Media: war tourism and battlefield porn

22/08/2014

Some of us are familiar with the concept of "war tourism" and the allied concept of "war porn", the one being the thrill-seeking tendency of certain types of journalist, the latter being the product of his or her endeavours, enabling the weak-minded vicariously to experience the "horrors of war" in the service of the 24-hour news agenda.

The test, as I remarked in an angry piece written in May 2007, is whether the reporting of an horrendous event is a necessary adjunct to informing readers, in the true spirit of journalism, or whether the event itself becomes the focus – the circumstances merely being the excuse for publicising events which would otherwise be deemed unacceptable.

In this context, I am not going to pronounce on James Foley, the violent and horrific death of whom has sparked an orgy of self-regarding introspection in the legacy media, which has convinced itself that the man was a hero, and that he was providing a valuable service to the television-watching public.

Nevertheless, it is not untoward to note that the essence of war reporting in the contemporary media tends towards "war porn", even in formerly serious newspapers, such as in this report, pandering to a base fascination with the gruesome.

Here, it can readily be seen that the emphasis is on the lurid and the violent, while the far more important political events dealt with in the same report are relegated to a spot towards the end, relying on a copy-and-paste insert from an agency source, days after the events had become observable.

This focus on the "porn", however, has its very obvious penalty in that the analyses which follow the news become as distorted as the news itself. But while the decapitation of Foley has the commentariat spiralling into a frenzy of moral panic, the indications are that, just as Mr Cameron might have been exploiting the situation to his own advantage, so too might others. There are others who stand to benefit from having ISIS as the prominent villains, and from making the linkage between Syria and Iraq.

Some insight into this comes from a remarkable analysis in Asharq al-Awsat by former editor-in-chief Tariq Alhomayed, who starts by remarking on Bashar al-Assad's media adviser Bouthaina Shaaban speaking on CNN regarding the danger represented by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

The facts on the ground, writes Alhomayed, indicate that ISIS emerged and grew under the Assad regime. Its leaders sprung from Syrian prisons, while Syrian military forces have yet to successfully attack them on the ground, even after the Americans have taken action against ISIS fighters in Iraq.

Alhomayed now thinks Assad believes the time is ripe to exploit ISISs presence and present himself as the victim of extremism and extremists. It is clear that this has been among Assad tactics from the start of the revolution, and explains his troops' lack of real action against ISIS.

Amid the torrent of media reporting, even Reuters has noticed this – after a fashion – casually tucking in this comment into a recent piece, telling us that: "Until this summer, Assad's forces held off from targeting [ISIS] ... This has allowed the group to thrive and also weaken less hardline opposition groups that are backed by the West".

The kid-gloves treatment, Alhomayed believes, is a deliberate stratagem on the part of Assad.  He has allowed the organisation to grow and become a threat so that he can use the international fear of ISIS for his own ends. In particular, he is seeking to turn the tables on the Americans, particularly after Washington warned that Syria had become a gathering place for extremists and militants.

The American way of thinking is that the extremist groups will fight it out among themselves, or will come out weaker and thus be easier to target. Assad has adopted this idea for his own purposes, allowing ISIS to fight the Al-Nusra Front while concentrating his own forces against the Free Syrian Army, clamping down on his opponents and attempting to polish his image in the eyes of the world.

By this calculation, his enemies would destroy themselves, or he would be able to take advantage of the major political shifts that are taking place in the region to overcome his opponents with the help of international backing, supporting him because ISIS is regarded as the greater threat.

This is precisely what Bashar Al-Assad is seeking to do today, concludes Alhomayed, "but this can only be achieved if the international community naively permits it to happen".

Obsessed with the gruesome detail of Mr Foley's death though, the western media - in alliance with the politicians – are falling for Assad's ploy, focusing all their attention and energies on the common enemy, thus fighting Assad's battles for him.

The obsession with the gruesome, though – pandering to the basest instincts of its audience - does not define the entire extent of the media's dereliction. For many years now we have charted a gradual contraction in the breadth of media coverage, to the extent now that they seem incapable of handling more than one major story at a time – certainly when it comes to foreign affairs.

My own coverage for the last few days rather proves that point. Clearly, there is more than enough activity in Ukraine to support major coverage, but the actual coverage has been slight – despite bodies in the streets, comprising a copious supply of "war porn" for those who are in the business – see below.