Research Question:
How does the media’s reporting on issues and events in Afghanistan affect different audiences?
Topic Background:
The US’s involvement in the war in Afghanistan has been long and complicated. And in the early months of 2010, it became more complicated when five soldiers stationed in the province of Kandahar, Afghanistan began the practice of indiscriminately targeting and killing innocent Afghan civilians. Led by Staff Sergeant Calvin Gibbs, members of the Stryker brigade are accused of having murdered at least three Afghan civilians without cause between January 15th and May 2nd of 2010. In at least two of the killings, the soldiers detonated one of their own grenades to create the illusion of being under attack, then used the ruse to justify opening fire on the innocent Afghans. Sgt. Gibbs and some of the other soldiers are also believed to have collected body parts including fingers, teeth, and skulls as souvenirs from the murders.
Almost as shocking as the murders themselves is the controversy around how the events finally came to light. An investigation began when the military received word that members of the brigade were smoking hashish and drinking alcohol. The investigation soon turned up evidence of the misdeeds that Sgt. Gibbs’ unit had been engaging in. It was also discovered that Specialist Adam Winfield, a member of the brigade that committed the murders, had tried to sound the alarm about the crimes after he witnessed the first killing carried out. Since the brigade was stationed in a remote section of Afghanistan, Specialist Winfield could not raise his concerns with anyone but the highest ranking officer at his outpost, Sgt. Gibbs, who had already threatened Winfield with violence if he did not keep quiet. Winfield sent Facebook messages to his father shortly after the first incident, telling him what happened and expressing concern that more killings would take place. Despite multiple attempts by Winfield’s father to alert military officials back in the U.S., an investigation was never begun until the allegations of the lesser drug-use charges came about. Specialist Winfield is now is being charged with involvement in the third murder.
As of now, the individuals involved in the killings are under military arrest, and the investigations and trials surrounding the killings are still in progress.
Theoretical Perspectives:
Critical Theory
We first analyzed this issue from a critical theory perspective. Critical theory focuses on the intersection of power, ideology, and hegemony within the media. Media outlets have specific ideologies and varying levels of power that they use to spread these ideologies to the public. We decided to use this perspective to analyze the different stances that could be discerned in the coverage of the Kill Team issue by three different news sources. Critical theory provides a basis from which to evaluate if and how the power and ideology of each news source affected its coverage.
We used discourse analysis to assess how the issue was framed by the U.S, military, the L.A. Times, and Al-Jazeera. We also paid attention to the phrasing and implications in the articles to better understand the different kinds of arguments, values, and attitudes espoused by these three sources to see where differences in coverage could be found.
Spiral of Silence Theory
Our second analysis of this issue was informed by spiral of silence theory, which focuses on the way in which media discourse can affect the public’s perception of what the majority opinion on a given topic is, and how individuals’ willingness to dissent is affected by that perception. The theory focuses on the role of social norms and cohesion, the fear of social rejection or isolation, and how these all interact to discourage individuals from voicing their dissent when they feel their opinion is in the minority.
This theory has a special relation to the Kill Team issue because of the social dynamics at play in the case of the soldiers who were members of the brigade responsible for the murders, but opposed to the practice. We propose a survey to be administered to members of the military that asks about their willingness to speak out against crimes they witnessed, and how or if the media’s portrayal of those incidents or of the military might affect their willingness.
Questions for Discussion:
1. What is the relationship of the power of the U.S. military to the media’s coverage of it?
2. How might the ideologies of the U.S. military, a U.S. newspaper, and an Arab news corporation affect their coverage of the misdeeds of U.S. soldiers?
3. What kind of pressures might make a soldier hesitant to speak out against the actions of his commanding officer? How might the media’s coverage of the military affect such a decision?
4. How does the media’s coverage of an issue affect the public’s opinion on that issue?
Links to more info:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-soldier-crimes-20100928,0,6689411.story
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130026739&sc=17&f=1004
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/06/201061701715503570.html
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59261
3. It sounds as if this was a serious “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” situation for these soldiers. The military is such a difficult organization in which to maneuver since they preach obedience and hierarchy to such an extreme degree. Since killing people is essentially an immoral act, and since the Military’s aim is to train soldiers to do just that, where is the moral line drawn in a situation such as this, and how do soldiers know when this line is crossed? Aren’t they just meant to obey their commanding officer? These kinds of considerations are the crux of the matter, and they are what make the Spiral of Silence theory so poignant in a case like this. How can the US military, government and the public fairly understand and address a situation such as this?
ReplyDeleteGuys -- great topic. Spiral of Silence was a great call. As for critical theory/ discourse analysis, I'd like to know who came up with the shocking term "Kill Team" and how the use of it spread through the media. To me the name implies a coordinated organization formed explicitly for the purpose of murder, which implicates each and every member and even the US military as a whole. However, to some "Kill Team" may simply imply military duties as usual, as though this was just another division of Teams (compared to, say, a Reconnaissance Team or a Civilian Relations Team.) Was this title given by Western media, the soldiers themselves, Middle Eastern media, etc?
ReplyDeleteFinally I have a comment on question #1, "What is the relationship of the power of the US military to the media's coverage of it?" -- Great question for critical studies. I'd say there is deinitely has a unique power dynamic going on there, as the military has the interest/right(?) to control coverage for strategic and security reasons (ie, to avoid inciting panic, to avoid jeopardizing soldiers out in the field by possibly revealing their location, to avoid sharing strategic information with enemies, etc, etc.) Who determines what is "strategic" however and when does the limitation of coverage cross the line into propaganda?
I look forward to seeing your presentations, guys. :)
Anna M.
3. Soldiers might feel pressure for standing up for something they believe to be morally wrong, but at the same time feel opposition due to what will happen if they do stand up for it. When we hear of innocent people being murdered in war, we feel that this situation should not have happened and deem it unjust. Essentially, we are drawn back to their humanity (as well as ours), but why is it that we do not think about the deaths of Afghans in the same way? Perhaps it might be related to the inherent bias of killing in war. The very act of training soldiers to kill discourages one from thinking that these are real people; rather, they are the target and deserving of death. In this sense, war might deserve to be reconsidered. Despite the complexity of war and the situations where we might be tempted to justify it, the negative consequences of war seem to be overlooked. Why aren’t all parties held responsible for their actions? For example, soldiers were held responsible for their actions, yet the Army was not responsible for its inattention to Chris Winfield’s calls. Doing the right thing has a cost attached to it if it is acted upon, but what will the outcome be if we compromise?
ReplyDelete#1The media plays a huge role in wars and acts as propaganda so that the public consumers of the media will be on board with the government’s decision to go to war. This concept is extremely evident with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly when we first went to war with these countries after September 11th and the images from those attacks were constantly at the forefront of everyone’s mind. This question also makes me think about the movie The Control Room, which talks about Al Jazeera and their coverage of the Iraqi war in relation to the U.S. coverage of the war. In the very beginning of this film, one of the producers for Al Jazeera makes the comment that any good military leader knows that you cannot wage a war without the media and without propaganda. The American people have to be in support of the war in order to prevent people from questioning the military’s role, which can lead to the breakdown of soldier’s morale. The U.S. military has incredible power over the media and its goal is to ensure favorable coverage of the military and its operations.
ReplyDelete#2 After reading the three articles from the three different news sources, it is apparent that each media source has their own ideology and their own agenda. The U.S. military article was particularly interesting since it was incredibly brief and offered no details of the event. The military does not want negative publicity especially in such a controversial war. Al-Jazeera represents the Arab world and therefore wants to ensure that the Arab voice and the Muslim voice are heard. I found it interesting that of the three articles, Al Jazeera was the only media source that mentioned the victims’ names instead of simply labeling them as Afghan civilians. Finally, the L.A. Times, which tends to be more on the liberal side, presented an article that was geared toward placing all the blame on the sergeant in charge of the brigade and that the other soldiers were coerced by this “ringleader.” With three different ideologies, there were three very different representations of the killings. These articles are further proof that all media sources have their own agendas, which are largely determined by how they are funded and depending on where this funding is coming from, similar events can be reported in very different ways.
4) I think the media’s coverage of an issue greatly affects the public’s opinion on that issue. If you go back and look at the when the war in Iraq began, the media covered it as if it were a great, patriotic thing to believe in, and a majority of the public supported it. Media outlets have since come out and apologized for that because they didn’t do their research and misled Americans.
ReplyDeleteIt’s like media dependency theory...the more that people depend on the media, the more influence that media will have over the people. Though I’d like to believe a majority of people don’t just depend on the mainstream media and go out and look for other sources, I don’t think this is the case. I think people tend to go the easy route and look at whatever media is placed in front of them, thereby greatly affecting the their opinion.
This was a really great story to cover – the reporting and coverage are all so different.
ReplyDelete1. I do not believe the U.S. Military’s power (or lack of) over the media (or massmedia) would be an easy thing to uncover. I would be interested in finding out about studies conducted around this relationship. It is my belief the U.S. Military uses a tactic (or excuse) commonly used by the Chinese government – silence and/or censorship for the public good. The US Dept of Defense’s short comment on this issue seems to speak to the shroud of secrecy commonly draping over the US military complex. It is hardly as surprise, then, that many feel initiatives like Wikileaks are, unfortunately, needed.
4. The media’s coverage of this issue seems to affect the public’s opinion on this issue in very different ways. With phrases like “sport” (to refer to the murdering) and “slayings” from the LA Times – and “premeditated murder” at the forefront of the Aljazeera article – the public’s opinion is likely less favorable of these military men. While the US Department of Defense not only remains relatively obscure and secretive about the issue, but uses phrases like “allegations” and “no charges have been preferred” (weird!) which suggest these men may be innocent or justified in their actions. NPR’s piece is very interesting in that while the LA Times lightly suggests Winfield a hero for speaking out, NPR immediately describes him as a complainer.
Something I also found interesting about all these articles is the fact the Aljazeera was the only piece which placed this issue in a wider context – the entire war. The other pieces seemed to suggest this was an isolated (maybe even one-off) incident; shying away from bringing up the wider context of the war or other previous incidents within the US Military.
Q4. According to the media dependency theory people rely on the media to meet their needs. As issues become more complex people turn to media to help them make sense of what’s happening. The more a person relies on media for information the more that person is influenced by media. Therefore the media is the public’s main source of information and more than likely they’ll form opinions based on what the media says. This can be very dangerous especially with the motives of many conglomerates who own the majority of the media.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically with this case study, the articles were very different and more than likely reached very different audiences. Opinions are obviously going to be very different, but also I wonder if the articles were written in a way that corresponded with each media outlet's target audience.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete3. What kind of pressures might make a soldier hesitant to speak out against the actions of his commanding officer? How might the media’s coverage of the military affect such a decision?
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned, soldiers are trained to respect without question the authority of their commanding officers and the military as a unit. Even outside of military training, rules of group dynamics and human behavior point to a tendency to maintain group cohesion and shun personal responsiblity. Even if he can overcome these factors and speak out,
the medias coverage of the story can have a huge influence on this soldier. He could be protrayed as a martyr for justice or a traitor to his country...a very paradoxical situation. The ideologies and methodologies of the state and the army are not always consistent with human rights and justice. Does the end justify the means, and does it excuse "minor incidents" along the way? Even if the nature and validity of that end is arguable? The way that the military and the courts deal with this situation will provide partial answers to these questions.
Carrie, I agree with you about how Americans seem to take the deaths of Afghans less seriously than the death of Americans or other "like" nations. It was really interesting to see this manifested in "Control Room," one of the videos Margie posted on DU Course Media. It was enlightening to see someone in the military realize that he hadn't valued the lives lost on the Middle Eastern side and subsequently reevaluate and feel bad about it.
ReplyDelete1. The position of the U.S. Military in Afghanistan is of great importance to many television news viewers all over the world. In relation to the media outlets in the United States I believe the U.S. military has a great deal of influence over them. No media outlet is going to come out and attack the U.S. Military on such outrageous accusations as “indiscriminately targeting and killing innocent Afghan civilians.” There is a great deal of patriotism in the United States and the media would not want to be attacked by its viewers by appearing unpatriotic. It makes sense that after a smaller claim this particular group of soldiers a substantial further investigation would follow. Only then could this be able to be covered by media outlets.
ReplyDelete4. The media’s coverage of an issue of course affects the public’s opinion on an issue. According to the media dependency theory people run to the media in times of crisis in order to get the information that is deemed important. Also, when a public is unsure of their stance on an issue the media helps them make up their minds.
1. The military, like the government, is inextricably bound to the mainstream media. As elite members of a pro-capitalist hegemony, the military, government and media work in conjunction to promote, reinforce and even reform this tiered social structure in order to maintain their position in the topmost echelon. In my mind, and partly in line with critical theory, these agents operate not so covertly as one unit; they are the same. Therefore, it is no surprise the media took so long to break this story, and even now I’m sure the media, along with its government/media doppelgangers, has not been entirely forthcoming. Certainly, more horrors will be revealed as the trial accelerates, perpetrators testify and witnesses are disclosed.
ReplyDelete1. What is the relationship of the power of the U.S. military to the media’s coverage of it?
ReplyDeleteThe United States is concerned with its international image, which is reflected in the American media's coverage-or lack of- of this incident. There is truth, in politics and war, to the saying "if someting goes wrong- always have someone to blame." This has to be covered as an isolated incident in U.S. media, not as a trend. Likewise, as the case continues, a villian will emerge. The villian will be whoever the powerful people in the government and military decide that it will be. Perhaps, Seargent Gibbs will be left under the radar while Specialist Winfield recieves harsh crtiique. This ties into your last question; you are innocent until proven guilty- unless of course popular opinion determines you are guilty before you are proven guilty. I speculate that Specialist Winfield will not be charged with the third murder connection, once the archives of his complaints and correspondence are released. I think this is going to be a very interesting case study when you consider the framing in the different media outlets! Here is a book you may want to look at. "Tortured: When good soldiers do bad things" See chapter 9, The Price of Speaking Out. It might be helpful with your Spiral of Science approach! Goodluck!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA few things that I really found interesting were how the last article posted as a resouce (the defense.gov article)addressed the killings as 'unlawful deaths' while all the other articles call it 'murder'. It's 'unlawful deaths' as versus what, exactly?! They call it deaths when it is clear that it was a planned move to kill those civilians.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that I wanted to speak about was the spiral of silence theory. It seems within the military there is some degree of 'spiral of silence' - Agent Adam Winfield did not speak out for the fear of his life.
As for #1: I find the whole issue appalling. This is just arbitrary murder and I would think that because it was so scandalous and violating, the media would cover it and probably make it a national issue. Unfortunately, it didn't. I think this reflects very poorly on the supposed objectivity of the media as also speaking volumes about the power the US military wields over the media. Bottomline: It seems the media will not report, or report fully, the dark side of the US military - probably because the citizens of the country would like to believe that the military is doing good things in the world as versus killing people for sport.
1. The United States military has a lot of power beyond just guns. They have many influential people, like generals, who have a lot of pull as to what is and what is not a matter of national security. They often have privilege to say what people cannot know for a number of reasons, many of which could be lies. They could say something to make an issue/event they do not want people to know about be covered up. For example, by saying it could be a threat, give a way position. This is evident in the media’s coverage of what happened in Afghanistan. The event took place between mid-January and mid-May, yet almost no coverage was published on the subject until September. I think this is a great example of the power the US military has over the coverage in the media.
ReplyDelete2. The US military’s coverage about this event talks about the misdeeds of US soldiers as unlawful deaths, rather than as MURDERS. They do not refer to the victims by name, but as afghan civilian deaths. Al Jazeera takes a totally different approach. They give the specific names of the victims. They describe the event as premeditated murder, calling it what it actually is rather than use euphemisms. They frame it in a more harsh manner than the US military and US papers and also talk about talks about other controversies going on in the country. In the article Television, gender, and democratization in the Middle East by Annabelle Sreberny it states that, ‘Democratization takes a crab-like configuration in the (Middle East) region, with some steps for-ward and many steps back. I would call this a huge step forward for the Arab news corporation and the US military approach, a HUGE step back. The LA times seems to come from a western bias, but not as slanted as the US military. While their coverage doesn’t give names of victims, it does describe the event as murder. Sreberny also poses the question, ‘can the media act as instruments of democratization in authoritarian regimes?’ I think the coverage of AlJazeera in this instance shows that it can. What is ironic is that the US has a democracy, and not an authoritarian regime, but it sure appears to with the control the military exerted in these issues not getting the coverage they deserve.
3. A soldier could face a number of pressures, many of which I think are difficult to understand having never been in the military myself. In this case it went to the extreme of being threatened with death by their sergeant for speaking out. The
ReplyDeleteperson who finally spoke out wasn’t about the murders, but about drugs/alcohol. He was beat up by members in his brigade/platoon (not sure which it is) because others knew he had spoken out. There was also someone who told a descriptive statement about what happened. After the fact he was pushed by lawyers to have them take back the statement saying he was under medication at the time. I think this shows how much pressure the military gives and how much control they have as to what gets out. Although I was never in the military, my brother was. He made the unfortunate mistake of speaking out and paid the consequences. After speaking to my mother about some awful things going on, my mom visited for some family event. While she was there, she spoke with one of his officers and made a small comment about what was going on. BIG mistake. Once she had left my brother was taken into a room, blindfolded, and beaten to a pulp. They told his this is what you get for speaking out.
4. The spiral of science theory is interesting to look at here. When everyone feels one way about a subject and an individual, or a particular media group, feel another way; they get pressured to be quiet. In a sense they don’t want to rock the boat. With a soldier, they may only see or talk to people in their brigade. If an individual says something when everyone else thinks differently, there is usually retaliation. This is why people stay silent and why problems go unaddressed, which also happens with the media probably because of government or military pressure. The media coverage adds to this because they say they support troops, good war, cast soldiers as upright citizen fighting for freedom. It could be difficult to run an article counter to this. So instead the often continue to cover it in the way that makes them seem like they are doing something great.
1. This is a very interesting and controversial issue, especially in regards to a war that is going on over seas. This element can allow newsworthy issues and events to be uncovered because of the separation of the two environments. Both the military and the media are two institutions with a great amount of power. When the two go head to head, more than likely the military is able to censor what is exposed to public. This can not stop private individuals from presenting their personal experiences. For instance, in this case Specialist Winfield sent Facebook messages to his father. In order to bring awareness of the crimes being committed in Afghanistan it could have been beneficial for him to seek out media promotion in order to grab the military's attention concerning this. We are seeing more and more civilians reporting news through media sources such as the internet and cell phones that it can break the barrier between what is actually happening with military involvement and what is being reported.
ReplyDeleteAnother element to this is there is a battle of interests between the media and the military. While the media are trying to report the current happening of the war, the military still need to preserve operational security. This can be demonstrated clearly in the case of the VIetnam War which was the turning point where trust between the military and media was permanently damaged.
3. I thought spiral of silence was the key theory in evaluating this issue. When you are in a intimate closed structure such as a military brigade, you are surrounded by the same people through training, eating, sleeping and even social interaction. One would think that through this you develop a comfortable relationship with people where by you can speak your mind. There are two elements that inhibit this from happening: war and power. War is not a natural environment for someone to experience. These soldiers have been training for combat. Their mind is thinking 'kill, kill, kill' in hopes of protecting our nation. When there is no killing to be had, the soldiers don;t feel like they are doing what they have been trained to do, thus situations like the Kill Team arise. But not everyone is influenced in this sort of way and as the minority it is hard to speak out when these acts of violence can actually be seen as duty and bonding in a twisted, corrupted way. With media exposure of these sorts of issues, those individual's whose thoughts have been silenced out of fear can now recognize that they are not the only ones with those sorts of feelings and an unraveling of similar cases occur.
These Kill Teams are not the first controversial issues that have occurred in regards to the Afghan/Iraqi war. Abu Ghraib is an even extensive example of corruption within the military and spiral of silence theory. Here physical psychological, and sexual abuse where practices on prisoners of war. Soldiers can get caught up in what their purpose is in the war. In the case these US military personnel sought out to obtain information from Afghani and Iraqi prisoners. When no information was to be given, it was not sufficient enough for them. Therefore they proceeded to mock and abuse these people.
It is just very interesting to see the dynamics between the higher military figures and those soldiers they have power over and between the soldiers themselves.
4. How does the media’s coverage of an issue affect the public’s opinion on that issue?
ReplyDeleteA lot. Even if the media's angle is contrary to public opinion it still plays a huge part in shaping it through salience or lack there of.
What I don't understand is why the story didn't come out sooner when the soldier and his father corresponded on facebook. Even, if there wasn't salience on this topic in the mainstream media the father could have made it salient in the social media. I'm thinking of the Mohammad cartoons that quickly became a transnational issue because of their circulation through the Internet. Of course that brings up the informal rules of the game on facebook: is it appropriate to raise awareness of war crimes on the site? The soldier's father probably felt that his son would be incriminated if he raised the issue.
3. What kind of pressures might make a soldier hesitant to speak out against the actions of his commanding officer? How might the media’s coverage of the military affect such a decision?
ReplyDeleteI chatted with an ex-military friend of mine about this issue who has been out of the service for almost 5 years now, and I asked him if there had ever been a time where he or someone he knew had wanted to (or in fact did) defy orders from a commanding officer, and after a few seconds of silence, he simply said, "We had to follow lawful orders." And if the orders weren't lawful? "They don't want you to think. They don't train you to think." He said they break you down when you first arrive, and then build you back up with the ideas, attitudes and habits that fit into their culture. Straying from that in the form of public outcry over "disagreement" with an order would mean deliberately removing yourself from that culture and the benefits of inclusion. Once on the periphery, your network of support and your sense of identity is instantly at risk. This is a huge gamble for a soldier acting as an individual.
Hi everyone! I loved reading through the comments. I have only a few things to add, but I wanted to be sure I read everything and addressed what stuck out to me, given that this was our team's work. Thanks again for participating.
ReplyDeleteI have to start with Alexandra and her brother's example. I have a love/hate relationship with how experiences shape us. Your brother's experience speaks volumes to your sensitivity to the realities on the ground. Soldiers don't start off murdering for 'sport' as Dhvani put it. However, it's safe to say, the Military brings this out in them.
Brook I loved your insight that Al-Jazeera put the issue in context, while none of the others did.
Danielle, your comments always make me smile. I would just add, or restate, the Military only started investigating when charges of drug abuse arose. This is why it took them so long.
Lynn Thanks for the book title you mentioned about good soldiers doing bad things. I know a man who works specifically with the Veteran population. When he heard of the work I was doing, he offered to give me a video his colleague had created with him. It was basically messages from Vietnam Veterans to Iraqi and Afghani Vets. The video is basically a 'how to survive life after you are done serving' guide. The book you listed reminded me of that.
I Just wanted to make a quick comment on Control Room and Al-Jazeera. When Al-Jazeera was created it really was revolutionary and control room is a fair portrayal of that. However, since then the Qatari government has clamped down on Al-Jazeera because of its neighboring and political relations. In the movie the criteria Al-Jazeera had to meet was not speaking badly of a small country's government in which it operated- Qatar. Today Al-Jazeera's reality is not as promising. It is more censored then it was when it first came out. It was a real heartbreak for those of us refreshed by its perspective, which voiced an Arab voice hardly ever heard in mainstream sources in the Arab World. Instead of that today we have stations like El-Hurra, a station completely owned and operated by the US Military I believe, with fluent Arabic speakers perpetuating propaganda.
As for everyone who came down hard on the soldiers, I find myself needing to defend them. Yes, they did commit murder, and there is no justifiable reason to diminish that. However, they are still victims of the system they work for and though the US Military may punish them, the US Military should be on trial -and arguably the government behind the Military. It's a failed, evil, murderous system our society LIVES in. -and documenting this online right now only adds me on high alert of their surveillance but I’m on a list, so… I guess it’s life for me … - I'm attaching Eisenhower's speech when he left the White house. Worth watching I think, and a no brainer on US history in the last fifty years. I am always shocked that Americans themselves don't know about his final speech to the US people. Please watch and enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
Hi everyone,
ReplyDeletehere's the link to the 9 minute video of the first American Journalist to cover the story in Seattle.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/09/100321/stryker-brigade-soldiers-kept.html
In Joy,
Anaa