Propaganda and war are inseparable, as we have been forcibly reminded during the last nine days of fighting in Iraq. An immense effort goes into planning media access to the fighting by the military authorities involved.
But propaganda is also inseparable from the exercise of power in peaceful conditions. It continues by other means during a war. Journalists and their audiences have to be constantly aware that manipulation of media messaging is an abiding fact of modern politics and modern warfare. Conscientious journalism aspires to truth and accuracy by having as independent and varied sources and resources as possible. Sweeping statements about reportage of the Iraq conflict should be resisted if accurate judgments are to be made about the standards of journalism involved.
A US Republican senator, Hiram Warren Johnson, said in 1917 after the US entered the first World War: "When war is declared, truth is the first casualty." The phrase has become a cliché, unfortunately, despite its continuing relevance. This was more fully expressed by Samuel Johnson in The Idler in 1758: "Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interests dictate and credulity encourages." States censor and lie when they are at war. They spin and frame their messages just as they do in peacetime. They believe this is justified to pursue their military objectives and to protect their troops. They know public credulity increases during wartime because of patriotic sentiment - and that it extends to media owners and practitioners as well as their consumers. Journalists must resist this agenda if they are to be truthful.
Modern military and communications technology makes it simultaneously easier and more difficult to achieve these objectives during contemporary wars fought by the most powerful states. Central control of access to the fighting and information about it facilitates the control of reportage. But the desire to publicise and encourage public credulity led the United States and Britain to "embed" some 500 journalists in units fighting this war. As a result we have had some of the most vivid and direct war reporting ever seen, along with clear evidence that reporters identify with the troops doing the fighting, which can compromise their journalistic integrity. States cannot fully control this, since it comes from so many different sources with great immediacy.
Truth is best approximated in a war with such profound implications for international order by maintaining journalistic independence, deploying optimal resources and drawing on a wide variety of perspectives from all the belligerents and those affected by the conflict. The Irish Times, despite its financial and restructuring crisis last year, has made it a particular priority so to cover this war. The United Nations failed to agree a second resolution to commence the war, which is being led by the US and Britain. It is important in these circumstances that readers get an Irish perspective on the war, from a supposedly non-aligned and neutral viewpoint, notwithstanding the Government's agreement that the US military can use Shannon airport. Only this newspaper and RTÉ are providing such a perspective in this State.