thanks to advances in telecommunications, never has a war been covered so exhaustively by the news media, and never have people outside the war zone witnessed or learned about the conduct of a war so close in time to the actual events . . . . This is a wholly news experience: the home front experiencing war in real time. (20)Television commentator Jeff Greenfield noted his opinions in TV Guide on February 16, 1991: "But there has never been anything like the way that television has colored, shadowed, illuminated and distorted the war in the Persian Gulf." (Greenfield, 4) Other media observers noted a new dimension to war reporting. The Los Angeles Times TV critic Howard Rosenberg wrote: "Television is so powerful [that it has] almost become part of the war." (Broadcasting, January 21, 1991, 25) The Cable News Network grew in journalistic stature by being the world's live link with events in Baghdad. Not only were the citizenry of America being informed by CNN, so were heads of state, military officials, other journalists and millions of viewers worldwide. U.S. Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Colin Powell both referred to the coverage by CNN as a principal source of their information. The German weekly, Die Zeit, reported that President George Bush had ended a press conference by noting that he was going to call Turkish President Turgut Ozal. When the call went through, Ozal himself answered. He did not have to be called to the phone; he had been watching CNN. The director of CNN International, Peter Vesey, states that his network's feed is available to 103 countries and 12 million subscribers outside the U.S. and Canada, including nine million homes in Europe. Vesey also estimates that CNN is viewed regularly by such officials as John Major of Great Britain, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Moammar Gadhafi of Libya, King Hussein of Jordan and Saddam Hussein of Iraq, among others.
Because of the worldwide nature of the event, foreigners had a chance to see the U.S. method of reporting, and vice versa. For instance, American Public Radio stations carried the BBC radio newscasts hourly. Another measurable impact was that Americans bought short wave radios in record numbers to hear other countries' versions of events. The 7,000 outlets of the Radio Shack company reported a sellout of all shortwave units during the Persian Gulf crisis, quadrupling the amount of similar radios sold in the same time period a year earlier. The largest catalog store for shortwave equipment in America, the Electronic Equipment Bank, reported sales increases in the 500 to 1,000 percent range.
Many of those who watched the television coverage were practically hypnotized. A survey by the Times-Mirror media company revealed that half of Amricans could not turn off the TV. People watched into the wee hours of the morning, caught a quick nap, then began viewing immediately when they woke up. This phenomenon became known as the CNN syndrome. For the first time a cable network had higher ratings than any of the big three commercial broadcast networks.
The wall-to-wall coverage by radio and television networks had a huge price tag. By the time the cease-fire was announced, the three broadcast networks and CNN put their collective costs at $145 million. National Public Radio estimated its costs to be $1.4 million. CNN spent $12 million during the Gulf buildup alone. Of all the media in the Persian Gulf, none profited more than CNN. The all news network increased its Nielsen ratings by three to four times what they were before the war. Some reports had CNN's ad rates increasing by an even bigger margin, to five times their margins. CNN spokesperson Steve Haworth confirmed the tone, if not the exact figures, of those reports in a Quill magazine article: "CNN is extremely profitable. We have a cushion that some others may not have." (Avis, 19) The parent company of CNN, Turner Broadcasting, reported an operating profit of $201 million for the first quarter of 1991.
Those were some of the facts and figures. Many of the contributions to popular culture were more intangible. All who watched had images etched into their memory banks they will carry with them the rest of their lives. Worldwide, viewers shared in the fear for the CNN reporters in Baghdad, not knowing if the next bomb would bring annihilation. John Holliman--one of the "Boys from Baghdad," as they came to be known--compared their location to the center of hell. Other memories that endure include the TV footage from ABC which showed the eerie anti-aircraft fire failing to hit the American planes, the scores of Iraqi soldiers surrendering to a helicopter and the Patriot anti-missiles attempting to intercept the Iraqi scud missilles.
Then there were the criticisms. There was no shortage of negative opinions, in particular concerning the live television coverage. The accusations ranged from distortions to stupidity, from lack of background to absence of patriotism. One large category was security, though one must wonder if national security was not confused with job security. There were many whose livelihood was directly affected by the television coverage. These included politicians, dictators, military personnel, munitions suppliers, diplomats and journalists. If the real time coverage portrayed any of these persons in an unfavorable manner, the electronic journalists were the primary recipients of cheap shots, right or wrong. Peter Arnett of CNN was slammed by Presidential Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater for distributing disinformation, and he was called a sympathizer by Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson. This tide of criticism resulted from Arnett's reporting from the Iraqi side of the fence for most of the short-lived war. While 700 or 800 journalists were infighting for their pool coverage tidbits, Arnett locked up the Baghdad coverage for himself. His loyalty and sanity were questioned, but his biggest crime was being beyond the control of the American administration. When Arnett reported from a bombing site the Iraqis claimed was a baby formula factory, he was sharply criticized by the Americans and their allied military, who said the building was a chemical weapons facility. Arnett reported only what he could see, hear and smell. He did not speculate. Some of his critics had vested interests.
Accusations by politicians and soldiers were almost understandable, if not forgivable. The criticisms which make the least sense are the seemingly endless opinions emanating from the print segment of the press. These journalistic cheap shots become easier to put into perspective by going back to the first radio world news roundup in 1938. Alexander Kendrick's biography of Murrow, Prime Time, explained the significance of live reporting:
. . . Murrow and his colleagues had established three clear advantages for newspapers over newspapers. They were ahead of the newspapers by hours. They reached millions of Americans in small towns who were not otherwise exposed to foreign news in their local papers. They "wrote their own headlines" by the selection of material, and the fact that there was no editor or other intermediary between them and their listeners. (Kendrick, 168)If these reporters didn't need an editor or intermediary between them and the public, what did this portend for these occupations? If newspapers were behind by hours, or even days, what did this mean for their competitive survival? This assessment of Murrow from Robert Landry of Scribner's magazine in the winter of 1938 elaborated:
He has more influence upon America's reaction than a shipful of newspapermen. . . network reporters and Murrow in particular, both as bureau head and prototype of the new breed: a power in his own right, a newsman who could address a nationwide audience directly--no editors, no rewriters, no headlines shoved over his copy. . . a rising national figure with direct access to the vast American public that was beyond the reach of the great metropolitan dailes. (Sperber, 131-132)Subsequent events have revealed that radio, then television, became the primary sources of news for Americans. Newspaper circulation surprisingly increased during the Persian Gulf War. Why? One newspaper analyst, John Morton, gave this explanation in the March 1991 issue of the Washington Journalism Review : "The most obvious reason is that people like to read in detail about what they have seen on television." (56) Nonetheless there is a prevalent opinion among print journalists that TV has killed off newspapers. It is largely this resentful and revengeful mentality which prompts print journalists to point out electronic media's journalistic shortcomings. How often does one read a scathing review of a particular newspaper's work in the criticism section of another paper, even a competing paper? The makers of buggy whips could certainly have slammed automobile manufacturers, but their criticisms could not have stopped the flow of progress. We have seen another journalistic threshold crossed, and it does not bode well for print media. The day after the first aerial attacks on Baghdad, USA Today's entire front page was given to recounting the television coverage of the night before.
Another form of disapproval was listed by Greenfield, that of knowledge overload: ". . . there may simply be more information available than most of us can possibly deal with without succumbing to an overwhelming sense of stress and confusion and frustration and exhaustion." (Greenfield, 7) It could be my own broadcast journalism background causing my reaction, or it could be a Jeffersonian mindset. My own preference is for all the information possible without the aid of an intermediary, however well-meaning his or her motives. Let me decide what is important to my well-being and that of my fellow citizens. A lack of data can cause me to be even more stressed, confused, frustrated and exhausted. This response is similar to one expressed by Murrow in 1939:
I have an old-fashioned belief that Americans like to make up their own minds on the basis of all available information. The conclusions you draw are your own affair. I have no desire to influence them and shall leave such efforts to those who have more confidence in their own judgement than I have in mine. (Sperber, 141)This is not to say there are no valid concerns about live coverage. There are legitimate dangers, and we saw examples of them in the Persian Gulf War. One risk is giving the viewer misinformation and rumor, such as the gas bombs whic did not strike Israel, but were reported. There is the danger of being used, as in telecasting an interview with a fanatic who may be jeopardizing the lives of hostages or news reporters. A newsperson may overreact or exaggerate, even unintentionally, to unfolding events, for instance an incoming missile attack. Real time reports may be one dimensional, showing only one side of a story. Correspondents and anchor people should qualify their reports as much as possible, explaining this is one perspective of a story which has a larger context. As long as there are different methods of reporting, real time coverage can be an important, unique means of providing information. We need more, not less, facts in time of armed conflict.
The biggest danger to live coverage is that such reporting can get someone killed. One CNN reporter from the Persian Gulf War, Charles Jaco, said in a personal interview that reporters who are stationed near troops have their own lives at stake, as well as those of the soldiers. Jaco added that relations between military personnel in the field and correspondents were cordial. The friction developed because of orders issued from such distant locations as the Pentagon. As for misinformation, what about the reports of a U.S. amphibious attack? Jaco said that reporters knew this was a false report, but they did not divulge any secrets. Jaco has a positive viewpoint of real time coverage:
I think live reporting is exceptionally valuable, because people want it, people expect it now, which has been the good thing about this. They want to see the raw thing itself, unvarnished, and make up their own minds. And that's the thing about live reporting: if you don't have time for interpretation or reflection, maybe that's not always such a bad thing. The audience can do it for itself. So I find there's a good deal of value to it. (Jaco, April 5, 1994)We must consider information involving military personnel from several nations, even opposing armies. Is news "foreign" now that technology has rendered useless such former obstacles as borders, geographic barriers and governmental edicts? A CNN spokesperson, Steve Haworth, explained his company's viewpoint in a personal correspondence:
CNN is an independent news network which must make its own judgement about whether to report information which we have gathered and which one government or another may claim is endangering to troops or personnel. The international public's right to know and a government's obligation to protect the lives of troops and other personnel occasionally clash. The difficult, sometimes painful, decision lies with us, as do the consequences of our decision. (Haworth, March 2, 1992.)Rather than calling for an end to real time news coverage, this writer is requesting media observers to structure their comments to a more meaningful end and curtail the cheap shots and infighting. For instance, what should be the guidelines for international war coverage? If there is a worldwide code of journalism, is it only viable until the first challenge from a power hungry tyrant? In the turmoil of armed conflict, can reporting be be perfectly packaged?
Live coverage of war provides many contributions to popular culture.
Such stories and such coverage can lock us into an exciting part of
our culture in a way adults frequently forget. Kids believe everything
is happening as they see it and they are totally captivated and caught
up in the events. Live reporting creates this same excitement in grownups,
as in the CNN syndrome. Anything might happen and the element of live coverage
increases the tension and drama of the moment and the anticipation of what
might happen next. It is a unique part of our culture and it is a threshold
we have irreversibly crossed.
Works Cited
Avis, Ed. "Cash in the Sun." The Quill 19 April 1991: 19.
Beatty, J. Frank. "Broadcasting's Role in World War II." Broadcasting 20 August 1945: 17.
Fang, Irving. Those Radio Commentators. Ames, Iowa, University of Iowa P, 1977.
Greenfield, Jeff. "America Rallies 'Round the TV Set." TV Guide 16 February 1991: 4.
Haworth, Steve. Letter to the author. 2 March 1992.
"How the Coverage Was." Broadcasting 21 January 1991: 25.
Jaco, Charles. Personal interview. 5 April 1994.
Kendrick, Alexander. Prime Time. Boston, Little, Brown & Company, 1969.
"Real Time War." Editorial. The Christian Science Monitor. 1 February 1991: 20.
Sperber, A. M. Murrow: His Life and Times. Toronto, Bantam, 1986.
Selected Bibliography
Alter, Jonathan. "Clippings from the Media War," Newsweek, 11 March 1991.
Bliss, Edward, Jr. In Search of Light: The Broadcasts of Edward R. Murrow. New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1967.
Cole, Barry, ed. Television Today: A Close-up View. New York, Oxford UP, 1981.
Emery, Glenn. "A Little Network Plays Giant Role in Gulf Coverage." Insight 18 February 1991: 11.
Hohenberg, John. Foreign Correspondence: The Great Reporters and their Times. New York, Columbia UP, 1964.
Hosley, D.H. As Good As Any: Foreign Correspondence on American Radio, 1930-1940. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood P, 1984.
Knightly, Phillip. The First Casualty. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975.
Rees, Marian. Television As Image Maker. University of Iowa Alumni Review July 1991.
Stein, M. L. Under Fire: The Story of American War Correspondents. New York: Julian Messner, 1968.
| EXPERTISE | | EXPERIENCE | | EDUCATION | | HOME |
This page was last updated on Friday, March 13, 1998.