Truth in War

The outbreak of warfare brings about a flurry of excitement, even among individuals considered to be politically apathetic. Suddenly, everyone feels compelled to inquire about whether their very survival is at stake. Media organisations experience a surge in demand for their services. The greater the state of panic, the keener is the interest in news. And yet, the importance of war does not guarantee any improvement in the quality of reportage. While more resources are devoted to covering armed conflict than, say, the activities of the local council, there is no assurance that what is reported is true or even objective.

In fact, it is more often the case that the onset of hostilities decreases the reliability of media information. To understand why this is so, I propose to construct a theoretical edifice with which we can evaluate the root causes of inaccurate reportage. The theory will then be evaluated in light of historical events.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

In most cases, the problem of inaccurate reportage does not arise for the simple reason that there are multiple sources of information which can be used to cross-reference a particular story. Suppose that a reporter wished to write a story about an assault upon a person named Jones. They would have the option of interviewing the police, Jones himself, any witnesses or experts and (depending upon any rules of law regulating the situation) perhaps even a potential suspect.

Yet this ease of access to multiple sources is hardly assured during wartime. In a conflict situation, the reporter faces severe restrictions on who they can interview, not just because of censorship, but also because of the nature of warfare itself. Whereas during times of peace reporters may travel as they please, during war they are forced to rely upon the government as their primary source of information due to the inherent dangers of travelling in a war zone. Special safety precautions need to be taken, and security may be provided by government troops - leading to an excessively close relationship between the reporter and those whom he is covering.

Nor can events be independently verified. Attempts to verify government reports by interviewing bystanders or attempting to obtain the other side of a story can be prosecuted as 'treason' or 'consorting with the enemy'. As a result, even assuming the best of intentions and due care and diligence on the part of the media, truth is inevitably discarded during

• 1
• 2
• 3
• ...
• 7
• next page >>

---

Add your voice

Know something about Media freedom in Australia during World War II?
We want to hear your view. Write now!