Click photo to play
Length: 13:24
Michael appeared on a
television program in Brisbane to discuss the
difficulties of reporting from embeds.
Are
these Defence Force sponsored trips serving the
public or military and political interests?
MW: It's very difficult for me to comment on
Australian media stories about the Australian Defence
Force in Iraq. Obviously I'm not in Australia to
consume these stories. In Baghdad we don't see a
great deal of it. The smattering that I have seen,
however -- you know, there's a great risk with
embedding with any forces, Australian or any other
kind, is that the journalist can fall into the trap
where they become too closely linked with their host.
So in some of the reports I've seen there's very much
a mirroring of the Defence Force message. It's almost
as if, instead of a journalist, you're listening to a
military Public Affairs Officer ticking off the key
talking points. Obviously that's something that
everyone must struggle with and it's something that
people must be very guarded against. However, you
still see pieces coming out of some of these embeds
that are illuminating or are making significant
attempts at telling a broader story, such as one I
saw about the reconstruction of an attack on an
Australian patrol. That piece, for example, at least
attempted to give a broader context. Most of what we
see simply doesn't do that and I think that's at a
great risk of doing a disservice to the public.
If
the public only receives limited news coverage, is it
better than receiving nothing at all?
MW: Well, embeds are multi-faceted things, when you
join with a military unit. Obviously the military has
its message it's trying to deliver through you the
journalist. However, you also have your own
obligations. There's a great responsibility incumbent
upon the journalist to look beyond the immediacy of
the embed and to try and draw a bigger picture. You
need to be constantly aware that the very carefully
stage-managed sliver that you are being shown by the
Public Affairs Officers does not address the big
picture, and one must always try to keep the broader
context in mind. So if the only way you can access
the conflict is through an embed, then yes, I say
take them, but you must be cognizant of the heavy
onus upon you, as the journalist, to look beyond
that.
Is
there any value in telling such limited stories?
MW: I’m a firm believer that all aspects of the story
of war need to be told, and that includes the
drudgery and mundanity of the life of the ordinary
soldier or digger, so of course there is a value and
a worth to providing that snapshot, but as long as
its presented as precisely that – a snapshot of that
particular aspect of the war. One can’t allow people
to think that that defines the war. I mean, this is
one of the most complex stories in the world at the
moment, and to think that you can parachute in on a
dog and pony show tour for just a few days and then
use that as a representation of the broader war or
the broader dynamic there or the, in fact, actual
impact, for example, that Australian troops are
having, is erroneous in the extreme. I mean, that’s a
grave mistake. It verges on arrogance with a hint of
ignorance, and I have heard some of that in some of
the broadcasting that I have listened to that has
come out of some of these embeds in Iraq, people
using these very narrowly defined pictures to try and
extrapolate from that -- as we said, a well-crafted
picture that was presented to them in a controlled
environment -- as a broader lesson. What that ignores
is what's around these Australian troops. Who's
really in control? When we talk about the Australian
troops training Iraqi security forces, then I think
it's incumbent upon us as a journalist to remind
people that even the Western military intelligence
openly admits that many of these Iraqi security
forces are in fact controlled by militias, many of
whom are backed by Iran. Indeed, we see in the
southern city of Nasiriyah, where the Australian base
is located just outside, there was a clash last week
between two rival Iranian-backed Shia factions,
taking the combat into the streets. It just so
happens that one of those factions is in government
uniform.
Is
it possible for embedded reporters to break away from
the itinerary?
MW: Well, I haven't done one of these Australian
Defence Force embeds in Iraq per se, but I have
literally done dozens and dozens and dozens of
embeds, with American forces, Iraqi forces, Afghan
forces, British forces, and I have embedded with
virtually every kind of unit that has been engaged in
these wars, from airborne troops to special forces to
mechanized infantry to ground troops, and I can tell
you that it all depends on the particular unit, on
the particular commander, and the particular nature
of the embed. Now, many of these Australian embeds
are clearly presented as efforts to show the good
work that Australian troops are doing in terms of
reconstruction. It's very clear that that's how these
embeds are framed and offered. The difficulty for the
journalist is making sure that it's represented in a
much broader sense than that. That if you're talking
about an embed when you're showing reconstruction
then you must make it very clear that that was the
purpose of this and you must make it clear that there
were certain things, perhaps, that you couldn't see.
I mean, for example, you go and see a village -- as
one Australian journalist called it, to get a reality
check or to see the reality of the situation -- that
statement alone just illuminates the delusional
nature that some journalists have on these embeds. To
think that going in with a platoon or a company-minor
sized force of Australian troops into a village in
Iraq is any way a snapshot of the reality on the
ground is, honestly, beyond belief. I mean, that is a
very artificial environment, and one can't take that
and think that that represents the true situation,
and you must reflect that in your journalism.
Do
journalists feel pressure to file stories even if
there isn't one?
MW: Well, I have been on any number of embeds where I
actually haven't filed a story because at the end of
the day there may not be one. Now, one needs to be
very frank with the unit and the military that's
hosting you and one should tell them that, that there
is no news value or that there is nothing of
substance that you feel compelled to report. However,
many people worry about their relationships,
obviously, with the military. Some people feel this
pressure that is self-imposed, to deliver, to
maintain that relationship with the military. One
must guard very carefully about that. And also, we
can't ignore the pressures that will be coming from
employers, from media companies that are sending
journalists on these relatively unique opportunities
to go and visit Australian troops, for example, in
Iraq. The media organizations would be expecting a
product as well. So in these particular cases where
the opportunities are so rare, where the Australian
Defence Force is still struggling terribly with its
concept of how to handle the media and the truth and
how transparent to be, that whilst we're in that
environment and these opportunities are so
infrequent, then that pressure from employers will
continue, and that also must be guarded against.
Why
do you say the Australian Defence Force is struggling
with its media management?
MW: Well, from the experiences I have had with the
Australian Defence Force, both in Afghanistan and in
Iraq, they very much seem to have more of an
old-school kind of military mentality towards the
media. Now, the American army -- which is obviously
much larger, much brawnier, dealing with a much more
complex environment -- is also going through an
evolution in how it handles the media, but it's far
ahead of the Australian Defence Forces. The Defence
Force's natural reaction is to see the media as a
problem or to see it even as -- some people describe
it as the enemy. I mean, many Australian officers I
speak to, for example, don't believe that they should
be giving embeds at all, so controlled should the
information flow be. Yet the Americans have come to
realize that particularly in this kind of insurgent
warfare or where it's a war against terror, the true
battlefield is on the television. It's on the
internet. It's the information war. And that's where
the Americans openly admit their enemies are much
more adept than they are. The Australian Defence
Force is far from reaching this kind of awareness,
let alone coming to terms with dealing with the media
appropriately.
What
options are there to talk to the Iraqi people,
especially Arabic speaking Iraqis?
MW: Well, this is the great dilemma of reporting in
Iraq: the journalist's ability to actually get to the
story, particularly to get to it before it's
distilled down by the many interests in these
conflicts who are motivated to lie -- that's our
government, the American government, the Iraqi
government, the insurgents, the militias. To actually
see it for yourself is now increasingly difficult.
The threat of kidnap, the threat of carbomb, the
threat of assassination, the simple violence in the
street, being caught in a firefight -- all make this
so logistically difficult to get to the truth, so
sometimes the military is your only vehicle, your
only way in. Yet even if they are, there is still
this moral weight upon you to at least try and
address the other interests that the military will
not reflect. Now, a very simple mechanism to do that
in this modern age, in this modern kind of warfare is
through the internet. For each embed where I go with
American or other troops into a combat zone or a
battle in Iraq, what I automatically do is check the
insurgent websites for any of their footage or any of
their statements about the same areas or the same
battles. Now, everything must be taken through a very
heavy filter. This is all about propaganda on all
sides, but nonetheless, from that you can at least
glean some sense of the other side of the coin.
How
hard is it to get the other side of the story from
the Iraqi locals?
MW: Well, it's much more difficult for people just
parachuting in on a quick-hit mission. If they're
with the military, then they have absolutely zero
chance of getting any kind of genuine reality check
from the locals, because you need to bear in mind,
Iraqi villagers or Iraqis in their homes in the
cities, whenever they're talking to a uniformed
Western soldier, he's not alone. There's bound to be
armor or support vehicles with heavy weapons. They
travel in reasonably large numbers. You also know
that air support is never far away. So, often you
find that people will just quite simply tell the
soldier what they think the soldier wants to hear.
And the same will go for you. Because not only are
you surrounded by soldiers but most likely your only
recourse to speaking with the Iraqis is through the
military translator. And I've caught translators on
film working for the military brazenly lying or
mistranslating to their own officers in the American
forces. So the only other way, the only way, to get
the true voice of Iraq is to be there on the ground
yourself, with your own Iraqi translator, and finding
your own means of moving about, and that's inherent
with all the potentially deadly factors that are part
of working in Iraq.